Sitting of 20 January 1988

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

    Hazardous Waste
    Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the extent of the importation of hazardous wastes into Greater Manchester for treatment or disposal in the last two years, and the routes used for the movements of these wastes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Details of hazardous waste imported into the United Kingdom are not held centrally. However, I am advised by the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority that the total amount of foreign waste imported into its area was 7,770 tonnes in 1985 and 11,937 tonnes in 1986. Figures for 1987 are not yet available.
    The authority records the point of entry into the United Kingdom and the final destination of each consignment, but not the route taken.
    Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that because other European countries are placing restrictions on the import of hazardous waste materials the United Kingdom in general, and Greater Manchester in particular, are expressing concern that we are becoming the dustbin of Europe? With this extra workload the site operatives may well be flouting the rules and regulations that apply to waste disposal.
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that waste imports amount to a small percentage of the total waste disposal in the United Kingdom —0·5 per cent. annually. He will also agree that the critical factor is that we should have the right facilities and the capacity to handle hazardous wastes. I hope that he will welcome the directive on trans-frontier shipment of hazardous waste, to which we are hoping to adhere as soon as possible. It will increase the amount of information that is available across boundaries and thus help to ensure safe handling and the effectiveness of the regulations that are currently in force.
    Mrs. Peacock: Ismyhon. Friend examining ways in which to improve controls over the handling of hazardous wastes?
    Mr. Moynihan: We are looking at ways of improving controls; for example, by extending the special waste regulations to cover all pollution risks, improving the
    952
    consignment note procedure and introducing a statutory code of practice to put greater responsibilities on the producers of waste to ensure its safe disposal. We are examining the possibility of registering waste carriers and extending the powers of licensing authorities. Those are all ways of improving control, and deep consideration is being given to every one of them.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that his answers will be thought amazingly complacent? Why are we importing any hazardous waste into this country when we have enough of our own to dispose of? The Minister told me in a parliamentary answer that in 1983 we imported 14,824 tonnes of hazardous waste from abroad. By 1986 that had escalated to 53,000 tonnes. Has that escalation continued? Why does the hon. Gentleman's Department not know what happens to the waste when it arrives in this country, or how it is disposed of, or where it goes? Surely we do not need to rescue the British economy, which the Government claim is not ailing, by buying the rest of Europe's hazardous waste?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a long history of waste control, and it is essential that the treatment and disposal operators be required to achieve the highest standards. The export of a waste disposal service is an important industry, as long as we continue to have the right facilities and the capability to handle hazardous wastes properly. Far from being complacent, the Government are dedicated to ensuring that every possible control is exercised to ensure an effective, well-managed and highly proficient industry.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are a limited number of people with the high skills required for controlling waste, and that it is therefore better to concentrate on a few sites than to have the waste scattered hither and yon over Europe?
    Mr. Moynihan: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that this country has the highest competence and that we should utilise it, so I agree with the thrust of her question.

    Local Authorities (Land Holdings)
    Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the introduction of a compulsory requirement for local authorities to schedule and publish their land ownings.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from my hon. Friend and others on this subject.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that local authorities are trustees of ratepayers' assets? Does he further agree that this register should not be voluntary, but should be compulsory?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. He asks that the register be made compulsory. We are presently awaiting the outcome of a working group made up of CIPFA, the local authority associations and the Audit Commission. They are considering this matter and we intend to await their conclusions before taking any further decisions.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What about a register of Government-held land? For example, the Ministry of

    953
    Defence is holding land like some sort of medieval land baron. It has over 500,000 acres. What efforts is the Minister making to put pressure on some of his colleagues, such as the Secretary of State for Defence, so that land that is not necessary for such Departments is released for more useful social purposes?
    Mr. Howard: The Ministry of Defence has particular needs which lead to its land holdings, and the Government are taking every step to ensure that it does not hold any land that it is not necessary and desirable for it to hold.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: In our campaign for inner-city regeneration the availability and ready development of land is an important component. While local authority land is important, surely inner city land held by statutory undertakings and by private owners is equally important. Perhaps a register giving an overall picture would go a long way towards helping us in the campaign to regenerate our cities.
    Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not overlook the role of market forces in making that land available. As time goes on we expect more and more of that land to become available.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept the overwhelming case for a land register of all land held by all private and public bodies? That was recommended by the Law Commission and there is a Land Registration Bill in the other place proposed by Lord Templeman. One way for everybody to know what is available, to prevent speculation and to develop the inner cities is open access to information about the identities of landlords. Will the Government say that they are willing to support that principle and do something about it?
    Mr. Howard: The Government support the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have written to him today on that very subject.

    Planning Policy
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals for reform of the planning system.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): We have made many improvements to the planning system in recent years. We expect to make an announcement shortly about our conclusions on the future of the structure and local plan system.
    Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the planning system is failing to prevent the over-development of our countryside and failing to encourage development in the inner cities, where we want it? Does she also agree that at the moment our planning system is developer-driven and is allowed to be driven by bodies such as Consortium Developments? Will she now look at the task of revising the planning circulars?
    Mrs. Roe: Later today we will give the House details of two new series of planning policy guidance and mineral planning guidance notes that are published today. I do not wish to anticipate the detailed written answer that will be given later, but the purpose is to make our planning advice clearer and more accessible. That should increase certainty for developers and others, and I think that it will be widely welcomed.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of good planning, the views of local people should be taken into account, and that the way to take them into account is to listen to what locally elected representatives have to say to the local planning committee? Again and again planning applications are overturned on appeal, and that is disillusioning for elected councillors, who are doing their best for local people.
    Mrs. Roe: I have read with interest my hon. Friend's views on changes in the planning system, which were published in "This Pleasant Land". I do not think that everything he proposes is practical or desirable, but there is widespread agreement about the need to encourage development in urban areas and to protect our countryside as much as possible. It is encouraging that nearly half the land for house building is now found from reused sites or vacant urban areas. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to "The Future of Development Plans", which was published by the Government in September 1986.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the argument on the Tory Benches will make very interesting reading? It seems that the two strong interests within the Tory party — first, City financiers and developers and, secondly, farmers and those who represent the rural interest—are having a battle royal. Opposition Members, happily, are in favour of planning, but I must say that we look on this skirmish with more than a little amusement.
    Mrs. Roe: I cannot comment on any specific proposal for a new settlement for which an application may have been made, or is being prepared. [HON. MEMBERS: "No one asked the hon. Lady to do so."] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned new consortia.
    The argument is basically about the green belt. We have made clear how important we consider the green belt and its protection against inappropriate development. We have gone so far as to say that if developers propose schemes that are manifestly inappropriate in the green belt and there is an unnecessary planning inquiry, they risk an award of costs against them. I remind the House that the area of approved green belt has been more than doubled since 1979, from 1·8 million acres to 4·5 million acres.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals, when they come forward, need to include developments by gipsies? Does she recall, from correspondence that I have had with her on behalf of Taunton Deane borough council, that the borough council and my constituents are embarrassed and affronted by the fact that, under existing regulations, gipsies may make developments which other citizens are prohibited from making?
    Mrs. Roe: It is for county councils to make provision for the number of gipsies in their area, and to bring to the Secretary of State proposals to find appropriate accommodation for them.
    Dr. Cunningham: Whether or not we have a new planning Act, what is the purpose of planning controls if the present Secretary of State for the Environment, having followed the procedures, then overrules the decision of inspectors? That has happened twice recently. The first instance was in Cumbria, at North Stainmore—an area of outstanding natural beauty — when the right hon. Gentleman overruled the inspector's report from the inquiry and allowed the Ministry of Defence access to and

    955
    use of land, against the inspector's specific recommendation. More recently, in county Durham, when the inspector reported that it would be entirely against the environmental interests in the area to allow an application for opencast mining, the right hon. Gentleman again acted contrary to the inspector's recommendations and report.
    What is the purpose of any planning controls, when that sort of thing is going on?
    Mrs. Roe: We have made it absolutely clear that we have no intention of dismantling any planning system. Our approach is purely to simplify and improve the system. Every application is decided on its merits. The inspector's role is to advise the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the ultimate decision lies with him.
    Mr. David Martin: On the theme of taking local views into account, will my hon. Friend consider the reform of the planning procedures? When local authorities give themselves planning permission for a particular development, should there not be a right of appeal to her Department if, say, 20 or 25 local electors wish for one? Should not local authorities and private individuals be considered on an equal basis in that regard?
    Mrs. Roe: As I have already informed the House, the future of development plans is under consultation and consideration, and no doubt those points will be taken into account.

    Legal Services
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to privatise legal services provided to his Department.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 14 January that Sir Robert Andrew will undertake a review of the Government legal services. Sir Robert will take account of our policies of privatisation and contracting-out, and will cover legal services provided to my Department.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that, for once, I had no notion of the answer to my question? Could he be a bit more explicit about the Andrew terms of reference? What exactly does he mean by "take account"? What is to be the future of the parliamentary draftsmen? Whereas nobody in his right mind would begrudge the Secretary of State the services of the best counsel —heaven knows, he could have done with it in the past and might need it again—is there not a real problem for civil servants in the legal services available to the Government? What is their future?
    Mr. Ridley: I understand that the terms of reference are:
    "To consider: what legal services are needed by the Government; how those services can most effectively and economically be provided and organised, taking account of the Government's policies of privatisation and of contracting out; what changes are needed in the management of legal staff in Government service, including their recruitment, retention, training, deployment and remuneration, so as to make best use of them".
    I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the virtues of private sector provision. I must warn him in his enthusiasm that the private sector occasionally does not make a success of it — after all, he was privately educated.
    Mr. Heddle: As my right hon. Friend's Department is responsible for the legal services provided by local government, does he share my grave concern at the length of time that a number of Left-wing Labour local authorities take to reply to local search inquiries by solicitors? Is he aware that the Law Commission suggested that 10 days is a reasonable time, but that the London boroughs of Hackney, Islington, Camden and many others take up to three months to reply to simple inquiries? Is that not an affront to nurses, teachers and first-time buyers who want to buy their own homes simply and without delay? Will my right hon. Friend consider imposing sanctions or possibly privatising such services when local authorities offend the code?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree that it is very important to reply to searches as quickly as possible. I shall consider my hon. Friends suggestions. They could even be the subject of the contracting-out policy in the Local Government Bill I shall have a look at what my hon. Friend has suggested.

    Water Meters
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of installing water meters in multi-storey flats and in properties on a common supply pipe.
    Mr. Moynihan: No such estimate has been made. One of the objectives of the proposed metering trials is to help the industry assess the costs and practicality of metering multi-storey flats and properties served by a common supply pipe.
    Miss Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that discussions which are presently taking place about the future of the water industry are causing a great deal of concern in constituencies such as mine where there are common supply pipes in multi-storey flats? Will he therefore give me an assurance that any costs associated with converting those properties—should the devastating proposals concerning water and privately-owned meters go through—will not be borne by the consumer?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Lady will be aware that in the Committee considering the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill we are discussing amendments to ensure that the cost burden moves from owners to undertakers, thus reforming the Water Acts of 1845 and 1951. The major changes will require owners to have separate joint supplies explicitly for the purpose of metering. I can give the hon. Lady an undertaking that the burden will not fall on them.
    Mr. Jack: Is my hon. Friend aware that those in privately owned sheltered accommodation who have opted for water metering have achieved substantial savings?
    Mr. Moynihan: Some consumers have indeed benefited from metering. One of the important issues involved with the compulsory trial schemes that are being proposed is the effect of metering on a range of consumers in a certain locality. Schemes will enable undertakers to identify technical difficulties associated with putting meters in properties.
    Mr. Boyes: The Minister knows that there are tremendous cost and technical difficulties associated with putting meters into multi-storey flats. How does he square

    957
    that with the fact that, for 70 hours or more of consideration of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill, he has tried to convince us that water meters will be fairer because consumers will be able to control how much water they consume? Is he not getting himself into an awful problem and a difficult contradiction?
    Mr. Moynihan: I am glad to say that we have encountered no problems so far in the 70 hours of Committee proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Indeed, I thank him for his perceptive and useful analysis of the problems, including the problem that he has just mentioned. A lot of satisfactory work has been done on the matter that he raised. In reply to his first point, undertakers will have to consider the effect of metering and the effect of charges on metering, which will range beyond the single option referred to by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and raised by the hon. Gentleman in Committee yesterday.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums he has allocated to local authorities for the relief of homelessness in the current financial year and the next.
    Mrs. Roe: Gross provision for local authorities' capital expenditure on housing will rise from £2,920 million in the current financial year to £3,048 million next, an increase of 4 per cent. It is for local authorities to decide what resources to devote to the homeless, but the Government have urged that priority should be given to those in special need, and £25 million of the special supplementary allocation announced in December last was targeted on authorities with the greatest homelessness needs.
    Mr. Cohen: Has not the cost of housing the homeless rocketed over the past year to well over £100 million? Has not the Government's response been much too late and much too little? My borough, which is in the top 20 boroughs with housing problems, according to the Department's survey, has allocated all its available homes to homeless families at the expense of desperate waiting list families and it has not received an extra penny from the Government. Are not the Government hopeless with the homeless?
    Mrs. Roe: While there has been a reduction in local authorities' allocations, from £136 million in 1987–88 to £129 million in 1988–89, that is more than offset by the increase in capital receipts available to local authorities. Overall, local authorities' capital spending will increase by 4 per cent. Many councils have only themselves to blame for such a high cost of meeting their obligations to the homeless. Often they place the homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation needlessly when there are cheaper ways to deal with the problem. Authorities should be spending more of their receipts from the sale of council homes on bringing empty properties back into use. It is a scandal that 112,000 council homes are lying empty of which about 28,000 have been vacant for more than one year.
    Mr. Kilfedder: As a considerable percentage of the homeless people in Britain, and as many as 50 per cent. of the young homeless in London, come from the Irish Republic, will the Minister seek to raise at the next meeting of the Anglo-Eire Conference the question of conditions
    958
    in the Republic which force so many in the Republic to seek sanctuary in Britain, where indeed they are welcome? Will the Minister also raise the question of a financial contribution towards accommodation in Britain for those young people?
    Mrs. Roe: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the notice of my right hon. Friend. However, I must stress that it is for a local authority to decide how to carry out its statutory duties regarding the homeless.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister concede that her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was an insult to the many homeless people in London who are forced to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or, where they are denied such accommodation—as many are—are forced to sleep on the streets of this capital city? My council received only £800,000 towards its costs for bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Will the Minister assure the House that in future the full extra burden of bed-and-breakfast costs on local authorities will be met by the Government, instead of the Government imposing penalties on councils that seek to alleviate the problems of homelessness?
    Mrs. Roe: It is for local authorities to decide how to accommodate the homeless people for whom they accept responsibility. Our code of guidance advises the use of bed and breakfast accommodation only as a last resort. That accommodation is extremely expensive. On average it costs £30 per family per day and it is particularly unsuitable for families for any length of time. It is very surprising that some authorities such as Camden, Brent and Tower Hamlets use bed and breakfast accommodation extensively, while others, such as Greenwich, which suffer similar problems, manage to avoid it.
    Sir George Young: Does my hon. Friend recall the thoughtful speech made by the Minister for Housing and Planning at the party conference? He said that he was considering an extension of the transferable discount scheme to make more impact on tackling homelessness in London. When does the Department hope to come to a conclusion on an extension of that scheme?
    Mrs. Roe: I remember the comments that my hon. Friend made at the party conference. We are still considering that proposal.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the reply that the Minister gave me just before Christmas, that it was no longer the function of local authorities to build, is it not the case that there will be far more homelessness and more people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? The Minister criticises local authorities for putting homeless people into bed and breakfast accommodation, but where are they expected to go — on the pavement? It is absolutely essential that local authorities should once again be able to build accommodation for people who cannot afford mortgages. The only way that such people can have decent accommodation is through the local authorities.
    Mrs. Roe: Local authorities must make far better use of their existing housing stock. As I said earlier, local authorities now have more than 112,000 empty properties, and no fewer than 25 per cent. of those have been empty for more than a year. The number of local authority properties empty for more than a year is nearly three times the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have sought to help local authorities to take

    959
    empty properties back into use through the estate action scheme. We have approved schemes totalling nearly £5·5 million for some 1,200 dwellings since August 1986, and, more recently, through our £25 million supplementary allocations.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Camden, with its problems of homelessness, has admitted to paying out between £1 million and £5 million to the owners of bed and breakfast accommodation for accommodation that has never been occupied? What steps does she propose to stop that ineptitude, and worse, occurring in other Labour-controlled London boroughs?
    Mrs. Roe: I am aware of the press reports about the bed-and-breakfast problems in Camden. We are now awaiting the borough's official report on the matter. Clearly there has been a significant waste of ratepayers' money. Might I also add that that authority has more empty properties within its total housing stock than families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Indeed, 423—or 40 per cent.—of its empty dwellings have been empty for more than a year. Rent arrears in Camden were £4·4 million at the latest count. Those figures show that if Camden made better use of its housing stock by sorting out its housing management system it would be able to meet its responsibilities for homeless people without resorting to bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister's reply was a disgraceful insult to homeless people and to Conservative and Labour local authorities. Local authorities have a smaller percentage of their properties empty than have the Government, who have three times as many empty properties. When will the Government bring those properties into use? Local authorities have fewer empty properties than have housing associations or the private sector. What will the Minister do about that? What will she do about the fact that it is cheaper for the country to build a new home — the Government have cut housebuilding by two thirds since 1979 — than to keep a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for a year? When will she alleviate the crisis of homelessness in Britain?
    Mrs. Roe: Government Departments own residential property for operational reasons, and they need to preserve their operational flexibility. Those Departments with significant numbers of empty dwellings are urged to bring them back into use, and, when they are no longer needed, to sell them as quickly as possible. Where they have no immediate operational need for them, but where disposal is not practical, they are encouraged to let them temporarily to local authorities or housing associations to help with the problem of homelessness.
    I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to the Housing Bill. All the Bill's proposals will benefit homeless people and those in poor quality housing. I urge the hon. Gentleman to support the Bill.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Leicester city council about the effect of the poll tax on the residents of Leicester.
    Mr. Howard: Leicester city council responded to the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government". It has made no subsequent representations.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the poll tax, some 65 per cent. of Leicester citizens will pay more rates than they used to and that the average household, instead of paying £180 as now, will pay £220 —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading"]—and that a household with two adults is likely to pay 21 per cent. more tax? In such circumstances, all the figures should be read out, not only by me, but by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. and learned Gentleman's point would have a little more force if it was not based on a report that was flawed in certain fundamental respects, as was the report recently produced by Leicester city council. The figures that I announced last week show that, over the country as a whole, 53 per cent. of households will benefit from the introduction of the community charge. The charge will be of wider and greater benefit to everyone in this country because it will introduce a much fairer and more accountable method of paying for local government.

    Sports and Leisure Facilities
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to the consultation exercise on competition in the management of local authority sports and leisure facilities ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moynihan: Three hundred and fifty two responses have been received to the consultation paper issued by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales on 28 September 1987. The paper invited comments by 11 December 1987 and the responses are now being considered in detail.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise the widespread concern among local authorities about the possible introduction of competition in the provision of such important services, bearing in mind also a parallel consultation paper that suggests that some local authorities may have to invite tenders for such services in April 1989? Will he give an assurance that he will reach a decision on this as soon as possible? Indeed, will he say now that the Government do not intend to proceed in that direction?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are committed to consider all the representations that they have received, and for me to preempt chat consultation exercise would be wrong. However, I give him the undertaking that, as soon as possible, we shall make an announcement, and I hope that that will take place early in February.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that the majority of Conservative Members believe that competitive tendering can bring substantial savings to ratepayers? Does he further accept that the majority of leisure and sports facilities run by local authorities are losing enormous amounts of money? If that money can be saved my hon. Friend will be doing a great service to sport., ratepayers and the sports industry.
    Mr. Moynihan: I fully endorse that view.
    Mr. Douglas: The Minister has no direct responsibility for Scotland, but will he take into consideration the fact

    961
    that examples of the Government's financial strictures in Scotland include the possible closure of the only swimming pool on the Western Isles—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may think that is funny, but it represents an important local provision. Will the Minister state to the House how many local authorities in England and Wales, and possibly in Scotland, support the thrust of that particularly obnoxious policy?
    Mr. Moynihan: I do not believe that the results from the proposals currently being considered by the Government will be those anticipated by the hon. Gentleman. For the record, I place before the House the fact that we have had many responses from a widespread group of interested parties, not least the governing bodies of sport. If one considers the views of those groups, it is clear that, from greyhound racing to sea anglers, from badminton to squash, from the Jockey Club to the Lawn Tennis Association, all are fully supportive of the Government's proposals.
    Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the extensive sporting facilities at Luton Town football club are widely used by the local authority?
    At the weekend my hon. Friend spoke of English clubs being allowed back into Europe at the end of this season. Does he agree that his view was vindicated by the fact that last night Luton Town allowed visiting fans back into the stadium for the first time in 18 months? That resulted in three arrests and one policeman being taken to hospital. That suggests that my hon. Friend's view is absolutely right and that English clubs should not be allowed back into Europe until the season comes to an end.
    Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I should like to add a strong message of support to those who are now negotiating in UEFA if they are negotiating on the basis that re-admission of English clubs must be conditional on the behaviour of our fans, not only throughout the rest of the domestic season, but throughout the European championships, which will take place in West Germany. Any decision that is not conditional upon that is wrong.
    May I congratulate my hon. Friend's club on the important community initiatives that it has developed? I recommend that other clubs use their facilities for similar community purposes.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that we do not often get sports questions, but the question is about local authority sporting facilities.
    Mr. Pendry: Will the Minister make a firm decision to stop the nonsense of privatising sports and leisure facilities, especially in view of the many submissions that he has had? Certainly he has had one from the Amateur Swimming Association, whose patron is no less a person than Her Majesty The Queen, which states clearly:
    "Any attempts to make learning to swim more difficult and more expensive must be a retrograde step."
    Will the Minister stand tall for sport on this occasion at least?
    Mr. Moynihan: We have no proposals to privatise local authority recreational facilities. The privatisation of management contracts, as the hon. Member well knows, is sought to improve competition in the running of facilities. That has been our main task throughout the
    962
    consultation exercise. The hon. Gentleman referred to a governing body whose patron is Her Majesty The Queen. I refer him—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not bring the royal family into our arguments in the Chamber.
    Mr. Moynihan: The Lawn Tennis Association, which the hon. Gentleman knows well, and which has widespread support throughout the country, is very supportive of the concept and would see it as an opportunity to increase and improve the utilisation of facilities in the public sector.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is real unfairness between local authority provided sporting amenities, which do not pay rates, and privately provided sporting amenities, where rates are paid? Is this not totally unfair, and should not the position be rectified soon?
    Mr. Moynihan: One of the important reasons for bringing forward the consultation document was to ensure that the private sector had an opportunity to bid for the management of local authority facilities. I am certain that the introduction of competition into the running of facilities would be a major improvement and would provide the answer to my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of local authorities and sports organisations are opposed to the proposition that sports facilities and swimming baths which have been provided by the community should be handed over to private management? That is a prescription that will ensure that no local authority will ever again build another swimming pool or sports facility. Since this ludicrous policy was conceived before the hon. Gentleman took office, will he understand that he has our full support for burying it as soon as possible? Will he ensure that if schools opt out of the state system they should not take with them the dual use sports facilities which were provided by the community for the benefit of the whole neighbourhood? Will he seek in those cases to protect the use of those facilities for all sporting organisations?
    Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman will note that in the consultation paper it was specifically stated that it is not intended that the competitive tender regime should apply to sports facilities which form an integral part of educational establishments and which are provided principally for the use of pupils and students at those establishments. I fully appreciate the importance of the thrust of his argument with regard to dual use facilities. A sensitive reappraisal of the management of facilities in local authority control will lead to an increase in use.
    Mr. Holt: While my hon. Friend is considering this problem, would he care to consider the ice rink at Billingham, which is currently run by private management under licence from the local authority? The local authority has said that it will not renew the licence, not because the rink does not provide a good service for the people—because it does—and not because it is making money—because it is not — but because it says that only councillors in the town hall can run a sporting facility for the local community.
    Mr. Moynihan: If my hon. Friend cares to send me the details, I shall consider the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed a good run on that question. We must now proceed more rapidly.

    Property Fraud
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to combat property fraud within the areas of development corporations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ridley: Urban development corporations take all reasonable action to detect fraud. If cases of alleged fraud are discovered, it is a matter for the police.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been at least one conviction of a property developer dealing in docklands property recently, and that there have been at least two investigations by the Metropolitan and City police of allegations of complaints about property fraud and abuse in docklands'? Given that the Secretary of State is now setting up further development corporations and that there have been major abuses, will he have serious discussions with the National Audit Office, which is preparing a report on accountancy controls, to be published in April, with the police forces and with the corporations themselves, so that we can ensure that the regime for dealing with property and its handling in docklands and other development corporation areas is not subject to such widespread abuse in the future?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman makes allegations of widespread abuse and fraud which are not substantiated. I resented bitterly the last time that he raised this point, when he mentioned an individual by name. If he has any complaints against any individual and believes that there is any evidence of fraud, he should immediately tell the police, and not mention names in the House.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: In view of the attempt by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to smear the London Docklands Development Corporation and the whole marvellous movement that has done so much for central London, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the development corporation has done a remarkable job? Many houses for local people have been built, many jobs have been created and a tube line has been built, all of which flies in the face of what was claimed by the Opposition parties. They claimed that none of this would be achieved, and all that they are trying to do now is to denigrate what is being done and what will be done in the future.
    Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What has been done is striking and astonishing and has been done in the face of hostility from both Opposition parties. I hope that they will now recognise that the London Docklands Development Corporation has been scrupulous in ensuring standards of professional conduct at every level throughout its organisation.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average poll tax bill in England and Wales that is likely to be faced by a young single person with an annual income of £2,500 compared with the figure for someone earning £25,000 per year.
    Mr. Howard: If the community charge had been fully in force in 1987–88, the average charge in England and
    964
    Wales would have been £219. A young single person with an income of £2,500 per annum would be likely to receive a rebate.
    Mr. McAllion: The Minister should know that the cuts which the Government are implementing make rebate schemes of very limited benefit. The Low Pay Unit has estimated that single people under the age of 25 will lose their entitlement to rebate when their annual income exceeds the princely sum of £2,380. Given that the Minister told the Daily Telegraph in July 1986 that, under the current system of local government finance, someone earning £25,000 per year would be paying 20 times as much as someone on £2,500 a year towards the cost of local services, how can he describe it as fairer that these two groups should now pay exactly the same, when it means that those earning £25,000 per year will pay much less and those earning £2,500 per year will pay more?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said in the article to which he referred. It is the case that the highest 10 per cent. of households by income will continue to contribute about 16 times as much as the lowest 10 per cent. of households by income to the cost of local authority services when the community charge is in force.
    Mr. Squire: Has my hon. and learned Friend noted that the number of people who are unhappy with the community charge has apparently risen to nearly 70 per cent.? Is he satisfied with that level, or does he have any proposals to bring forward that will have some effect in reducing the community charge's current unpopularity?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly saw the poll to which my hon. Friend referred. The conclusion was based on a clear misunderstanding of the effect of the proposals. Only 23 per cent. of those who responded to the poll thought that their households would be better off as a result of our proposals. In fact, 53 per cent. of households will be better off. If that fact had been more widely understood, the results of the poll would have been rather different.
    Mr. Allen McKay: As the legislation reads, it appears that a person with a dual residence or a static caravan will pay two poll taxes. In that case, does it mean that the Prime Minister will pay one charge for a residence in Dulwich, one for the tied cottage at 10 Downing street, and another for her holiday home at Chequers?
    Mr. Howard: We have made it perfectly clear that people with second or third homes will pay standard community charges in respect of such homes to a maximum of twice the community charge for the local authority in the areas in which such homes are situated.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to give us some more details concerning the rebate scheme that will be available for people on modest incomes and for pensioners? Does he not believe that a £6,000 savings limit will hit those pensioners who have actually been prudent enough to save during their working lives? Will he reassure me that people in my constituency—for example, pensioners and those on modest incomes —will be properly protected under the proposals?
    Mr. Howard: I cannot give my hon. Friend details of the rebates. We are talking about a scheme that will not be enforced until April 1990. He will not expect final decisions about such rebates to have been made at this

    965
    stage. I can tell my hon. Friend that 80 per cent. of single pensioners will pay less under the community charge than they pay in rates.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister therefore confirm that one in five single pensioners will pay more under the poll tax system than they pay under the rates system? Will he confirm what he said in answer to the original question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)? The Secretary of State said that a person who is earning £25,000 a year will pay 20 times as much to a local authority as a man on £2,500 a year. That is exactly the same figure as the Minister used in the Daily Telegraph article.
    For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that a young,single person on £2,500 a year, who, because of fear of physical violence, happens to seek refuge, will be required to pay the poll tax, but, because of such fear, will be able to have his name excluded from the poll tax register? However, the person who earns, say £25,000 a year and is the head of the security services will not even pay the poll tax.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's point is based on a misunderstanding. Those who, for security reasons, will be exempt from payment of the community charge will be obliged to make a contribution in lieu to the armed forces. That payment will be allocated in due course to the local authority concerned. It is not the case that they will not have to pay.
    The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is simple. I should have thought that a change that benefits four out of five single pensioners would be widely welcomed by those who have the interests of pensioners at heart.

    Vacant Land
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land are currently in the Government land register of public vacant land; and how many acres of public land have been removed from the register since its inception.
    Mr. Ridley: On 31 December 1987 the registers of unused and underused land owned by public bodies contained details of 91,000 acres. Since the first registers were compiled in 1981, 66,000 acres of land have been removed from them.
    Mr. Steen: As the planning process seems to create a situation in which more vacant public land continues to be placed on the register, does my right hon. Friend agree that, even at the present rate of disposal, which is commendable, and even if he speeds it up, which will be better, there will still be many tens of thousands of acres of public land on the register by the turn of the century? Is not some new initiative now required to get rid of surplus public land? I refer to initiatives such as privatising land, handing it over to private companies to market and sell, or handing to public authorities the lion's share of it once it has been disposed of.
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is far too much vacant urban land. He will be encouraged to know that in 1986, 46 per cent. of all new development in England took place on previously used or vacant urban land, which was a good use of that vacant land. I am awaiting the report of the Audit Commission, which is
    966
    looking into this matter, which may give some suggestions on how to proceed. Further powers that will speed up the operation of the registers are being sought in the Local Government Bill.
    Mr. Hardy: Does not the disposal of publicly owned land become absurd if such a policy leads to rapid housing development but the relevant local authorities are prevented from providing schools and other services that such development makes necessary?
    Mr. Ridley: If that conjunction of circumstances occurred it would be absurd, but it does not. There are many ways whereby such development can follow from the bringing into use of vacant land.
    Mr. Gow: With regard to the figure of 91,000 acres—much of which is in urban areas but suitable for housing — does my right hon. Friend think that the bringing into use of that land is of great importance, particularly in relieving the huge housing problems and building on rural areas? Will my right hon. Friend take further powers to bring those acres of land into use?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Such powers as are necessary are being taken in the Local Government Bill. However, not all that land is in places where there is a demand for it. Some of it is. There is no point in acquiring land in an area where there is no developer or industrialist who wishes to use it. We must ensure that those who want to use the land can do so. Again, I advertise that if there is any developer, investor, housebuilder or housing association that wishes to use vacant land in the ownership of various authorities, all that he has to do is to apply to my Department and, if it is truly vacant, we will ensure that it is made available to him.

    Radioactive Waste
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the management of nuclear waste.
    Mr. Moynihan: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations, which have been referred to Nirex.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that when British Nuclear Fuels offered up West Cumbria as a sacrificial lamb in a quest to find a national facility for disposal of intermediate-level nuclear waste, it had no mandate from the district authorities, no mandate from the county authorities and no mandate for doing so from the industrial development auhorities responsible for creating jobs in West Cumbria? Will the Minister give an assurance that this decision will be taken on the most objective of criteria and will not be influenced by the whims of the monopolist employer and dominator of the West Cumbrian economy—British Nuclear Fuels?
    Mr. Moynihan: I can give that categorical assurance.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and I, can imagine what his constituents must be going through? Will my hon. Friend draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that if the Labour party were in Government arrangements would now be in hand for a low-level

    967
    shallow facility for the disposal of intermediate and low-level waste? Have we not made some improvement, in that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have an opportunity of consultation and are being consulted at the present time?
    Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that opportunities for full consultation in such an exercise are essential. I give a categorical assurance to my hon. Friend that there will be the fullest and most comprehensive consultation exercise once Nirex has come forward with a proposal for the Government's consideration.
    Dr. Cunningham: Does the Minister recall the unanimous report of the Select Committee on the subject of nuclear waste, which was chaired by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)? It recommended that site—specific research was essential before any site could be properly indentified, let alone used? Does he recall that a great deal of waste is accumulating on the surface of the British Nuclear Fuels site at Sellafield and that the Labour-controlled Copeland borough council has made it clear to British Nuclear Fuels that the continuing proliferation of surface buildings to house intermediate-level waste is unacceptable to the council and the community? How can we ever develop a long-term strategy for the storage of intermediate-level nuclear waste if no research and discussions are allowed to get off the gound?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman knows that in no way would it be right or proper for me to pre-empt what
    968
    Nirex will come forward with. All I can say is that I am certain that the consultation exercise that is under way will be rigorously looked at and that the proposals that come forward will take account of the sort of points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

    Nirex
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of Nirex; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Moynihan: My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of Nirex on 22 October 1987. They discussed a number of matters relating to Nirex.
    Mr. Jones: In view of the massive opposition to the quest by Nirex to identify potential sites for the disposal of low and intermediate-level nuclear waste, is not the consultation procedure now undertaken by Nirex doomed to failure? In view of the Government's stated aim of saving money, does the Minister not think that it would be far better to cancel that consultation procedure?
    Mr. Moynihan: No, I do not. It is vital that Nirex should fully investigate the three options for a deep, dual-purpose disposal facility — deep burial on land, tunnelling under the sea from the shore and disposal into the sea bed from an offshore structure. It is vital that as many technical assessments as possible are made so that Nirex can give full and comprehensive answers to the Government as soon as possible.

Radio Broadcasting (Written Answer)
3.31 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the rights of the House and the Government's conduct of business in the House. Yesterday, the Home Secretary gave a written answer — No. 150—on the future of the BBC. In his answer he described what he was proposing as a "major change" in policy and went on to justify that claim with descriptions of the introduction of national commercial radio and deregulation of local radio. The significance of that announcement is obvious and clear, and I do not think that the House would argue about its importance.
This major statement — "major" by the Home Secretary's admission and description—was provided by means of a written answer which was available to hon. Members several hours after it was available to newspapers. I do not make a great point about the usual courtesies offered to the Opposition, but the Opposition's copy was delivered at 10 o'clock this morning, whereas the Press Gallery copy was available some time during the middle of yesterday afternoon. It is a denial of our proper rights if a statement of such major importance is issued by way of a contrived written answer when, according to all the standards of normal parliamentary procedure, the Home Secretary should have had the courage to make the statement in the House and subject himself to parliamentary inquiry and proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I make the point of order in the hope that two forms of progress will be possible. First, I hope that we will begin to consider guidelines by which there is a distinction between those subjects that can be announced by written answer and those that are so important that they must be the subject of ministerial statement. Secondly, I hope that, if that general rule cannot be pursued by you, Mr. Speaker, or some other authority, the Leader of the House—who has an obligation to us all, not just his own party—will tell the Home Secretary that a statement described by him as a "major change" in policy should not have been made by way of written answer and suggest that the Home Secretary remedy his mistake by offering a statement to the House so that we may comment on it.
Mr. Speaker: This matter was raised yesterday and I said then that the alternative would presumably have been a statement, which is not under my control. I can only say that, because there was no statement yesterday, about 25 Back Benchers were able to take part in the debate. However, a further 30 still failed to get in. I suppose that it is question of balance.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard what has been said; but this is not remotely a matter of order for me.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not taking the hon. Member.
Mr. Skinner: Later.
Mr. Speaker: Not even later.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have to consider your well-furnished duty of protecting hon. Members' rights as well as any technical aspect involved. I was sacked over this issue. I learned about the written answer only at half-past 10 last night. I would hope that, in the interests of hon. Members — quite apart from the technical courtesies of the House—you would make known your view on the conduct of major matters of policy such as this.
As we see it, the proposals represent the destruction of the public service concept of broadcasting, which has been the great jewel in the crown of Britain in the world for the past 60 years. They would mean the handing over of much of our broadcasting to potential monopolies such as those of Maxwell, Murdoch and Stevens in the public press. They would mean a lightly regulated broadcasting system in which the participants competed in trivia and would end any genuine diversity of programmes—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman because of his former direct interest in this matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter of order.
Mr. Tony Banks: It is.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter of order. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) addressed his question not to me but to the Leader of the House and the Government.
Mr. Hattersley rose—
Mr. Banks: It is a matter of order.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter of order. I am not in control of—
Mr. Banks: Let me raise it.
Mr. Speaker: No. I shall take the Front Bench spokesman. Mr. Hattersley.
Mr. Hattersley: I believed that I was making a genuine point of order for you, Sir, in asking you to protect the House from the Government's behaviour. However, I take your point and I have no wish to argue with you. You will recall that such points of order have often been used as an opportunity for the Leader of the House to respond. It is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to respond in some way. He knows that this is a genuine problem and that a major statement—the Government's own description—has not been made in the usual way and he owes it to us to say something, even though it may not be adequate.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I shall look into the matter. I believe that the Home Secretary acted entirely properly, but I remind the House that we have business questions tomorrow.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not having a point of order on a point of order.

Hong Kong
3.37 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Annual Report on Hong Kong 1987 (Cm. 293) and endorses the policies which the Government is pursuing to maintain Hong Kong's future prosperity and stability.
Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition both attach great importance to the subject of today's debate. It is both a product and a symbol of Parliament's commitment to Hong Kong. The Government's commit-ment to the publication of annual reports on the territory was itself a response to the wishes expressed in Hong Kong and taken up by hon. Members. The Government and Parliament alike are equally determined to fulfil our responsibilities to Hong Kong. Indeed, this House has already considered Hong Kong on a number of occasions since it endorsed overwhelmingly the signature of the joint declaration on Hong Kong's future. I have always been encouraged by the strength and quality of the interest shown on both sides of the House. We all seek a future for Hong Kong that will be in the best interests of the territory and its people.
Today, I want to concentrate on three separate themes: the implementation of the joint declaration; our consultation with Hong Kong and its people; and the issue of confidence. Britain and China are engaged in Hong Kong in a unique enterprise. We are creating conditions for the transfer of responsibility for an entire community, while preserving its present systems, human rights and lifestyle.
The relationship between the British and Chinese Governments is close and cordial. That is as it should be. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that that relationship is vitally important to the people of Hong Kong; but, at the same time, the success of the Hong Kong enterprise is critical to it. Hong Kong therefore lies at the heart of that relationship.
Throughout the complex process of negotiating the joint declaration, we bent all our energies to securing a good deal for Hong Kong. I believe we succeeded. Now we are working, with the same determination, for the full and faithful implementation of that joint declaration. The Chinese Government, I believe, have an equal commitment.
During the past year I have met my Chinese colleague, Foreign Minister Wu Xueqian, on three occasions and Hong Kong has been a major theme at each of those meetings. I look forward to continuing that discussion—as well as to considering other international and bilateral questions—when I welcome Mr. Wu Xuequian on an official visit to Britain in the spring.
The British and Chinese Governments have developed a pattern of close and pragmatic co-operation over the implementation of the joint declaration. We recognise the need for the utmost sensitivity to the circumstances of Hong Kong and the concerns of its people. Understandably, they look for reassurance. One important element of that reassurance is and will be a high degree of continuity in Hong Kong's institutions and systems of government across the change of sovereignty in 1997.
The watchwords for the future remain "prosperity and stability"; and stability requires institutional continuity.
972
That has been much in the minds of those who are working intensively together, for example, in the Joint Liaison Group and the Land Commission.
During the past year that work has resulted in further solid achievements: a series of agreements on Hong Kong's continued, separate participation in international organisations; agreement on further steps enabling Hong Kong to protect its own commercial interests before and after 1997; further steps in securing continuity over travel and identity documentation; and good progress in discussion on defence and public order.
At the same time, valuable work has been done on the drafting of the Basic Law. It is that Chinese law which will enshrine for post-1997 Hong Kong the constitutional provisions set out in the joint declaration. The drafting of the Basic Law is, of course, a matter for the Chinese Government, but, equally naturally, we are following the process with the greatest interest.
We welcome the extent to which China has sought to involve Hong Kong people in the drafting process. Almost half the members of the Basic Law drafting committee come from Hong Kong. The Basic Law consultative committee in the territory has a vital role in reflecting Hong Kong views. For our part, we have the right to satisfy ourselves that the eventual provisions of the Basic Law fully and accurately reflect the joint declaration.
Without our present constructive relationship with China, we could not have made such progress in implementing the joint declaration. I believe that that fact is widely understood in Hong Kong.
However, there are also certain misconceptions that should not be allowed to persist. One myth is that Britain seeks good relations with China at the expense of the interests of Hong Kong. Nothing could be further from the truth, and anyone who went, as I did, through the lengthy and strenuous negotiations with the Chinese which led to the joint declaration knows that is a grotesque distortion. There is no question of putting Hong Kong second: we have upheld and will uphold Hong Kong's interests to the full, not only because that is right, but because it would be an illusion to suppose that we could create good relations with China at the expense of the interests of Hong Kong.
All the evidence makes it plain that Hong Kong prospers when London and Peking are in harmony. The central fallacy is to suggest that there is a choice between the interests of Hong Kong and good relations between Britain and China. One cannot have one without the other. The single question that needs asking—it is important—is how to secure the firmest possible foundation for the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. It certainly cannot be founded on confrontation between Britain and China.
In Hong Kong, a lively and articulate community ensures that its concerns are heard. Successive governors have stood up for Hong Kong's interests most persuasively, both in London and in Peking.
The death of Sir Edward Youde at the end of 1986 was a tragic loss. The whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the wisdom and dedication that he showed in shaping Hong Kong's future, both as administrator and as my adviser during the negotiation of the joint declaration. His successor, Sir David Wilson, has brought to the office unparalleled experience; I am glad to say that that has been widely acknowledged. He is uniquely qualified to administer and champion the

973
interests of Hong Kong. He has my fullest confidence, and he has shown admirable steadiness and clarity of purpose during his first year in office.
The Government attach the highest importance to the process of consulting Hong Kong. There are close and intensive contacts between the British and Hong Kong Governments on all matters related to the implementation of the joint declaration. Officials of the Hong Kong Government play a full part in the work of the Joint Liaison Group.
Where consultation with Hong Kong people is concerned, one of the major events of the past year has been the review of developments in representative government. An earlier review took place in 1984. It resulted in important measures of reorganisation, including the introduction of 24 indirectly elected members into the Legislative Council. A commitment was made then to conduct a further round of public consultation in 1987. That commitment has been carried out in full.
The review is now nearing its end. A wide range of options was put forward for public debate, with none ruled out in advance. It has been scrupulously objective and impartial. Hong Kong people were encouraged to express their views, and their response has been on an unprecedented scale. An independent Survey Office has recorded the submissions made and views expressed by members of the community. Its report is comprehensive: no view, from whatever source, has been excluded. Two individuals of integrity and high standing in the community were appointed as independent monitors to oversee the work of the office. They have testified that the Survey Office recorded public views impartially and accurately.
The outcome of the review will be recorded in a White Paper, to be published by the Hong Kong Government next month. The House will understand that I cannot today anticipate details of the eventual decisions that will be announced. But I should like to explain some of the background.
In the first place, Her Majesty's Government and the Hong Kong Government alike wish to see the development towards more representative government in Hong Kong continue steadily. Neither we nor they would wish to impose any particular form or model. Hong Kong is unique in many ways, and it will need to develop its own system of government suited to its own requirements. Such a system should respect the wishes of the community as a whole and reflect Hong Kong's special circumstances and conditions, in the future as in the past.
We should acknowledge all the relevant factors: the range of views expressed by the community; the relevant provisions of the joint declaration; and the work now in hand to draft the Basic Law for post-1997 Hong Kong. We must ensure that any measures taken are accepted by the community as a whole and are consistent with the maintenance of stability.
Above all, we should remember that what we are building is not merely a temporary structure, but something which can and will endure in the years beyond 1997, and so carry Hong Kong forward into the 21st century. That is why our work must be set in the context of the establishment with China of arrangements for the future, and alongside the drafting of the Basic Law. There
974
is nothing new about this. Throughout Hong Kong's existence, its identity has evolved in light of a clear realisation of its unique historical, geographical and international circumstances. It is against that background that we must work to preserve it.
The Hong Kong Government's Green Paper covered a wide range of issues, but, as the House will of course be aware, the main focus of public debate has been the question whether a directly elected element should be introduced into the Legislative Council, and, if so, when. This issue was the subject of the great majority of submissions to the Survey Office. It also dominated debate in the Legislative Council and other forums.
The Survey Office report shows that the bulk of the views expressed have been in favour of the principle of introducing some directly elected members into the Legislative Council. Of course, many people did not express any view. None the less, I think that it would be accurate to speak of a strong trend in public opinion that supports taking that step well before 1997.
On the question of timing, the report shows opinion to be sharply divided. Some people believe that direct elections should be introduced this year, when elections to the Legislative Council are due. Others have reservations about moving forward so quickly. They argue instead for introduction at a later date, with some suggesting that the subsequent round of elections in 1991 could provide the most appropriate opportunity.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: While I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is reflecting what is common parlance in Hong Kong, is it not correct to say that representations were received from only 137,000 people out of a population of 5·25 million? I hope that the Government will bear in mind that very few Chinese with residential qualifications are used to a democratic Government. That should be taken into account.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is why the survey report is only one of the factors that have to be taken into account. The report encompasses representations, discussions and debates of many kinds in all the representative bodies. That is why the question is not susceptible of a single, simple analysis. The division about which I have spoken has been reflected in debate, sometimes heated, at every level from the Legislative Council down. The most deftly argued views are not always the most important, and the most strident are not always the most representative, or the most likely to achieve the desired result.
I have spoken of the need for continuity. In the preliminary draft of the Basic Law, recently released by the Basic Law drafting committee, all the options for the composition of the legislature provide for a directly elected element. That is very welcome in Hong Kong and is one of the considerations that should guide us in reaching our conclusions. The views expressed by Hong Kong people help to establish the parameters within which we should plan to move ahead on a steady and prudent course acceptable to the community as a whole. Certainly we have noted the general feeling in Hong Kong that the White Paper should contain a clear statement on when it is intended that direct elections should be introduced. I understand the widely expressed wish that the White Paper should bring an end to uncertainty.
In view of the short time that is available for the debate, I should like to give other hon. Members as much time as

975
possible to speak. However, I cannot exclude from my opening remarks a few words about the position in Hong Kong of the so-called boat people from Vietnam. On that topic as on any other, I shall be ready in winding up to address specific concerns raised by hon. Members.
I am acutely conscious of the concern felt in Hong Kong about the problem of the boat people. We are doing all we possibly can to relieve Hong Kong of this burden. We have accepted a further quota for resettlement in the United Kingdom, and we are urging other countries to follow suit. We are also discussing with all those concerned how those Vietnamese not qualifying as refugees might be returned to Vietnam against suitable assurances about their treatment. None of these matters is easy to discuss or to carry forward. It will be a long haul, but I assure the House and the people in Hong Kong that we shall persist in trying to find a way forward to solve this problem. In all that we do for Hong Kong, our overriding concern is to sustain confidence in the future.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would it not be advisable to make a very strong reservation in terms of the comments that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was making a moment or two ago, that there will of course be no compulsory repatriation to Vietnam while the unhappy circumstances in Vietnam still prevail?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the force of the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why I said that, when we were making representations and inquiries, suitable assurances about the treatment of anyone who might return to Vietnam were absolutely essential.
We are trying to reconcile two or three almost irreconcilable factors. It is plainly necessary to reduce the numbers in camps in Hong Kong; but there is clearly a limit to the places that can be found for them elsewhere. The third channel must certainly be sought: an acceptable way of returning them to their land. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the difficulties.
Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the past five years, while there have been closed camps in Hong Kong and on the islands, not one of the refugees — not a single family, although some have been behind barbed wire for more than five years —has asked to be repatriated to Vietnam? Will he take that into account? Furthermore, will Her Majesty's Government redouble their efforts to persuade other Governments to accept refugees for resettlement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right: he directs his focus to the other components. I have taken up that point in virtually every meeting that I have had with any other Government who could possibly be a candidate to receive refugees. I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to say that not one refugee has sought repatriation; I am sure that some have tried to return to Vietnam. He is, however, right to say that the numbers have been very small. —[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) says, an underlying feature is the achievement of more balanced policies in Vietnam. That would make it a more acceptable home to return to.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Where was the right hon. and learned Gentleman when the Americans bombed Vietnam?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall halt my digression rather than be distracted by that sedentary intervention.
976
Let me reiterate that our overriding concern is to sustain confidence in the future, both in the territory of Hong Kong and in the wider internal community. Of course there are uncertainties, but I believe that they should be seen in perspective.
Hong Kong people have always been highly mobile: there is a strong tradition of travel overseas for education or training. Recently there has been some increase in emigration. Uncertainty about the future may well be a factor in that, although it is by no means the only one. Moreover, many Hong Kong people, having acquired a foreign nationality or residence qualification, choose to return to Hong Kong. They are attracted back by the lifestyle, the rewards and the sense of identification with the community there. We and the Hong Kong Government will do our utmost to ensure that all those attractions remain.
The House is, of course, well aware of the problems recently connected with the Hong Kong stock and futures exchange. Hong Kong exchanges were not spared the effects of the worldwide downturn in stock markets. But the Hong Kong Government moved decisively to coordinate financial support—to which, I am pleased to note, the Chinese authorities made a significant contribution. They have also set in hand action to tackle the longer-term problems connected with supervision and operation of the exchanges.
Equally firm action has been taken more recently to ensure that allegations about the conduct of certain individual office-holders of the stock exchange can be pursued, without affecting the smooth operation of the exchange. The Hong Kong Government are determined that the territory's position and reputation as a major international financial centre should be safeguarded.
The problems that emerge are being tackled decisively. On the credit side, we have much cause for encouragement. There is the joint declaration itself, and the detail and certainty embodied in that legally binding international treaty; there is China's commitment to work closely with us over the implementation of the joint declaration; and there is the efficiency and drive of the local administration, creating conditions in which enterprise can flourish.
We are encouraged, finally, by the exceptionally strong performance of the local economy: a growth rate for 1987 of over 12 per cent., bringing the 20-year average to almost 8 per cent. per annum; an increase in domestic exports of 26 per cent. over the year; virtually full employment; and a strong property market and high levels of investment. Few economies in the world could match that record. None of it suggests a lack of confidence in Hong Kong's prospects on the part of those who trade and invest there.
The Hong Kong Government are planning purposefully for the territory's future. Ambitious projects are in hand to take the territory into the next century. The quality of life is being steadily improved. Opportunities for the next generation are being opened up.
The transitional years up to the change of sovereignty in 1997 are bound to bring uncertainties, but Hong Kong has shown an admirable ability to adapt to change. It is sustained by the resilience and dynamism of its people. It is sustained, too, by the good will of the British and Chinese Governments and their joint commitment to the successful implementation of the joint declaration. I am confident that all these advantages will keep Hong Kong steady on its course.

977
It is the solemn responsibility of the British Government to administer Hong Kong up to 30 June 1997 in the best interests of its people. We shall discharge that responsibility to the utmost of our abilities.
4.4 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the late Sir Edward Youde. I knew Sir Edward well and worked closely with him for a time. I was well aware of his many qualities and, of course, of his heroic past. It is right that we should remember him now.
The Opposition are grateful to the Government for agreeing to the Labour party's request for a debate on the annual report. We are grateful for the annual report itself. The useful availability of these reports seems somewhat at odds with the adamant rejection by the Foreign Secretary almost three years ago today—it was 21 January 1985—of requests by my right hon. and hon. Friends for annual reports on progress in Hong Kong following the agreement of 1984.
Hansard for 21 January 1985 is littered with categorical rejections of the need and scope for such reports and the damage that they might inflict. The Foreign Secretary said:
"Such reports tend to be a repetition of previous reports in form … Although designed with the best intentions, they often have the opposite effect of that intended … My, instinctive reaction to the annualisation of reports is to regard that practice as often diminishing the importance and value of the reports."
He said with enormous vehemence:
"one can become depressed by the wearisome familiarity of the structure of annual reports. They can fall into an annual rhythm, even when the scene is changing as rapidly as it is in Hong Kong. I am anxious not to condemn the reality of the subject to being encapsulated in a wearisome annual framework."—[Official Report, 21 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 734 and 745.]
I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman repented of that view, because I think that the whole House will agree that the series of annual reports is of great value to the House and the people of Hong Kong. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's change of mind is a forerunner of even more valuable mind changes on this and other matters.
The report contains much encouraging information. We congratulate the Joint Liaison Group on the agreed involvement of the Hong Kong special administrative region, as it will become in 1997, in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade the multi-fibre arrangement, the Customs Co-operation Council and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We are sure that, as a member of the International Labour Organisation, Hong Kong China will pursue more enlightened employment policies than do the present British Government.
We are pleased to learn of the air service agreement with the Netherlands and of the anticipated air service agreement with Switzerland. All this makes encouraging progress in the evolution of the unique experiment on which the Chinese People's Republic has agreed to embark with such breadth of mind and vision.
We greatly applaud other aspects of the report. In particular, we congratulate the Hong Kong housing authority on its plans in the coming financial year to complete a record 52,000 public housing units. That
978
52,000 in Hong Kong contrasts with an estimated 24,000 to 25,000 public sector completions in this country next year. Hong Kong, with one tenth of Britain's population, is building twice as many public sector homes as the Government are permitting.
This remarkable achievement would be matched in Britain by 500,000 new council houses which, heaven knows, we badly need. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary could persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment to take a trip to Hong Kong and, no, not to stay there — that would be most unfair on our friends in Hong Kong; warlords are completely out of fashion in China — but to learn much-needed lessons about public provision for public need.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is far too sophisticated to put such an argument to the House. Does he not realise that Hong Kong has absorbed a very large number of refugees from mainland China who are utterly homeless? Conditions in Hong Kong are entirely different from those in Great Britain.
Mr. Kaufman: I accept that absolutely. I believe that Hong Kong has serious difficulties which I would not dismiss or underestimate for a moment, but we have serious difficulties, too. We also have a large number of homeless people who would benefit from such an admirable public sector housing programme as that in which Hong Kong is participating.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for what he has said about the boat people. I acknowledge, as he did, the great difficulty of the problem. It is far from straightforward and a solution is not easy to find. We are ready to meet the Foreign Secretary and discuss with him, in a non-partisan way, potential ways in which the problem can be dealt with in an attempt to find a satisfactory outcome for those unhappy people.
As the Foreign Secretary has acknowledged, the debate is especially important as it comes just in advance of the White Paper which is due for publication next month. I very much hope that it is not a cut and dried document that is ready for the printer. I hope that what is being said today will have an effect on its content. If not, the debate is an empty charade and goes against the spirit in which the Government and the Opposition have approached this important issue.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary still has an open mind about direct elections. I thought that the intervention of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was curious. He drew attention to what he claimed was a small number of submissions by the people of Hong Kong on this issue. There were 125,833 submissions. I should have thought that if the Government, who preside over a country with 10 times the population of Hong Kong, had received 125,000 submissions on one item of policy, they would acknowledge that there was serious concern in the country about it. I cannot understand how such a remarkable manifestation of concern can be dismissed, apparently, as trivial.
As the Foreign Secretary has said, it is not in doubt that elections will play a part in the composition of the Legislative Council after 1 July 1997. Annex 1 of the 1984 agreement — the elaboration, as it is called, by the Government of the People's Republic of China on its basic policies regarding Hong Kong—states unequivocally:

979
"The Legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by elections."
We welcome the clarity and forthrightness of that pledge. In his statement of 25 October 1984, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that commitment when he said:
"The agreement provides for the Legislature of Hong Kong in the future to he on an elective basis".
In response to questions, he said:
"the legislature … must be developed and established, after proper consideration, on a due time scale." —[Official Report, 25 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 822 and 826.]
I must confess that it is not immediately apparent to me what those words are supposed to mean. That phraseology may be a characteristic example of the Foreign Secretary's occidental inscrutability. However, I take it that that was a circumlocutory way of saying that the Foreign Secretary was keeping his options open. I say "his options" because, as he properly said this afternoon, although the Chinese Government naturally have a legitimate and important interest in that fundamental decision, it is a decision for Her Majesty's Government alone as they have sole responsibility for the administration of Hong Kong until 30 June 1997.
The question therefore is not whether there should be direct elections for the Hong Kong Legislative Council, but when and for what proportion of those seats the election should take place. The Chinese make no bones about that. A most formidable and brilliant representative of the Chinese embassy addressed a meeting of my right hon. and hon. Friends earlier this week. She categorically committed the People's Republic of China to direct elections for Hong Kong. She acknowledged that an overwhelming majority of the people in Hong Kong are in favour of direct elections. Those of us who listened to her welcomed the sincerity of that statement as well as the consummate skill with which the Chinese approach was described. We were also told that, while naturally China had the right to its own point of view about timing and proportions, the People's Republic of China is not opposed to direct elections before 1997.
I acknowledge immediately that the question of when direct elections should start is not straightforward or simple. One argument is that no action should be taken that would pre-empt the Basic Law for Hong Kong which, as the Foreign Secretary said, is now in preparation by the Chinese Government. The first draft of that Basic Law will be made public in April. It will be subject to five months of consultation and revised in the light of that consultation. It will then be made available in its revised form for additional calculation. It is due to be ratified by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China for publication in 1990. That is a powerful argument and it could weight the balance against action in direct elections in advance of 1997 which would pre-empt the contents of the Basic Law, which is solely a matter for China.
I could have been strongly influenced in favour of a delay in holding direct elections until 1991 after the Basic Law has been passed were it not for the clear statement from the Chinese that they are in favour of direct elections. In those circumstances, it is not the principle of direct elections and whether direct elections are acceptable to the People's Republic of China which is in question. The People's Republic of China has clearly accepted the principle. However, the timing and the modalities of such elections are in question. That being so, I believe that the arguments for starting with some proportion of direct
980
elections this year are compelling. I trust that the Foreign Secretary will take those arguments into account when considering the final contents of next month's White Paper.
It is unquestionable that, if direct elections are delayed until after the handover in 1997, they will not come about immediately. Preparations will have to be made and the next scheduled year for a change in the composition of the Legislative Council after 1997 is the year 2000. That would mean that even a start on the basic experience of elections and the practices and conduct of elected members could not be made until into the new century. If a start at that point were to be made with 25 per cent., as seems to he the accepted proportion for a start, progress towards a 100 per cent. elected Legislative Council might not be achieved until well into the 50-year period guaranteed to the Hong Kong special administrative region.
There are no arguments in favour of waiting until the changeover, and the People's Republic of China has never said that it wants to wait until the changeover. The question arises whether the direct elections should start before or after the Basic Law is approved in 1990. One important point is that time is already passing. A quarter of the time between the signing of the agreement in 1984 and the handover in 1997 has already elapsed. If we wait until 1991 for the introduction of some proportion of direct elections, more than half of the time between the signature of the agreement and the handover will have elapsed. There will not be much time for the new system to be assimilated and for experience to be gained of how elections are conducted and how elected members should employ their opportunities and status.
I believe that there is an even more important point. In their great wisdom the Chinese Government are providing two opportunities for public consultation in Hong Kong about the contents and provisions of the Basic Law that is being drafted. It must be said that in present circumstances reactions to that Basic Law will not be available from persons who are clearly seen to be representative of the people of Hong Kong. No doubt distinguished and knowledgeable persons will state their views and those will be important. Possibly efforts will be made to guage the views of the people of Hong Kong as a whole, perhaps through the use of opinion polls, which have already been employed. However, the views of distinguished and knowledgeable people will be individual views and the findings of opinion polls are always open to challenge and interpretation, as indeed have been the findings of the polls seeking the views of the people of Hong Kong on the question of direct elections.
It would be invaluable for the Chinese Government to have people available for consultation who are clearly seen to be the properly elected representatives of the people of Hong Kong. The availability, of such elected representatives would be most helpful in securing clear acceptance of the Basic Law by the people of Hong Kong. I am sure that that is in the interests of the Chinese Government in this remarkable experiment on which they are so courageously embarking.
Mr. David Howell: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct to be concerned about the development of representative and robust government in Hong Kong, and that concern is shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Beijing Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that

981
there is a danger in putting too much weight on 1988 as the starting point because, if that weight is too great, it will create undue anxieties in Hong Kong that will undermine all the work that lies ahead and the progress that has already been achieved? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his considerable influence to try to allay some of those fears?
Mr. Kaufman: That is the last thing that I want to see. The problem is that there is already a great deal of concern. It is impossible to say how representative is that concern, but there is no doubt that it exists. I have tried to balance the arguments for a start on direct elections before the drafting of the Basic Law and after its passage. After careful consideration, my conclusion is that the arguments are considerably weighted towards a start before the Basic Law is agreed. I will consider other arguments in a moment in response to the important point raised by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). However, I have long been wary of the arguments in favour of what the late Hugh Dalton used to call the doctrine of unripe time. Arguments can always be advanced to state that some proposed change or advance is desirable, but the time is not ripe.
The problem is that we are under two time limits. First, we are under the time limit of the handover. Although the period of guarantee of the special administrative region is lengthy, it is clearly a limited period. Secondly, it is necessary for Hong Kong to have experience of a 25 per cent. elected Legislative Council and of a 100 per cent. elected Legislative Council early in that period.
The sooner that direct election begins, the earlier will be the experience of working representative structures and the greater the chances of sorting out any problems which may arise in direct election and direct representation, to which the people of Hong Kong are not used on a territory-wide scale. A start in direct elections this year would of course place a great responsibility on the people of Hong Kong to demonstrate their capability to conduct free elections in a responsible manner.
I am confident that the sophisticated people of that territory are more than equal to that challenge, and that their ability to meet it will be of assistance in the growth of their relationship with the country of which they will soon become an autonomous region. I believe that they will seize the opportunity to prove to China that the system can work. I am sure that the people of Hong Kong want the system to work — their whole future depends upon it — and the major change that the Chinese are proposing to be of benefit to them so that it can continue beyond the 50-year period.
Mr. Robert Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will accept that this must be the last intervention that I will take, as so many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in a short debate.
Mr. Adley: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Labour party had received a representative from the Chinese embassy. We all know that the Chinese are in favour of direct elections, but was she in favour of them before 1991? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it
982
will not help the people of Hong Kong if they are encouraged to take decisions which are clearly contrary to the views of the Chinese Government?
Mr. Kaufman: That formidable and remarkable lady was careful to express no view on that matter. In my view, she was sensible not to do so. Clearly, it is not in the interests of the people of Hong Kong for action to be taken during the remaining period of British administration that will be unwelcome to the People's Republic of China. At the same time, with all respect to the People's Republic of China, Britain and the House are administering Hong Kong and will administer it until 30 June 1997. It is our responsibility to take decisions which we regard as proper for Hong Kong, of course taking into account the important considerations mentioned by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley).
The issue will not go away. There is an appetite for direct elections in Hong Kong that is acknowledged in every statement made on the subject, including those statements made by the Chinese Government. Reluctant though I am to say it, I have to say that until a specific commitment as to date and proportion of those to be elected is given, it is a question that will bedevil the preparations for the handover and could overshadow the important discussion that China is laudably seeking over the contents of the draft Basic Law.
I do not believe that direct elections are the only important issue at stake in the next few years for Hong Kong. It would be a pity if preoccupation with direct elections were to dominate and distort discussion of all the other issues which need to be considered and settled.
Therefore, I put it to the Foreign Secretary that the arguments strongly predominate in favour of an announcement in the White Paper next month that direct elections for some of the Legislative Council seats should take place later this year. Indeed, faced with a choice between 25 per cent. in 1991 and 12·5 per cent. this year, I would strongly recommend 12·5 per cent. this year, even though my own preference, like that of many in Hong Kong, would be for 25 per cent. this year.
My discussions with people from Hong Kong show that there is a great readiness there to co-operate with China in the fundamental changes that are to come, and to demonstrate that readiness to China. Direct elections this year would assist in that co-operation and that demonstration. The Foreign Secretary said on 21 January 1985:
"The process of consultation …will be further assisted by the progressive strengthening of representative Government in Hong Kong over the next 10 years." —[Official Report, 21 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 741.]
Consultation on the basic law starts in April. Strengthening of representative government should start in this year, too.
There is intense interest in this debate in Hong Kong. Although it is now after midnight there, this debate is being broadcast live in the territory, and is being listened to by a large number of concerned people. Let the Government give them the commitment that so many are looking for.
In its decision to set up a special administrative region in Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China has taken one of the most visionary steps that any Government have ever taken. It deserves credit and admiration for its openness of mind and its readiness to innovate. The House has a duty to assist the People's Republic of China in that

983
great enterprise, and to maintain its proper vigilance on behalf of the people of Hong Kong for whom we remain responsible. It is in that spirit that the Opposition approach the debate.
4.25 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to intervene in this important debate. Unfortunately, I was unavoidably prevented from hearing the first part of the Foreign Secretary's speech in which he paid tribute to Sir Edward Youde. I join him in that, as I knew Sir Edward Youde when he was ambassador in Beijing. He was our second ambassador there after we assumed complete diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and he carried out an expert job in having working relationships with Mao Tse-Tung, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping.
When Sir Edward came to Hong Kong, he had a formidable task in following Lord MacLehose who had been governor there for 11 years and was immensely admired and respected, and had performed remarkable feats as governor of Hong Kong. However, Sir Edward assumed that task willingly and with great skill, in his own style, which was different from that of Lord MacLehose. His death was a tragedy and we should pay tribute to him for his achievements in Beijing and Hong Kong.
Before I come to the main question about elections, I wish to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in saying a few words about the boat people. We must face the fact that that situation cannot continue. Those of us who have seen the camps are convinced that the Government of Hong Kong are doing absolutely everything possible to make them tolerable, but year after year children are growing up confined to those camps. That situation cannot be maintained. As we shall be responsible for Hong Kong for another nine years, we cannot allow a situation to continue in which so many young lives—they will soon become youths capable of work — are confined in camps. We cannot respectably hand over Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with people kept in such conditions.
I do not believe that the People's Republic of China would allow such a situation to continue. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has a compassionate nature, to recognise that year after year human lives are continuing, and young people are growing up in a situation which—however much the Hong Kong Government do—is intolerable.
I do not believe that it is impossible for Hong Kong to assimilate the numbers that are involved. A colony of 5 million people could absorb such a number; it is perfectly possible if it is handled properly. Britain certainly could take more people than it has already taken. Voices will always shout against that, but a country of 50 million people must be able to absorb more than we have been prepared to accept so far.
After all, when my Government — of which the Foreign Secretary was a member—faced problems with Uganda, we were able to absorb 25,000 Ugandan Asians in 10 days. They have proved themselves to be admirable working people. They have created their own private enterprises and have been immensely successful. I am not in a position to make a comparison between those people and the Vietnamese, but I am quite convinced that Hong
984
Kong could handle the problem once the Governments of this country and Hong Kong made up their minds to do so.
The major point of the discussion today is elections. When we debated this matter on 5 December 1984, 1 congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend on the agreement that had been reached. I summed up my position by saying:
"Far greater than any danger of haste is the danger of not having fully representative working government with experience by the time the handover takes place." —[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 405.]
That is still my view. There is a much greater danger of our dragging our feet than of being over-hasty.
For the remaining period before the handover, the all-important thing for Her Majesty's Government to consider is that we are still the Government of Hong Kong and that we have accepted our full responsibilities, placed upon us, with the full agreement of the People's Republic of China, for all the activities and particularly for the government of Hong Kong, until 1997. If we are to do that, we must show all the time that we are not only managing the affairs properly, but dealing with the problems that arise. There is no point in trying to hide the problems of Hong Kong, because everybody there knows about them only too well. There are problems with the stock exchange and scandals that have taken place in industry, commerce and within other activities in Hong Kong. They must be dealt with quickly and firmly if we are to demonstrate that we are still carrying out our responsibilities.
If we are to maintain the confidence of the people of Hong Kong we must show that we are still running the show properly. We cannot afford to let it gradually slip. If we do so—there is some evidence to suggest that people believe that that is already happening — the financial, commercial and industrial interests of Hong Kong will rapidly reach the conclusion that we will not carry out our part of the agreement reached between ourselves and the People's Republic of China. If they reach that conclusion, the prosperity of Hong Kong will fade away. That will be the test of whether we properly carry out our responsibilities under the agreement.
One of the questions open to discussion is that of elections. We should be able to hand over Hong Kong with a system of representative government. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that Hong Kong should develop its own system, and I entirely agree. However, it must be a system of representative government, and unless action is taken quickly now we shall be unable to hand over any form of experienced, representative government. I made that observation three years ago and now we have less than nine years left. As Members of this House, we know how long it takes to acquire the experience within the House to enable us to achieve anything individually within our parties or in government.
In Hong Kong the operation of a full system of government must be achieved in a short period of time and it is rapidly getting shorter and shorter. When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the White Paper he must take that fact into account. The People's Republic of China accepted that a system of representative government would be established and it is committed to the continuation of that system for 50 years after the handover. Therefore, what we hand over is of vital

985
importance. That lends emphasis to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend should be prepared to take action, but in what direction?
Obviously, when a new constitution is being devised it would be wise to ensure that any action taken now should not be in conflict with it. I fully accept that. However, do we need to do anything that is in conflict with that constitution? I believe that the answer to that question is no.
The first option for consideration is extending the functional system of government in Hong Kong with internal elections, and that is fully acceptable to the People's Republic of China. Those who are considering constitutional developments within the People's Republic of China at the moment are undoubtedly thinking along those lines. However, they face enormous difficulties. When they talk about opening up China or its liberalisation they are talking about the economic development of the country and they are determined on that. However, when it comes to the liberalisation of political activities the attitude is different.
It is genuinely believed that, with more than 1 billion people, the country is not sufficiently developed or experienced to carry on an effective system of government. One can understand that. A crucial point will be reached — as we have seen in other countries — because with economic development and liberalisation there inevitably follows a demand for political liberalisation. That always represents the crux for any country that is trying to develop its economy and political institutions.
We could increase what I term the functional representation in Hong Kong at this moment and that would be carrying the territory in the direction that would be followed by the People's Republic of China. Secondly, I understand that there are options contained in the basic constitution, as presently shaped, that concern 25 per cent., 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the Legislative Council seats for election. If those options are already within the proposed Basic Law and are accepted by the People's Republic of China, I do not believe that we would be in conflict with the constitution if we moved on that path between now and when the Basic Law is accepted. If we were certain that the Basic Law would be effected in a year's time all would be well, but, as we know, such matters tend to drag on and on. It may well be 1991 or 1992 before the matter is settled. In that case, the time left before the handover would be even shorter—one could count the years on the fingers of one hand.
If such options were taken up, I do not believe that we would be pursuing a path that would be in conflict with the forthcoming constitution to be agreed between the People's Republic of China and Her Majesty's Government. If I am wrong, no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will correct me in due course. If we are not in conflict, I believe that it is possible to advance. Therefore, there are two options available to us by which we can help to develop representative government in Hong Kong. We would then be able to hand the territory over in 1997 with a system that could continue, without further controversy, for the remaining 50 years to which the People's Republic of China will be committed.
When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the White Paper, which is the importance of today's debate, he should recognise that, from the point of view
986
of governmental experience, it is urgently necessary to develop a system of representative government in Hong Kong. Such a development would not be in conflict with the new constitution.
Therefore, it should be possible for us to advance along such a path without the People's Republic of China claiming that we are in any way infringing the undertakings that we have given. If we follow that path it will not be possible for the people of Hong Kong or any of our other friends to say that we are not carrying out the responsibilities that we have undertaken. If we do not infringe our undertakings or fail our responsibilities, it will be the best position for our Government.
The practical way in which the people of Hong Kong will respond to elections is a matter to be considered. I was not quite certain whether my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was saying that 135,000 people represented a small or large number or whether it meant that people wanted elections or not. I do not mind which way my hon. Friend interprets it, because, when it comes to the point, it is up to the people to decide whether they wish to vote in elections. My own judgment is that the people of Hong Kong—the greater part of the 5 million inhabitants—are mainly concerned with getting on with their own business, which they do extremely well. That does not mean to say that they should not have representative government, especially when we have given such an undertaking.
My hon. Friend and I may agree—probably for the first time, but I hope not for the last—that the people of Hong Kong can carry on doing their own business and continue to be successful. However, progressively, there will be opportunities for those who want to vote in elections and form their own Government. We shall then hand over in 1997 not only a very successful Hong Kong, commercially and industrially, but one which is satisfied with its form of representative government which can then continue for 50 years until further changes come under the People's Republic of China.
4.39 pm
Mr. John Morris: The whole House will have listened closely to the words of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), drawing on his long experience. They were wise words on the need for direct elections and the fact that that would not be incompatible, as he understands it, with the Basic Law so far proposed.
On my last visit to Hong Kong as shadow Attorney-General, in the course of discussions with the legal community I gave an assurance that whenever an issue arose regarding freedom, the law or the constitution, I would be prepared to act as a conduit pipe if they had exhausted all the existing machinery. Over the years there have been occasions when one has had to go to Ministers because of anxieties expressed in Hong Kong.
Let me give one example — the public outcry regarding section 27 of the Public Order Ordinance enacted last March, which makes it a crime to publish false news. If that were a crime in the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary would have to build prisons for editors, sub-editors and the like. That law has caused great anxiety, especially as regards the freedom of the press and free speech.
I understand that there is now a film censorship Bill, for political reasons, mainly the likelihood of seriously

987
damaging good relations with other territories. Freedom and censorship, particularly political censorship, are never compatible — a lesson forgotten perhaps by Her Majesty's Government in their litigious rampage through the courts of the world.
Whenever one goes to Ministers the answer is always the same—this is a matter for Hong Kong. If Hong Kong had a democratically elected Government that would be right, but when one hears of these aberrations which are contrary to our understanding of freedom, we cannot, like Pontius Pilate, wash our hands of what is going on there.
I come immediately to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I believe, from the representations that we have had, that there is more than the beginning of a crisis of confidence in Hong Kong regarding progress on the road to direct elections. Informed opinion in Hong Kong, if we are to judge by the representations that we have had, is that they have been shaken by the timidity of the Government in grasping the nettle on how far and how quickly representative government is to be achieved.
The Foreign Secretary has not carried the matter one iota further. We do not know in what way Her Majesty's Government will encourage speed in moving towards a democratically elected government. Sophisticated Hong Kong, with a long tradition in the business world, perhaps will be unique as the only colony where we have not begun to move towards a democratically elected government when we hand it over. That is an odd reflection on the people of Hong Kong.
Mr. Adley: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman not slightly misunderstood the history of Hong Kong? Is not the real reason why we never introduced any fundamentally democratic institutions in Hong Kong that, whatever the paper reality, the political reality was that no governor of Hong Kong for the last 150 years dared do anything along those lines that would fly in the face of the wishes of whoever happened to be governing China at the time? Is that not the reason why nothing was done?
Mr. Morris: Let us get away from the past. What is important now is the sophistication of business leadership and many other forms of leadership in Hong Kong. There are two great universities, with a third planned. It is unique that we have hardly moved along the road to democratic government. It is the only one of our colonies where we have not done so. The Government may assert on a technicality that there has been no breach of promise in not having direct elections in 1988, but it is only a technical defence and, like most technical defences, it lacks all merit.
Anyone who has read the excellent memorandum prepared by Mr. Martin Lee and his colleagues cannot fail to be impressed by the case that they have presented. Their analysis of the expectation in Hong Kong provides a sound prima facie case for elections now. It was Jim Griffiths, a distinguished Colonial Secretary and a compatriot of mine, who said on more than one occasion that half the battle was to begin. He had long experience of administering our colonies.
The expectation is based on the repeated promises of the Government, culminating in the Prime Minister's own words in December 1984:
"We shall honour our obligations to the full … Long before 1997 we will have steadily and securely moved to increase the amount of representation of local people in the Government of Hong Kong."
988
Earlier, both the Foreign Secretary and the governor had said that representative government would be developed
"in the years immediately ahead".
I emphasise the word "immediately".
As that was promised in 1984, how can there have been no progress by 1988? The sands of time are running out. Hong Kong needs experienced leaders to play their full part in the colony's affairs. Since the term of office of the Legislative Council is three years, it is difficult to see how a representative legislature can be established well before 1997 if a start is not made in 1988 on at least a small number of seats. If this opportunity is missed we shall chearly be in 1991 before a start can be made, and there will be only six years left.
May I ask three questions of the Foreign Secretary? First, are the Government aware of the extent of the anxiety of informed opinion in Hong Kong? Secondly—perhaps the Foreign Secretary will draw back the veil on the White Paper — how do the Government see representative government developing between now and 1997? Thirdly, will the Foreign Secretary endorse the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that there is no tardiness on the part of the Chinese in going along with a start being made in 1988?
China has said that the Basic Law would represent the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. The letter and spirit of the agreement provide that the legislature of the Hong Kong special administrative region shall be constitutionally elected. The first step should be taken now. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is right. It takes years for people to acquire the know-how to work the machinery of government and, indeed, the machinery of this House. Time is running out. If nothing is done by 1991 we shall have lost the advantage of seven years. They will have been seven very lean years indeed in making progress on the matter.
I quote the words of Sir Jack Cater, the chief secretary of Hong Kong until 1981, reported in The Independent this morning. He said:
"Too little is made of the fact that we have so very little time. All that would be achieved by not introducing direct elections now would be to make [1997] that much more difficult. Hong Kong would not be getting the experience which it obviously needs. We should be treated as an adult society. If this is what we want, there has to he an extraordinarily good reason for not giving it to us."
Those are the words of a very experienced administrator in Hong Kong. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us why a start cannot be made in 1988, or must three more years be lost before 1991?
4.50 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I and two of my hon. Friends had the good fortune to be invited by the Hong Kong Government to spend 10 days in the territory in September. We had a most interesting time, met very many people and were looked after most hospitably. At the time, the leading subject was the Green Paper and the survey was being assessed.
I intervened in the Foreign Secretary's speech and both the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) questioned the point that I was trying to make. It is a very simple point: the survey, although producing the views of 135,000 people, did not produce the views of 5·25 million people. From my

989
discussions with very many people, I am certain that there is a substantial body of opinion that says either, "I do not know," or, "I do not care," or simply prefers a system in which elected government plays a very small part. I was delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary responded to my intervention by saying that those who make the most noise on this subject by no means necessarily have the most influence or carry the greatest weight of support in the territory.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Gentleman referred to a survey. There have been several surveys and opinion polls to measure public opinion in Hong Kong on this matter. Recent surveys show that the majority of people favour direct elections. There may be a division of opinion about the timing of elections, but the most popular date for the introduction of direct elections in all the recent surveys is 1988.
Mr. Wiggin: I disagree with that. The survey to which I referred is the public response to the Green Paper, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has read. With all statistics, it is possible to come to whatever conclusion one might choose. Mr. Martin Lee comes to a very different view.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend sets much store by that survey, but will he confirm that the key question about the 1988 direct elections was muddled and has been widely discredited by people who know about surveys? Will he also confirm that the reason why so many people expressed no view is that 40 per cent. of the people asked could not understand the question? Does he agree that, if he were asked that question before or after breakfast, he would not understand it any more than I would?
Mr. Wiggin: I shall not dispute with my hon. Friend what is the best time of day to ask me intellectual questions.
This debate has been raging in the territory and it is natural that it should be reflected in our debate. I do not share my hon. Friend's view on this matter. The vast majority of people are far less interested in voting for their representatives than we might like to think. We have made the mistake in many countries of imagining that the Westminster system, and all that goes with it, transfers easily and that it is for the benefit of the people concerned. I question that, and believe that history would be on my side.
I intend to speak only for a few moments, but there is one point that deeply impressed me during my visit and has not been mentioned in the debate. It concerns the general state of law and order in the territory. It is immensely refreshing to walk the streets of Hong Kong, which are litter-free and well policed. According to the police commissioner, the crime figures are amazingly low—there are 13 street crimes and 30 burglaries a day in a community of 5·5 million people. They are quite exceptional figures.
I asked the police commissioner on what he based this performance and he said that he had, quite simply, twice the number of policemen in Hong Kong per head of population as he did as an assistant commissioner of police in London. The right hon. Member for Gorton suggested
990
that a housing Minister should visit Hong Kong to learn their ways. I hope that the Home Secretary will take a note of that vital point.
While in Beijing, I had the privilege of meeting the Vice-Minister in charge of Hong Kong affairs. The word that is in everybody's mind is confidence. I am convinced that the Government of the People's Republic of China fully understand that fact and, in the action of supporting the futures market, demonstrated their desire to put their money where their mouth is. That was one of the most dramatic exhibitions of their intention to honour their commitments. It is vital that our Government do the same, because confidence is fragile and could so easily be disturbed. I left after a very happy visit with the firm view that we were set on a road to a successful transition and I congratulate Ministers on keeping up that momentum.
4.56 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I wish to associate myself with the tribute to Sir Edward Youde. The few remarks that I wish to make are very much in tune with the typically sane and constructive comments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
I remember the debates in 1984 and 1985 very well. There was no sense of complacency, but there was a feeling that the Government had achieved a very good agreement with the People's Republic of China, given that they had no alternative under international law than to negotiate the best outcome from a position of weakness. The solution of two systems in one country, reserved for half a century, earned for the Foreign Secretary and the present Governor, Sir David Wilson, in particular, justifiable and considerable praise.
On Third Reading of the Hong Kong Bill on 6 February 1985, I regretted that the self-determination route could not have been followed, because that was the genuine democratic response and I had no doubt then—nor do I have any doubt now—that, given that option, the overwhelming majority of the people of Hong Kong would have chosen to follow the example of their mirror city, Singapore.
That would have required an act of unique magnanimity by the People's Republic of China. In any case, the republic came a long way and the agreement was hailed as an ingenious, flexible and enlightened document. However, the way in which the agreement will be implemented depends on the framing of the Basic Law, which lies with Peking. The first draft is due in April, the second draft next year and the final draft in 1990.
The impetus for our debate stems from the confluence of two things. First, it stems from the first draft of the Basic Law. We all know that first drafts are very important. Sometimes they are more important than at other times. Secondly, it stems from the approach of a new term for the Legislative Council which will overlap the final production of the Basic Law.
The view expressed by the Hong Kong Delegation for Democracy, led by Martin Lee — which many hon. Members, including the Foreign Secretary, have seen—is that the new Legislative Council must have a significant directly elected element. The proposal of 25 per cent. is I think prudent, restrained and sensible. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, this is the central issue of the

991
debate. Page 5 of the delegation's position paper quotes an exchange between the Foreign Secretary and myself on 25 October 1984. It states:
"In answer to Mr. Russel Johnston's question whether he had 'encountered any objection from the People's Republic to the development by the United Kingdom over the next 13 years of directly elected institutions in Hong Kong', Sir Geoffrey dovetailed the Green Paper proposals with those made in the draft Agreement by saying:
`The agreement provides for the Legislature of Hong Kong in the future to be on an elective basis and for the Executive to be accountable to that legislature.'."
It is central to the realisation of the concept of one country and two systems that democratic institutions are evolved and, as hon. Members have said, given time to bed down. Therefore, a beginning should be made now. If it is not, the hope and trust that certainly characterised the response to the joint declaration in 1985 will be gravely damaged, and that, in time, will have an economic effect.
The absence so far of specific proposals for a directly elected element for the new legislature is seen by many, rightly or wrongly, as stemming, first, from the Foreign Office—with great respect, I must say that the Foreign Secretary's remarks were opaque; he said quite a lot but we could not see any specific affirmation—and its pressure on the Hong Kong Government, and, secondly, from pressure from the People's Republic on our Government.
That perception exists despite the assurances that we have heard most recently from the Opposition spokesmen, particularly the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who quoted a lady who had obviously had a profound effect upon him and referred to her remarks to the Labour group from the Chinese embassy.
Mr. George Foulkes: No. The lady was from the Chinese embassy, not the Labour group.
Sir Russell Johnston: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I have always thought that some Labour party policies stem from the Chinese embassy.
Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is thinking of Bob Maclennan again.
Sir Russell Johnston: I seldom think of anything else.
Hardly anyone believes that the delay in making proposals for a democratic element is due to the published results of the two Survey Office soundings of public opinion, which have been quoted. I certainly hope that the Foreign Secretary will say more than he did at the beginning of the debate about the wide discrepancy between the private opinion polls on the subject, which showed between 40 and 60 per cent. of people in favour, and the Survey Office results, which showed a range of 11 to 15 per cent. in favour. That is a significant difference, particularly these days when we are supposed to get much more accurate results.
The Survey Office exercise was so clumsy—the point was well made earlier—as to be seriously flawed. As the right hon. Member for Gorton said, annexe 1 of the joint declaration is relevant. It states that, after 1997, the Hong Kong legislature is to be constituted by election. Unless a start is made now, that will not happen.
Do the Government see 25 per cent. as a start or as an end? It is a good question. We all know that there is a
992
proposal that the end should be 25 per cent. directly elected, 25 per cent. taken from financial institutions, and 50 per cent. taken from the so-called grand electoral college, which is chosen we know not exactly how, but we can guess. It is not just that it makes a nonsense of the possibility of the rejection of the chief executive—something that was spoken about at the time—but ill describes a provincial Hong Kong with its independence of action not only circumscribed but neutered.
Many hon. Members have remarked on the failure of successive British Governments to move Hong Kong in a democratic direction. Successive Governments have defended themselves by saying that they wished to avoid provocation. Of course, they were in an exposed position. In practice, the media—the newspapers—have become a democratic surrogate: the release valve for free expression As we move into a more active dialogue with the People's Republic of China, there are some things from which we cannot shrink. We cannot avoid some direct challenges on future safeguards for the kind of open dispute that is now available in Hong Kong—even without democratic: institutions—but which, despite the notable changes that have taken place within China, are still very limited there.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned human rights. I shall make three short quotations from the document on the People's Republic of China that was published last year by our parliamentary human rights group. The first quotation, which appears on page three, makes a point that I have often noticed. It states:
"The contrast with the Soviet Union could hardly be more stark. There, irrespective of the economic and political reforms introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev, Western leaders have used their leverage to insist on human rights concessions. When Secretary Shultz was in Beijing in March 1987 he never met with Chinese dissidents nor said anything publicly about human rights violations. On visiting Moscow in April, he took reporters and television cameramen with him to meet Soviet refusniks …and used the occasion to declare that 'we never give up, we never stop trying' to advance human rights in the Soviet Union."
Some examples of that appear on page 75. It refers to the summary execution of thousands of common criminals, 7,000 to 14,000 persons who were executed without due process of law between 1983 and 1986, the situation in Tibet, and so on. The publication goes on:
"International human rights efforts in fact have intensified on behalf of groups in South Korea and Taiwan seeking greater political liberty. But China's economic accomplishments have sidetracked observers from pressing for political and legal institutions that could better protect China's citizens and strengthen the underpinnings of its economic modernization."
These are sensitive, difficult issues. In raising them, I in no way intend to diminish the significance and worth of what has been accomplished in the Hong Kong agreement. However, we in the United Kingdom, who have made Hong Kong — certainly for reasons which can now clearly be seen to be disreputable — have maintained it and overseen its expansion, which stems from the vigour of its inhabitants who went there of their own choice. We now have a responsibility to do our utmost to fulfil an historic trust.
I described the Hong Kong press as a surrogate democracy. I understand from the right hon. Member for Gorton that what I say now is being broadcast live. It will certainly be reported, but will that be the case after 1997? If the majority of the Legislative Council is democratically elected, I believe that it will be; otherwise, I doubt whether it will be.

993
I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). We are talking about our honour as a country and the effect on it if we fail to discharge a clear moral debt.
Regrettably, the debate has been a short one. There are other issues that I could have developed that demand attention, such as the status of passports and the boat people. I must say to the Foreign Secretary, in all earnestness, that when he said, almost casually in his offbeat fashion, that we could repatriate the boat people with adequate guarantees, a little shiver ran down my spine. It was not nice to hear such an idea in the middle of a debate.
The election is the immediate issue and it is the touchstone of future confidence in the arrangements for Hong Kong. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be rather more positive before the debate is over than he was in opening it.
5.10 pm
Sir Peter Blaker: Like others who have spoken, I favour direct elections. The question is what part of the Legislative Council should be directly elected, and when that should happen.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-superMare (Mr. Wiggin), I do not take it as axiomatic that 100 per cent. of directly elected Members of the Legislative Council, based on the Westminster model, is necessarily right for Hong Kong. A start should be made with 25 per cent. of the Legislative Council being directly elected, to see how that works. It should then move on, the success of that percentage having been demonstrated, to a larger one. Direct elections should start between 1988 and 1991, not at a later date. For part of the Legislative Council, it should be not later than 1991.
I have three points to make in that regard. First, we are still in the lifetime of the first Legislative Council containing indirectly elected Members. Therefore, we have not had a chance to see how the experiment is working. It has certainly transformed debate in Hong Kong. The debate there is more vocal and, on the whole, is well-informed. It is interesting that there is no sign of the people of Hong Kong saying, "The people in the Legislative Council, whether nominated or indirectly elected, lack authority because they are not directly elected by the people." At present it is not losing authority for that reason.
We hear remarks, such as those made by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), that time is running out. That makes the basic assumption that the clock stops in 1997. Why are we assuming that? I know of no reason why we should assume it. We have not seen the draft Basic Law. We do not know whether there will be provision for further evolution in the special administrative region—SAR—of Hong Kong after 1997.
The most important question is, what do the people of Hong Kong want? I attach importance to the report of the Survey Office. It has done a very thorough job, and it was congratulated by the independent monitors on having properly, accurately and impartially conducted its operations. It is wrong to describe its work as a concoction, as has been alleged, implying that it was some sort of rigged arrangement by the Government of Hong Kong. That is a disgraceful allegation to make.
994
It is also said that it was wrong for the Survey Office to attribute different weights to different types of submissions, depending on whether they were letters from individuals, petitions or stereotyped letters. As I read it, the Survey Office report does not do that. It reports what happened and leaves the reader to make his own judgment.
With regard to the different opinion polls, A. G. B. McNair is a well-known polling company of international repute. It was selected on the basis of an open tender. The target population that it took was the adult population of Hong Kong. It operated by random sample, chose a group of 3,000 people to test, and conducted a pilot test in advance. Its methods seem to have been thoroughly professional, and it certainly was not doing what it was told by the Hong Kong Government.
Mr. Foulkes: When I was in Hong Kong last week I spoke to the managing director of A. G. B. McNair, who confirmed that the formulation of the questions that were asked in the survey were based on the wording of the Green Paper and that, given a free hand to ask more direct and simple questions, the questions in the survey were not the ones that would have been asked. She felt constrained by the complicated wording of the Green Paper.
Sir Peter Blaker: That is a very interesting remark. It is news to me that the company was instructed to adopt that wording. If it is correct I accept that, but it does not invalidate my argument. A. G. B. McNair used experienced and trained interviewers and it had —perhaps this is the most important point—3,000 face-to-face interviews.
If one looks at some of the other opinion polls that are referred to in the document that has been circulated by the Delegation for Democracy, the organisation led by Mr. Martin Lee, one finds a lesser degree of professionalism. The colonywide polls were largely conducted by telephone. If one conducts a survey by telephone, one automatically limits the people whom one can reach to telephone owners. Therefore, one is excluding more than half the population of Hong Kong. I can see no reason why non-telephone owners would be more likely than others to want direct elections in 1998. It is wrong to imagine that people who are opposed to direct elections in 1988 are representative only of big business.
Other polls were confined to specific population groups; for example, a group of university students. I can imagine what sort of reply I would receive if I polled a group of university students.
If one looks at appendix 7 to the voluminous report by the Survey Office, one gets a better idea of the nature of the other surveys that have been cited by those who are calling for direct elections in 1988. My reading of the Survey Office report is that there is clearly a majority in favour of direct elections, but not in 1988. I believe that the majority are against direct elections in 1988, but in favour of them at a later date.
What is beyond dispute is that there is a serious and large divide in the population. I should like to repeat the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) asked: why should we imagine that people would be less inclined to obtain passports for Canada, Australia or the United States if they had been promised direct elections in 1988? It is possible that there would be more concern if it were announced that there were to be direct elections in 1988 than there is now. It

995
would not be right to move towards direct elections at the present time, given the clear division among the population of Hong Kong, and given also that we are still in the first legislature that has been elected, even partially, by indirect elections.
Secondly, I want to deal with the accusations that have been made against Her Majesty's Government by the Delegation for Democracy. Somebody must mention these allegations, because Her Majesty's Government have been accused, in plain terms, of breaking their promises. That is a serious accusation. and I asked Mr. Lee how he substantiated that accusation. I asked him to quote the words on which he was relying. He was unable to find any words to that effect. The closest that he could get was to refer to undertakings about the development of representative government. That has happened, and Mr. Lee is an example of the development of representative government.
Mr. Lee referred to a 1984 report which said that a substantial section of opinion was in favour of direct elections in 1988, but he could not point to a promise by Her Majesty's Government that there would be direct elections in 1988. I hope that this accusation will not be repeated. It is unjust. It is unwise for the Delegation for Democracy to make that accusation, because it reduces its credibility. The people who know about these matters know that the accusation is not true.
The accusation generates an atmosphere of acrimony, which is highly undesirable. What is more, it is deeply offensive. 1 was born in Hong Kong. I have followed the events there for decades, and have done so especially closely in recent years. I have followed the statements, and I know that there has been no such statement by Her Majesty's Government. I hope that we have heard the last of that accusation.
Thirdly, what should be the attitude of the Hong Kong people towards China? I understand their nervousness. They did not want to be transferred to the sovereignty of China. China is enormous, and Hong Kong is tiny. China has a Communist system which the people of Hong Kong do not want, but I ask the Hong Kong people to look at the pluses.
There is what is generally agreed to be an excellent joint declaration, which was made in 1984 and gives the Hong Kong people all the freedoms that they could possibly want. That international agreement is registered with the United Nations. It gives the Hong Kong people a guarantee of freedom from Socialism for 50 years after 1997—something that I should be happy to see in this country, where we do not enjoy such a guarantee.
We see that China is carrying out its obligations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to the excellent work of the Sino-British Land Commission, which has been carried out harmoniously. Hong Kong has been independently accepted by various international economic and cultural organisations. Harmonious and constructive work has been carried out by the Joint Liaison Group.
If I had been asked a few years ago whether it was conceivable that there would be a committee drafting the Basic Law of Hong Kong under the aegis of the People's Republic of China, and that virtually half the members of that committee would be from Hong Kong, I should have been astonished, but the Basic Law drafting committee exists. I should have been astonished also at the idea of the
996
Basic Law consultative committee, which consists, I believe, entirely of Hong Kong people and is advising the Basic Law drafting committee.
If I had been told that all the drafting committee's activities would be conducted virtually in public, I should have been amazed. Everyone knows what the committee is talking about. Its discussions are immediately reported in the press. This is one of the most intense, thorough consultations that I have seen in 24 years in politics. It is incredible, and it is conducted under the aegis of the Chinese Government, of whom some hon. Members are so suspicious. That is really what those hon. Members are saying when they call urgently for a move to direct elections this year—that they are suspicious of China.
The attitude adopted by the Delegation for Democracy is mistaken. It is a confrontational posture, which is unwise. I do not think that it will help in the development of true co-operation. Part of the loss of confidence in the future by the people of Hong Kong, which some recent opinion polls say exists, may be due to the activities of the Delegation for Democracy, which is causing fear—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: This is shameful.
Sir Peter Blaker: 1 agree that it is shameful.
Mr. Hughes: No, what my right hon. Friend is saying is shameful.
Sir Peter Blaker: My hon. Friend may have an opportunity to speak later. I hope that he will, and I shall listen with close attention.
The people of Hong Kong face a difficult process of adjustment, but what is the picture from the Chinese side? It is worth while the people of Hong Kong asking themselves that question. China has agreed to the joint declaration. It is an enormous step for China to take to accept the one-country, two-systems concept. Hong Kong will continue to be run by the Hong Kong people in a capitalist manner for 50 years after 1997. China is honouring the agreement. It is continuing to honour the agreement because that is in China's interest. Hong Kong is of immense value to China as it is—a capitalist, thriving, prosperous territory which will bring China great wealth and technology.
Hong Kong is China's open door on the world Therefore, the Chinese are having to make enormous adjustments. They are learning about capitalism. We have seen the assistance that the Bank of China gave a few weeks ago in rescuing the Hong Kong future's market. I remember when Hu Yao Bang was relieved of his post—I think last year. It caused great concern in Hong Kong. China purchased a large share in Cathay Pacific. I do not know whether that was a conicidence, but, if it was not, it was a remarkable step. The negotiation was conducted at great speed and helped to stabilise confidence in Hong Kong. That is in great contrast to 1984, when the Hang Seng index fell dramatically during a difficult phase of the negotiations that we were conducting with China and the Chinese put it down to Britain playing the economic card. Would that one could manage the Hang Seng index as easily as that!
Having learnt a great deal about capitalism, China is learning about representative government—a concept foreign to the Government and people of China. The questions are not simply: what will China do for Hong Kong and what will be the effect of China on Hong Kong?

997
The question is also: what effect will Hong Kong have on China? The question which we should debate is much bigger than the single one of direct elections in 1988 or in 1991. It is a matter of confrontation or co-operation. I opt for co-operation.
5.27 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I was surprised by the speech of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). The House respects his voice on the issue of Hong Kong, but his speech astounded me. I was surprised that he based so much of his case on the Survey Office report. The argument against the report is not that it was rigged. That is a preposterous charge. Clearly, the Hong Kong Government initiated the report in good faith and it would be wrong to accuse them of rigging it. The argument put forward by statisticians and other market researchers against the report is that it was invalid. All the polls to which the right hon. Gentleman referred reached the opposite conclusion. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman based so much of his case on those polls.
I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South attacked the Delegation for Democracy so strongly. I met Mr. Lee only five minutes before the debate. I did not know him before and I do not agree with everything that the Delegation for Democracy says. But why should not that delegation be confrontational? Why should it not fight passionately for its rights? We do not have to agree with all it says, but it is entitled to fight passionately because the livelihood of its members is at stake. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was so indignant about the delegation's case.
There are reasons why we feel that the people of Hong Kong want immediate direct elections. The movement out of Hong Kong is disturbing. Some people are moving out. Some people do not speak out because they do not want to offend the Chinese, and that is quite understandable. If I was there, I would not want to offend China if I thought that China opposed direct elections—although, in fact, I believe that it favours them. So many want direct elections. For all those reasons, I think that the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South was wrong in his analysis.
The great challenge underlying the debate and facing the Governments of China, Britain and Hong Kong, is how to make a reality of Deng Xiaoping's imaginative concept of one nation, two systems. That was an inspired idea and the Chinese deserve all credit for it. The difficulty is that everyone involved has a different history, a different cultural background and a different way of life, so there is a danger that there will be widely differing interpretations and expectations and that misunderstandings will arise. That is what we must avoid.
In this House, we focus mainly on the interests of Hong Kong, and rightly so, because we are still in charge and we shall remain in charge for the next nine years. I do not think that we fully appreciate the pressures that the new concept puts on China. Although China will eventually benefit from Hong Kong's financial and economic strength, it will have to accept in return a system alien to its own. China is accepting—even welcoming—a system that results in the accrual of great wealth to the Hong Kong people and gives them a higher standard of living than China's own people.
998
The Chinese Government deserve great credit for their constructive attitude to Hong Kong in recent years. They have shown that they can appreciate the nature of Hong Kong's prosperity and they are responsive to the Hong Kong people, which is very encouraging for the future. However, inevitably, those in Hong Kong are concerned about what lies ahead. It would be surprising if they were not. There is to be a change in sovereignty and a shift to the concept of one nation, two systems. That will create a major economic and political upheaval.
Before that takes place, many vital issues will have to be settled—not just the issue of direct elections. The selection procedure for the civil service will be a very important issue, as will the balance of power and the balance of the assembly to be elected. We all await the publication of the draft Basic Law with interest, because that will affect all these basic issues.
However, the immediate issue that is being tossed back and forth in the debate is that of direct elections. For better or for worse, direct elections have become symbolic of good will and good intentions. Direct elections pose new questions, because, although Britain has outstanding achievements to its credit in Hong Kong, democracy is not one of them. We have nothing to boast about in that respect because we have done very little. Along with our magnificent and historic achievements in Hong Kong, let us recognise our failure to introduce democracy.
Some press reports create the impression that China is unenthusiastic about direct elections in Hong Kong. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, China has said specifically that it favours direct elections, although the precise form has yet to be decided. It is therefore a question of timing and extent. Some people think that the issue of direct elections gives rise to a conflict between China's requirement of sovereignty and Hong Kong's desire for autonomy based on democracy. If the critics are to be believed, direct elections could threaten the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. I believe that those critics are quite wrong. They have misjudged the situation.
China's right to sovereignty in 1997 is indisputable, but it is generally understood—at least we hope that it is—that the Basic Law will include an element to cover direct elections. If so, we should introduce direct elections immediately, in 1988. That convergent development would not threaten China's position in 1997. As a matter of fact, direct elections this year would greatly benefit China because it would then have democratically elected people who could speak knowledgeably to it about the wishes of Hong Kong's people.
It is to cast no aspersions on those in LegCo to say that democratically elected people would have a more valid voice. In the long term those democratically elected people will be of great value to China.
I hope that China will declare that it does not oppose early direct elections. Nothing is worse than a great nation appearing to drag its feet on an important issue and then reluctantly acquiescing. I do not believe for a moment that China is reluctant. But China would benefit by being specific about its acceptance of early direct elections, and the doubt in people's minds would be removed.
There would be an added benefit, because in making such a declaration China would demonstrate to a wide public, including the people of Taiwan, its belief in genuine democracy and its pride in the electoral developments taking place in China. Hong Kong would clearly benefit

999
because elected representatives would be better able to articulate the views of those who live and work in that remarkably prosperous territory. Hong Kong could then have a constructive dialogue and a harmonious relationship with China.
Some people, whose opinions and experience are greatly respected, advocate a pause to allow Hong Kong to absorb the recent electoral developments. I do not agree. Notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South—a fine speech, but one with which I differ—Hong Kong has no time to pause. There are only nine years left before the transfer of sovereignty and Hong Kong must cope quickly with change. I have no doubt that, because the Hong Kong people are adaptable, they will he able to cope with that change. Direct elections will promote, rather than damage, the stability of Hong Kong. Some very able people recognise that it will be a matter of concern if such elections are not held.
The value of Hong Kong lies in the quality of its active people. They have the money and the passports, and they will literally fly away if they are denied an early democratic voice. An uneasy people is never a stable people. There is nothing to be lost, and everything to be gained, by both Hong Kong and China from having early direct elections.
Of equal, if not more, importance than those people, who are vital to Hong Kong, is the broader-based segment of active young people who will be the future leaders of Hong Kong. The future of Hong Kong lies with them. Their confidence is vital. However, as with a bank or stock exchange, once confidence is shaken or eroded, it can slide away with growing and unstoppable momentum. Lack of confidence could be an avalanche of disaster for Hong Kong.
Therefore, let us have early direct elections. If those young people are given a democratic voice and new hope for the future, they can raise Hong Kong to new heights of prosperity. They can be an asset of incalculable benefit to Hong Kong and to China if the right decisions are made now.
5.41 pm
Mr. Hal Miller: I shall follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on one country, two systems, in a moment, but I cannot allow his attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) to pass. I happened to be present at one of his meetings with Mr. Martin Lee. Orator of silken persuasiveness and practised reason, and successful advocate, that he is, he made the stark accusation that the Hong Kong and British Governments had acted in bad faith and had gone back on their words, and he used the phrase,
"the survey report was a concoction."
One monitor of the report was one of my most esteemed colleagues in the Hong Kong Government, so I had better declare an interest. There is no question that Mr. Li FookKow would be party to a "concoction" of the survey report. I find that a damaging and a bitter accusation. I am grateful for the fact that my right hon. Friend rebutted it so forcefully and conclusively.
I find it a little ungenerous that sources are quoted, such as Mr. Martin Lee or the representative of the embassy of the People's Republic of China, but that little reference seems to have been made in the debate to the advice tendered by the Unofficial Members of the Executive and
1000
Legislative Councils, and especially to the senior Unofficial Member, Miss Lydia Dunn. I should have thought that some attention might be paid to the views which she and they have expressed, because they carry responsibility in a difficult situation.
As I walked to the Commons this morning there was a light precipitation which, at this time of year—the approach to the Chinese new year—is referred to in Hong Kong as Suet Sui. It is a propitious omen and guarantees prosperity in the forthcoming year.
I return to the joint declaration and the cement between the British and the Chinese Governments that consists of the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong—because that is what this is all about. Direct elections are only part of that declaration.
I regarded as rather remiss the remarks of the right hon . Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as I did those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old I3exley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). They seemed determined to impose the smack of firm government on Hong Kong., which they were unable to exercise in this country. I cannot imagine anything that would be more likely to shake confidence in Hong Kong than the British Government suddenly starting to impose solutions there, upon which the people had not been consulted and to which they had not given manifest and majority consent. That has never been the way in which Hong Kong has been administered.
I am not going to take lessons in democracy. I was the returning officer at the first elections that were held in Hong Kong, to the urban council, in 1956. All the talk about direct elections ignores the fact that they have been taking place for some time and have been increased since the 1984 White Paper. That was the gravamen of the charge of my right hon. Friend for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
There have been elections to the district boards, and there has been a greater proportion of elected members on the urban council and regional council in the new territories. Therefore, progress is being made, although perhaps not as rapidly as some of us would naturally be disposed to advocate here. However, please let us remember, while we are still responsible for the administration of Hong Kong—until 1997—that that does not give us carte blanche to impose solutions that are injurious to Hong Kong or foreign to its interests.
However much we may regret that it was not possible to move towards a full democratic and independent Hong Kong, that is no reason for us to indulge in a last-minute flurry to salve our conscience by introducing a semblance of that at the last minute which might prove extremely damaging. Nor should we be tempted to try to establish a kind of outpost of a Western-style democracy to stem the advance of an alien creed—of an alien capitalist system—[Interruption]of an alien Communist system.
Mr. Tony Banks: I liked it the first time.
Mr. Miller: As the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, we must put this issue into the context of one country, two systems. It is still one country, not two countries, which is an important difference.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Why would it be damaging if there were direct elections, when the People's Republic of China has said that it is prepared to see direct elections?
Mr. Miller: We are all committed to direct elections. The argument turns on the timing of those direct elections, which is exactly the point to which I was coming. We are committed to direct elections, and I am glad that early in his speech my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave the assurance that there would be full and faithful implementation by the British Government of the joint declaration. Nobody should accuse him or us of bad faith. However, we must consider the time scale. It is not 1988, 1991 or 1997. As has been said, it is 1997 plus 50 years.
We have talked loosely about direct elections to the legislature, but it is important to remember that nobody has begun to examine the structure of government that is to ensue. Is a full ministerial system expected, with a Government formed from an elected legislature, or is a separation of powers, on the United States' model, between the Executive and the legislature envisaged? Such things need careful definition before we start talking loosely about a directly elected legislature. It is important to understand what system of government is being envisaged.
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has touched on an important point about continuing developments in the 50 years, but Hong Kong understands that the position at the time of handover will be carried on for 50 years under the guarantee of Beijing, which is different. My hon. Friend is arguing that Hong Kong should accept that it should go on developing in the way that it wants during those 50 years, but I do not think that that is justified by the understanding in the agreement.
Mr. Miller: I do not accept that the stage of development reached in 1997 will be frozen in aspic. That presupposes that there will be no development in China, either. The form of government must be thought out before direct elections can be meaningfully held. Although China is committed under the joint declaration to an elected legislature, as far as I know—no one has produced evidence to the contrary so far this evening—there is no document that sets out the Chinese view of the elected legislature.
Mr. Foulkes: Yes, there is.
Mr. Miller: I think I am correct in saying that we do not yet have the first draft of the Basic Law, which will be subject to widespread consultation among the people of Hong Kong—a consultation which, I can well imagine, might exceed that undertaken by the Survey Office. I can see grave difficulties if movement has begun on a directly elected legislature in a direction that is not envisaged in the draft of the Basic Law, which, when it appears, will be subject again to a widespread public consultation exercise, followed by final confirmation and enactment some time in 1990. Those are facts of life, and they must be carefully taken into consideration.
Then there is the comparatively minor matter of getting the sequence of elections as between the district boards, the urban councils and Legislative Council right, but the Basic Law is the thing, and our task this evening is to ram home our commitment to direct elections and to seek to influence the content of the Basic Law. We shall influence its content only if we show a real understanding of the position in China and Hong Kong, reaffirm our commitment to the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong
1002
and do nothing to undermine them by introducing unknown quantities and possibilities—for example, the formation of political parties and an opposition.
We might have been pleased to see those things were Hong Kong to remain independent, but the thought of such formalised opposition being established before the introduction of the SAR in 1997 would be most damaging to confidence and stability, and would do away with the whole reason for Hong Kong. So let us be clear what we mean when we talk so loosely about direct elections, and let us concentrate on their timing.
We must remember the importance of maintaining the authority of the Government of Hong Kong right up to 1997. The issue of stability has been raised only briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), but we must give it, and the enforcement of law and order, serious attention. I make a plea to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in the context of the defence costs agreement with the Hong Kong Government. They are having to assume the considerable burden of strengthening the police force to take over that part of the responsibility for internal security that is currently borne by our troops, who are paid for by the defence costs agreement. The Chinese Government have made it plain in the documents that they are not expecting any contribution from Hong Kong towards defence forces, as opposed to internal security forces. I would ask for more generous consideration to be given to Hong Kong in this regard than has thus far been given.
We want the realisation of one country, two systems—of Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong. There is no doubt of our commitment to that, but I warn that it will have to be a Hong Kong system and that that will take some time to evolve.
I end as I began. We may well feel that the people of Hong Kong are in a difficult position between the dragon and the deep blue sea, but I remind the House that, according to the principles of geomancy, a position between the arms of the dragon and the sea is a most desirable place in which to dwell.
5.57 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) has long experience of the Foreign Office and of the Government in Hong Kong, and we are always interested in what he has to say, although we need to correct some of the tendencies in his remarks in the light of the background against which he speaks. So it is for all of us.
It is now 25 years since I raised the future of Hong Kong in this House on the Easter Adjournment. That was the first debate on Hong Kong since the war. As a newly elected Member, I was surprised to be summoned to the office of the newly elected leader of the Labour party, Lord Wilson as he now is, and still more surprised to find in his office the Lord Privy Seal, in the person of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The Lord Privy Seal told me that the Foreign Office and the governor were worried about debating the future of Hong Kong publicly, and asked me to call off the debate. Lord Wilson asked me what I was planning to say that could have such a remarkable effect.
I explained that the essential continuity in whatever settlement was reached about 1997 depended on a reasonable continuity of economic development across the border between Hong Kong and its hinterland, and that

1003
that would take time to establish. If it grew, there would be a political basis for a settlement that would safeguard the essential future and the interests of the people of Hong Kong. So it has proved. But the sensitivity of the Foreign Office and of Foreign Office Ministers about stability in Hong Kong is not new. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will follow the example of the Lord Privy Seal, who wound up by saying that he did not see anything wrong with my arguing my case, and the debate went ahead.
All hon. Members have placed the greatest emphasis on the need for stability and continuity during the transition. We also need to recognise that China itself is undergoing a remarkable internal transformation, with a pace of change in some places that exceeds even that of Hong Kong. So of course China is highly sensitive about the situation that it will inherit in Hong Kong. Equally, it will be a somewhat different China in 1997 from what it is today. It will be by no means a homogeneous China. Already, the province of Guangdong does not raise taxes at the rates prescribed by Beijing; it negotiates its taxes with the capital. I was told that this year it is paying no taxes at all to Beijing, which seems a satisfactory outcome to its negotiations.
Such skills in the conduct of political life within China are already being learned rapidly in Hong Kong by all sections of opinion. It is against that background that we have been listening to what the people of Hong Kong are saying, and we must reach a judgment about what, in this rapidly developing situation, we should advise from this House.
There is no possibility of maintaining the status quo. The economic and constitutional development of Hong Kong are inextricably linked. Immigration has been referred to as one important indicator of stability, but perhaps an even more dramatic and immediate one is the exchange rate of the currency. For better or for worse, the touchstone of development—in the first place political but closely followed by economic development—has become the issue whether direct elections to the Legislative Council should be held in 1988. Now that that question has been raised and given a high profile, there is no dodging it. It is necessary to get over this step as soon as possible before Hong Kong can go on to the much more difficult stage of producing its own Executive and working out relations between the Executive and the legislature. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove rightly made that point.
When we reflect on this rapidly changing situation, we must ask ourselves whether it is possible to arrive at a pattern of relationship between the Executive and the legislature if the legislature is itself constituted on a pattern that is quickly to be superseded. Will there be a pattern of relationship between the Members of the Legislative Council, the electorate and the Executive that can develop, sustain, advise upon, demonstrate and learn in practice a new system?
Easy comparisons can be made. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove drew attention to the Westminster ministerial pattern and pointed out that is not the only one because there is the United States pattern, the pattern of local government and so on. None of the patterns offers easy, quickly learned or instantly absorbable patterns that would fit naturally into Hong Kong. Hong Kong must have time to learn these very necessary arts of government.
We recently had a good demonstration in Hong Kong of the need to learn following the stock exchange crash. An appeal was made to Beijing for financial support which
1004
was quickly given. An appeal was made to London for people and they were quickly forthcoming to help advise in and resolve a rather difficult situation. Such people will not be forthcoming and cannot be summoned in the same way in 1997. Problems will have to be resolved by the people of Hong Kong and they will have to gain experience and establish traditions at breakneck pace over the nine years from now until 1997.
How does the relationship between the Executive and the legislature develop to the point where it can deal with such sensitive issues as the stability of financial markets and the level of the exchange rate? We know from our own experience that we cannot deal with those things in detachment from the facts of our own economy. They affect wages, employment and public expenditure. When Governments are dealing with the instabilities of the world against a background of the support and confidence of their own people, they are in an incomparably better position to defend their people and to stand up for their interests in debates involving different national interests.
The arguments for going ahead with direct elections this year seem quite overwhelming. What are the reasons that have led to any doubt about that in any part of the House, but perhaps more on the Conservative than on the Opposition side? First, we had the survey of the public response to the Green Paper. Seldom can so competent a Government have made such a shambles of a consultative process, especially a Government that are so expert at sussing out public opinion.
To find out about public reaction to a rise in fares on the Star ferry, questions are asked and the Executive Council get the answer within a week. It is a vastly more thorough process of consultation than could take place in Britain. However, against that background there was a great deal of confusion and an inability to ask simple questions and receive simple answers. I do not myself think that the survey was deliberately confusing. It was an accident.
The People's Republic of China has made it clear that the administration of Hong Kong up to 1997 is a matter for the British Government. However, it has expressed through many channels unease about whether the direct elections—which it accepts—should be held this year. Inevitably, there are tremendous and very proper sensitivities in Hong Kong to the wishes of the People's Republic of China. It is natural that there should be a certain hesitation about going ahead with what is within the Hong Kong context a perfectly obvious and mandatory step. This should not be allowed to become a question of face.
The draft Basic Law will be published in April, and the Hong Kong Government are due to make known in February their judgment about direct elections in 1988. That is early in the year and it would not help for me to suggest to the House, still less to the skilled diplomats concerned, that the specific forms for the proper provisions of the draft Basic Law and the necessity to go ahead with direct elections in 1988 must be reconciled in a way that properly recognises the profound interest that everybody has in the continued peaceful, successful development of Hong Kong.
I am confident that the good will of the House for the future of Hong Kong and a firm expression that Hong Kong, being in charge of its own destiny, has every right

1005
to have those direct elections as soon as possible—and they can be held in 1988—is the right message to go out from the House.
6.8 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: I am fortunate to follow two speakers who both have long and close connections with Hong Kong. I first went there in 1955, I think, and have gone there regularly ever since.
I agree with most of what has been said by hon. members who say that we cannot possibly speak on the issue sensibly and seriously without putting the discussions in the context of history. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) said, to do so is a fundamental mistake which could have lasting and damaging effects on the people of Hong Kong. It is the people of Hong Kong whom we should be thinking about and I utterly reject the proposition that their future welfare depends solely and simply on whether there should be direct elections this year. That is so to simplify and trivialise the situation that it is not worthy of serious discussion.
I take issue on one matter raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). He spoke about the ability of people to assess public opinion in Hong Kong about the Star ferry fares and assumed that one could use the same process to deal with the complex situation surrounding whether, and when, there should be direct elections, to which body, by whom, at what time and with or without parties. That is about as fair a comparison as the one with which I concerned myself recently, when I heard about a public opinion test of people visiting a museum that had been subjected to museum charges. They were asked, "Do you accept these charges or would you rather go into the museum free?" It is not very difficult to assess the answer that is likely to be given to that question.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that direct elections have been made the issue. They have been made the issue by the media and by people who have an interest in spreading unease in Hong Kong. They have been made the issue by people who have their own purpose and private interests in promoting that proposition. However, I reject the proposition that it is the only question of interest to the people of Hong Kong. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is not in the Chamber. I intervened in his speech. For him to start making comparisons in 1988 with what we were able to do or what happened in Singapore or Kenya or Timbuctoo is wholly farcical. Anyone who is aware of the history of Hong Kong would accept that.
I am also sorry that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, criticised so severely the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), who was born in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, in many instances for media-driven reasons, we are increasingly being presented with confrontation. It is as though the people of Hong Kong were being forced to make choices this week to determine their future for the next 50 or 60 years. Along with my right hon. Friend, I earnestly believe that the choice that really faces them is between confrontation a la Martin Lee and his friends, and cooperation under changing circumstances and with the
1006
Government of the People's Republic of China—with whom they will have to work, and under whose sovereignty they will have to live.
I well remember the speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) during the debate to which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred. Let me quote briefly from his wise words:
"The skill of our diplomatists, combined with the underlying good will of the Beijing Government, has transformed the atmosphere and offered the people of Hong Kong a far more promising future than most people expected when this act of the drama opened in the summer of 1982." —[Official Report, 21 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 742.]
Mr. Foulkes: Perhaps the hon. Member will recall his own speech on 5 December 1984, when he said:
"Those who hold power in Hong Kong now like it, and want to hold on to it. They have not been elected to it and have an obvious incentive to resist change." —[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 434.]
Can he tell us why he has changed his view since then, and where the inspiration has come from?
Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman has come to these affairs comparatively recently. He will know, however, that I have not always been the greatest friend of the Hong Kong Government. As I was about to say, I think that the establishment in Hong Kong has had a great deal to answer for over the past few years, and in the recent past the Hong Kong Government have certainly drawn considerable criticism from me.
Without divulging too many secrets which might cause embarrassment, I can say that there were occasions when I had to invoke the assistance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to deal with some of the dirty tricks practised on me by that Government some years ago, when they deduced that I was a critic of theirs. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make that point.
Let me return to putting the matter into its historical context. It was not a matter of free and easy choice that we had to make new arrangements for the sovereignty of Hong Kong; it was due to the impending end of the lease on the new territories. It is very dangerous to allow ourselves in the House—or, indeed, for the people of Hong Kong to allow themselves—to forget that we were faced with circumstances that seemed to leave us in a straitjacket. As has been said on many occasions, few of us in those days could have imagined that such an excellent arrangement could be made to secure the future prosperity and stability of the people of Hong Kong.
Either we accept the good will of the British and Chinese Governments to ensure that the agreement is carried out or, if we do not, we should say so. If people believe that there was and is a better deal on offer, critics of the present system should speak up, but I do not believe that a better deal could ever have been envisaged. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove that it is grossly insulting to suggest that the British Government are failing to do their best to carry out their obligations under the agreement.
We all know that the Government of the People's Republic are not opposed in principle to direct elections. I presume that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—I am sure that he will tell me if I am misreading his attempts to paint me a different colour—was trying to imply that I was wearing

1007
my hat as chairman of the British-Chinese parliamentary group, and acting as a spokesman for the People's Republic. That charge has been thrown at me on more than one occasion, and I do not think that it is even necessary to rebut it.
We are all concerned to retain the stability and prosperity that Hong Kong has enjoyed for a long time. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove did not put it quite so bluntly, that stability and prosperity are based firmly and simply on autocracy, not on democracy. We owe it to the people of Hong Kong to ensure that, before we chuck out the baby with the bath water, we know clearly what we are putting in its place. Overt and covert pressure has always been brought to bear on Hong Kong by the Chinese Government, not just since 1949. The history books show that much of what was said in 1911 about the British in Hong Kong was far more vigorous and unhelpful than anything said by Beijing since 1949.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South invited the House briefly to consider the position from the point of view of the Chinese Government. Sensible people in Hong Kong know that they must learn to live with China. That is a fact of life, and there is no point in trying to avoid it. Either they must accept the good will of the Chinese Government, or they must believe that that Government are deliberately trying to string them, the House and the British Government along until 1997, when they will suddenly impose some new system. I consider that mischievous, and utterly nonsensical. If, however, we suppose it to be true, what difference would it make which institutions we put in place now? Surely we should advise the people of Hong Kong that co-operation, not confrontation, is essential.
Like most hon. Members, I have received a great deal of paper, and I shall not weary the House with numerous quotations. I am bound to say, however, that it is not only Mr. Martin Lee and his friends who are stirring up mischief. I received a communication from the Hong Kong Social Workers General Union, stating:
"The people of Hong Kong would not tolerate the decision to postpone the introduction of direct elections by 3 years and it would be folly to assume that they would accept such a decision mildly".
That sounds almost like an attempt to generate insurrection, and—at the very least—suspiciously like a threat. I do not think that such wild statements are doing any good to the people of Hong Kong as they struggle, understandably, towards a new future.
If I have any contact with the Chinese Government—which, of course, I have—I may be able to give the House the benefit of some wisdom and understanding. Unfortunately for me, however, that has already been done by the right hon. Member for Gorton, and, indeed, by the Foreign Secretary. They have both said what we know to be true: that the Chinese Government are not opposed to the principle of direct elections. All that we are talking about is timing: the timing of the introduction of direct elections, in relation to the progress of the joint liaison group and the development of the Basic Law.
It seems to me rather unwise to try to rush headlong into direct elections for an assembly none of whose constitutional arrangements have even been discussed, let alone put in place, before that Basic Law is complete. I believe that that would be the view of the Chinese Government. I may be wrong—it may be a changeable position. However, it would seem sensible to put the Basic
1008
Law in place first in 1990, and then have the first direct elections. Doing otherwise, and pushing through direct elections for their own sake, would be a recipe for instability. If that were done in the face of opposition from the Government of the People's Republic—I do not know whether they are opposed—it would be flying in the face of sanity and disregarding respect for the sovereignty of the People's Republic, which could not be in the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
I am worried that some people in Hong Kong are allowing themselves to be misled by ambitious local politicians and trouble makers who want to generate unrest and who clearly do not trust the Chinese or British Governments. Perhaps most dangerous of all, some people are allowing themselves to be misled by well - meaning do-gooders.
The reputation of the Chinese Government depends on their ability to maintain the stability of Hong Kong. I should have thought that that was self-evident to everyone. The message to the people of Hong Kong must be that they should not allow themselves to be misled by siren voices.
The stock exchange scandal has been mentioned. I shall mention it only to illustrate a point. The British and Chinese Governments are clearly committed to maintaining stability. If stability is upset, however, it will not be upset in London or Beijing—it is likely to be upset only by what goes on in Hong Kong.
I told the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that I have not always been the most ardent admirer of the Hong Kong Government. In the person of Sir David Wilson, however, Hong Kong has the finest possible Governor to see it through the next few turbulent years. It would be hard to imagine a more wise or better friend. Hong Kong's gain is our loss and the Government's loss in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is a good man. He will do his best to ensure that the people of Hong Kong are led steadily forward during the next few years.
We all want to do our best for the people of Hong Kong, but it should be steady as she goes. Working constructively with the British and Chinese Governments is far more likely to achieve that than listening to those who appear to have instant solutions to every problem.
6.22 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am glad, at long last, to have an opportunity to intervene somewhat briefly in this very important debate.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) will not be too surprised to find that I endorse utterly every word that he said, as I endorsed the contributions of his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller). That is not too surprising in view of the fact that the four of us have always taken a considerable interest in the affairs both of China and of Hong Kong, and, if I may say so with my usual arrogance, we probably know more about it than the great mass of Members in the House of Commons.
The emphasis in the debate today seems to me to have: been primarily on the need for direct elections to the Legislative Council sooner rather than later. It seems to me that the pressures for direct elections in 1988 come from two quarters: first, from the media and from other groups in Hong Kong, some expatriate, whose support for

1009
the Sino-British agreement was always somewhat suspect and who really did not—and do not—want the agreement to work out properly.
Newsmen have been perhaps the most malign in this regard, but there are undoubtedly other factions in Hong Kong itself who were unhappy—always unhappy —about the inevitability of China reclaiming its own after 1997. They are usually the well-heeled and, under the admirable capitalist system of Hong Kong, they have not done too badly. They can afford the luxury of a funkhole somewhere else and they have, of course, the requisite passports and tickets ready to hand. If the future turns difficult for them, they can up and go. Their commitment to making the agreement work is somewhat less than wholehearted.
Then there are those in the West, public opinion formers and parliamentarians in particular—we have them here tonight—whose traditions endorse and whose purpose depends on the cross in the ballot box. They disregard or perhaps conveniently forget that in all the years of colonial government, in spite of our commitment to the electoral ballot, we were diligent in denying it to our subjects in Hong Kong. Now the parliamentary majority are loud in their demand for direct elections now, this year.
Most of us forget, too—we are not well enough versed in knowledge of the history of other peoples, one of the unhappy developments of the abandonment of empire—that China and Chinese people everywhere have totally different cultural and social traditions from ours. The concept of democracy is at variance with their political thought over the many centuries of Chinese life. China, both Confucian and Communist, has shown a long respect for authority and social order—not perhaps ideas that we in the individualist West are too committed to or have too much respect for.
I accept the arguments of those of our Hong Kong friends—some of us have a number of friends in Hong Kong—who say there is no need to rush into elections, that gradualism and convergence will work out best for the true interests of the great mass of the Hong Kong populace who do not have a ticket and a passport to get out.
It is quite clear that public opinion in Hong Kong is very sharply divided on the speed of introduction of direct elections and I am sure that the "direct elections this year" factions are largely the westernised people who have very much fallen under the influence of European attitudes. I believe that those who want to hasten slowly are the great bulk of the populace in Hong Kong who still feel the ancient attachment to China and to Chinese values. That is as, I believe, it should be.
The first draft of the Basic Law is to appear, I gather, in April this year. I suspect it would be advantageous to all the parties, if the Chinese were to accept a move to some proportion of direct elections to LegCo.
Dr. Bray: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to do an injustice to the people of China. He must be aware that the people of China have gone through a tremendous trauma recently and that it was that trauma which led most of the population of Hong Kong to go where they went. It is against that background of recent history that the matter is being resolved in Hong Kong and China. I think that my hon. Friend is showing remarkable insensitivity to that fact.
Mr. Faulds: No. I am moderately aware of that, but I think that the longer lesson of history is that, whether we like it or not, and whether the people of Hong Kong like it or not, they will be subsumed by China, and the more gracefully that happens, the happier their lot will be.
I hope that the Chinese will agree to something like a 25 per cent. proportion of direct elections. It would not be a bad figure to settle on. The British Government, as we know, are committed to an element of direct elections, but they did not spell it out in a timetable. I personally consider that it would be wiser to wait for that development till 1991 when the Basic Law, which, after all, is going to be the basic fact of Hong Kong's life and future, has been promulgated.
A proposal of a 25 per cent. introduction of direct elections in 1991 would still give some years of practice of democratic conduct of Hong Kong affairs. I should be very concened indeed for the prospects for the agreement and for our relations with China if there were to be too precipitate a move to a much larger proportion of direct elections.
A Government who have the responsibility in 1997 to take over Hong Kong have a legitimate interest in how things evolve politically—a point made by one of our Hong Kong friends. This is where convergence of developments with the Basic Law is so crucial, indeed critical, to the future of Hong Kong. Nothing could be worse for the future, both politically and economically, than for the introduction of changes before 1997 which the then Chinese Government might have to unscramble—and, of course, they would have to suffer the opprobrium of the international community if that were to happen.
Finally, there is another risk factor in rushing into direct elections. Party politics is all very well in our old democracies, regardless of the damage the swing of the pendulum often does to the real interest of the people concerned. But if direct elections were to lead to party politics in Hong Kong, the damage would be immense. There would be really only two parties involved—in our sense of party politics — and they would be the Communists and the Knomintang. Imagine what turmoil of instability that would lead to.
I believe that by far the most sensible course for us to urge in Hong Kong is to trust the Chinese Government's integrity in their intentions. They have listened to Hong Kong opinion. They were not at first really prepared to do so, but they have done so. They have taken part in very constructive consultations, and they continue to do so. They want a stable and successful Hong Kong for their own national reasons—the continuation of China's reconstruction and her economic progress and, of course, the reclaiming of Taiwan.
We should always remember that China, under a variety of governmental systems, has historically observed its obligations. I believe that all will be well—I am by nature an optimist, but I think that we have good reason in this case—and that unwise pressures from this House or this Government could do nothing but harm to Hong Kong's stability and success, and that is what we must be most concerned about.
6.30 pm
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I begin by strongly supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in his eloquent plea for

1011
further urgent action to remedy the problem of Indo-Chinese refugees in Hong Kong. This country has a proud record with regard to the number of Indo-Chinese refugees that it has accepted through Hong Kong and with regard to our efforts in orchestrating their resettlement elsewhere.
As I rehearsed to the House in the Christmas Adjournment debate, the position is becoming markedly worse. The number of refugees arriving for resettlement is increasing and the number accepted for resettlement elsewhere is declining. Since we debated the matter in the Christmas Adjournment debate, the position has become even worse. The number of arrivals in December was 278 and the figures for October, November and December were the highest since 1982. The number of people who have already arrived this month is 164, and that is already the highest January figure since 1983.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will be able to tell us that he has made significant progress in the process of persuading other countries to accept more refugees for resettlement so that this difficult problem may be solved quickly. My right hon. and learned Friend would find that he would have broad support on both sides of the House if this country was to act as a catalyst and offer to take more refugees for settlement than we took in the middle of last year.
I agree broadly with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller). The views of the people of Hong Kong on direct elections have been canvassed systematically and objectively. It is obviously too early to detect a consensus. Many people did not respond and of those who did, although the majority were in favour, opinion was divided about the type.
It is not surprising that there is no consensus. In this country, democratic institutions have grown up over hundreds of years, but we still try to change and improve their character and workings. Hong Kong has only recently introduced indirect elections and is considering the development of democratic institutions simultaneously with a change in sovereignty to its neighbour, which is not a democratic country in the sense that we use the term.
The motion refers to "stability" and "prosperity". They are both inextricably interlinked in Hong Kong. More than half of those living in Hong Kong previously lived in China. Their perceptions of stability obviously differ from ours. None the less, however they look at it and however we look at it, in an uncertain world the future viability of Hong Kong depends on its stability and on people's perception of its stability. In other words, it depends on confidence.
I believe that a consensus for direct elections will certainly emerge, but people will probably not want to be rushed. It is envisaged that Hong Kong should enjoy a high degree of autonomy after 1997. It follows that there should be as many years as reasonably possible of direct elections and whatever accompanying arrangements emerge for relationships beween the legislature and the Executive. It is equally desirable that the system in place should last beyond 1997. If the draft Basic Law that is expected to emerge in the spring shows a need for further consultation, that should take place before a system is installed.
It is important that the House should be clear about the position of the People's Republic of China. We should not
1012
be misled by vague optimism. I want to quote Mr. Li Hou, the deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macao office of the State Council. In the overseas People's Daily on 24 June 1987 he said:
"Concerning the question of whether or not there should be direct elections in 1988, starting from the point of view of convergence between the Basic Law and current reform of the political system in Hong Kong, … until the Basic Law had been formally approved, the Hong Kong political system should not undergo any great change. If direct elections were hastily introduced in 1988, then a situation of non-convergence with the Basic Law would occur … In the past I have thought and now still think that the future political system in Hong Kong should be stipulated by the Basic Law: the political reform being carried out now in Hong Kong should converge with the Basic Law. Until the Basic Law has been formally approved, there should be no change in the political system in Hong Kong. We do not wish to interfere in the administration of Hong Kong by Britain before 199'7, but if the measures being adopted now will have an influence after 1997, or will influence the smooth transition, then we cannot but express our ideas."
We should not be in any doubt about the view of the Government of the People's Republic of China. I believe that there is a strong case for allowing the present arrangements a little time to settle, for experience of democracy to develop, for parties to form and for a confluence of view within Hong Kong with the People's Republic of China about the way in which the way ahead should develop in line with the wishes of the people of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong has a unique record in the world in terms of economic and social achievement. One of the reasons for that is that it enjoys a political consensus—seldom upset—based on pragmatism. It is vital that that is not jeopardised and that the political achievements of the past few years are built on at a measured speed with which consensus can keep pace. There can be no absolute certainty in such matters. It is certain that the People's Republic of China wishes to respect Hong Kong public opinion and that the mutuality of interest of the Hong Kong people and their neighbours must be given a chance to assert itself through institutions with which everybody is at ease and at a pace which can reasonably be achieved.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to the principle of unripe time and he attributed it to the late Hugh Dalton. I think that Hugh Dalton got it from a book by F. P. Cornford written in the 1920s, called "Microcosmographica Academica", which was about university politics. The principle of unripe time is that one can put off indefinitely anything that really ought to be done by saying that the time is unripe and that it would be better to put it off for a little. But it is never done. That does not apply to Hong Kong.
Cornford linked that principle with the practice c f squaring. Squaring was a process carried out in King's parade. It was done by taking those concerned by the elbow, somewhere between the front entrance of King's and The Copper Kettle, and persuading them to accept one's point of view. There was nothing discreditable about that. In all matters where consensus has to be achieved, a period of time for squaring must be allowed.
Hong Kong's only natural resources are her people, and the genius that they have shown. We must be careful not to do anything to prejudice the stability that has allowed such genius to flower. I have every confidence that if things continue at a measured pace, Hong Kong will continue to flower long into the next century.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted to speak in the debate. It is absolutely selfish for hon. Members, who know of the pressure on time, to make very long speeches, thus shutting out other hon. Members who wish to make points.
I wished to make a short, sharp point about the trade in endangered species in Hong Kong. Tigers and leopards are eaten in Hong Kong restaurants. That is a form of gastronomic perversion. We have had to listen to many speeches—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House have not been able to speak so far. The hon. Gentleman cannot make his speech under the guise of a point of order. Perhaps I should tell the House that this debate will be interrupted at 7 o'clock for private business. If the private business were to end before 10 o'clock, it would be possible for the House, if it so wished, to return to this motion until 10 o'clock.
6.42 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: The interest and eloquence shown today and the queue of speakers waiting to participate in the debate justify the Opposition's request for a debate on the report, and confirms once again the House's great interest in Hong Kong. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take account of the views expressed in the House and ensure that they are taken into account in the drafting of the White Paper to be published on 10 February.
Before coming to the central issue of the timing of direct elections, I wish to mention the Vietnamese refugees—the boat people. The annual report confirms a dramatic increase in their number—a 65 per cent. increase in 1987. The numbers leaving for settlement are declining. By the end of 1987, the number was 9,530. When I was in Hong Kong, I visited Tuen Mun, one of the closed camps. While I was there, another 120 people arrived. I met members of the Legislative Council who argued unanimously and strongly that they are querying the position of Hong Kong as a place of first refuge.
Already, a number of camps are full to capacity, and overflowing. The closed camps resemble prisons —indeed, one of them was built as a prison. While the Hong Kong Government are doing all they can with great humanity, I heard moving appeals from inmates —including women and children—who were anxious that the British Government should take some action to help them. The conditions in the camps are unacceptable and intolerable.
The British Government have reduced the numbers being accepted. We have taken 468 people in two years. That is not the 40 people a month that used to be accepted, and the conditions of acceptance are restricted to those with family links. We have a moral responsibility to give a lead, and I hope that the Secretary of State will make a positive reply.
As for the central issue, I shall concentrate on one of the principles included in the joint declaration, which must be a bible on these issues. The Secretary of State and the Government must ensure that it is taken account of in the drafting of the Basic Law and other matters. One of the agreed processes is that of convergence. The actions of the
1014
British and Hong Kong Governments up to 1997 should, as far as possible, fit the plans of the People's Republic of China from 1997 onwards, and vice versa, so that there is no disjunction or disruption between 30 June and 1 July 1997.
As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, there is no conflict between what the right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members have proposed and what has been proposed by the People's Republic of China. The right hon. Gentleman knows well the People's Republic of China and its Government. He is well respected by that Government—probably more than by ours. The Foreign Secretary and all hon. Members who have spoken have accepted the principle of direct elections. They accept that the People's Republic of China is not opposed to direct elections in principle, although the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) queried the Basic Law draft.
A substantial collection of draft articles has already been compiled by the secretariat of the drafting committee for the Basic Law published in December last year. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to the three options in which the minimum proportion to be directly elected is 25 per cent. There seems to be no dispute that a percentage of the Legislative Council should be directly elected. The only question is about timing. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) that the Opposition have no wish for any confrontation with China, but we sincerely believe that the Government of the People's Republic of China would understand and respect a stand on principle by our Government on that issue.
The views of the people of Hong Kong must be taken into account. So many hon. Members have said that those views are not paramount—as the Government might argue in the case of another dependent territory, but I shall leave that aside—but they must certainly be given a great deal of priority. As several hon. Members have said, the report of the Survey Office on the White Paper is open to serious question. The whole process, from the Green Paper onwards, is in clouded and obscure language, as the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said in an intervention.
In the McNair survey, between 40 and 45 per cent. could not understand the questions because they were so obscure. I am not suggesting that it was rigged. It was sincere and honest, but severely flawed. In fact, it is the only poll which shows low support for direct elections in 1988. Successive polls, before and since that survey, have shown increasing support for direct elections. The most recent poll carried out by Marketing Decision Research showed that 78 per cent. were in favour of direct elections. That was broken down to 53 per cent. in favour of direct elections in 1988 and confirmed the trend in other polls.
Last week, I spoke to regional and urban councillors, community organisations and trade unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) will be interested to know that the only people I found on the other side of the argument were big business men, who are not often in favour of direct elections anywhere.
Some people argue that the people of Hong Kong are not ready for direct elections. I find that not only patronising, but, from my recent experience, completely untrue. The experience of election to urban and regional councils and now to district boards has already provided an excellent training ground, just as local government

1015
elections in the United Kingdom are a good training ground for prospective parliamentarians. When there are elections to the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, I do not believe that political divisions will be polarised in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East.
Another worry has been expressed about the effect that elections may have on confidence—the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggins) mentioned that. Such a fear is sometimes expressed by people who have shown their faith with direct elections in other countries by taking out dual nationality or refocusing their investments in those countries. However, the converse and more valid, powerful argument is the effect on confidence if the British Government are perceived as abdicating their responsibilities or if it is believed that a promise that was perceived has not been fulfilled.
I reaffirm the advantages of early elections, which I believe will give people the experience of participation in elections for the next nine years. They also provide an opportunity for consultation with directly elected people—people with a mandate. I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that there has been strength of feeling expressed from all parts of the House—Liberal, Conservative and Labour Members—in favour of direct elections in 1988. Even those who did not argue for direct elections in 1988 agreed that a timetable for their introduction must be included in the White Paper. That view was unanimous.
I hope that any statement that is included in the White Paper will be clear and unequivocal so that it does not engender the kind of confusion in the mind that caused the unfortunate division of opinion between the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South and the visiting Delegation for Democracy.
In conclusion—I wish to give the Foreign Secretary time to reply to the points made in the debate—one of the essentials of one country, two systems is the existence of a pluralist democracy in the special administrative region. The overwhelming message to be carried from this debate is that we want that sooner rather than later.
6.52 pm
Sir Geoffrey Howe: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
I should like to begin by saying that the debate that we have had today confirms the intensity of interest of Members on both sides of the House in the future of Hong Kong. This deep concern has been expressed by hon. Members with many different points of view.
In the context of this debate a number of what I would term "subsidiary issues" have been raised and I shall be able to deal with them only quickly.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who represents my old home town with great distinction, raised the question of human rights, with particular reference to press freedom and censorship. The joint declaration is explicit on the importance of that, and recent changes in the law represented the repeal of many previously rigorous censorship laws. The matter still remains under review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) asked about defence costs arrangements and he will be aware that that matter is also under review.
Apart from the central issue, the issue that aroused most concern was that of the Vietnamese refugees. My
1016
right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made a strong argument on the matter, and he was eloquently supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad). I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for his tribute to my concern about this matter. None of us in the House who have any familiarity with the topic can be other than deeply concerned about it.
Our record in dealing with Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong is not as bad as all that—we have taken some 13,000 altogether. However, my right hon. Friend is right to urge us to try to do more, not only in respect of our country, but in making attempts in other directions. This is a sustained campaign to which we will remain committed, but it is not easy.
In this context, it is also right to discuss—as we are doing with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—the possible return of some of these people to Vietnam. A number of refugees are now coming from North Vietnam. The return of such people will, of course, take place only under circumstances and conditions that are likely to be acceptable.
The central question in the debate has been the place of direct elections in the future of Hong Kong. The debate has narrowed itself down to the acceptance of the proposition that the principle of direct elections is acceptable to all sides. Indeed, it is contained in the pronouncement of the People's Republic of China and the joint declaration. There is room for argument about how many and in what respect, but the key question has become when we move beyond where we have already moved in that direction. It is important to note that on that key question different views on both sides of the argument have been expressed strongly from both sides of the House. This has not been a party matter and there has been no clear-cut division. Both views have been strongly and rationally supported.
There has been reference to, or, to be more explicit, charges of, bad faith and broken promises. Those charges were dealt with most notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). I am grateful to him for his repudiation of those charges. Quite apart from my position and that of the Government, it would be wholly unjustified to leave such charges on the record in face of the devoted work that has been done to secure and implement the joint declaration by many people in Hong Kong outside our Civil Service and diplomatic service. Those people are entitled to have such charges repudiated.
I acknowledge the wisdom of the point made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who said that there was no question of falsehood or concoction about the survey. It is important that that untruth should be laid without doubt on both sides of the House. There is no question of falsehood in that survey. It was undertaken honestly, and the questions were not dictated by anyone to anyone. The questions were based upon the Green Paper—perhaps not the easiest way of doing it—and it was all done in good faith. There was no constraint on that survey.
Let us consider the conclusions that many people have drawn from that analysis. It is believed that there subsists in Hong Kong—not resting on any one survey—serious and big divide in the population's views. Nobody on either side of the debate has said that there is a clear

1017
conclusion emerging in favour of direct elections in 1988. That is the key thing. If one looks beyond the surveys and takes account of the debates in the various councils and boards in Hong Kong, it is clear, as expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South, that there is a clear division of opinion—
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Forgive me, but I have no time to give way.
One comes back to the question of the pace at which we manage this process of change. Two factors have been commended by both sides of the House: a need to take account of the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and the responsibility of the People's Republic of China beyond 1997, and the need to take account of the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong and also the style of government thus far in the territory. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) drew attention to the particular features of Hong Kong—the surrogate democracy and the liveliness of democracy. This again suggests that the territory calls for a different conclusion from the conventional one.
The point that we come back to was made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in his opening speech, when he said that, in the process of analysis before a conclusion is reached, it is clearly not in the interests of the people of Hong Kong for decisions to be taken that are not, in the broad sense, in line with the destination commended by the People's Republic of China.
The same point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, when he said that it
1018
would be wise not to take action in conflict with the new constitution. Such factors must be balanced against each other and account must be taken of the particular features of the Hong Kong people, society and institutions.
I am able to say no more than that the position commended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South was I gather, well supported by the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). Unfortunately, I did not hear those speeches. However, I did hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, who also endorsed what my right hon. Friend had said.
We agree upon the proposition that in due course we need an element of direct elections—a modest proportion, but certainly not going all the way. Thus far there is agreement on both sides of the House. The question is one of timing, as was emphasised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). On that there is a difference of views among the contributors to the debate. Even then the Opposition Front Bench and this side of the House come together. We need to secure a timetable for progress, expressed in clear and unequivocal terms. That is the message that I derived from the debate more clearly than anything else.
There can be no cast-iron guarantees about the future of Hong Kong, but that is true of any country or territory. I believe that Hong Kong is well equipped to face the future and—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

British Railways (London) Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7 pm
Mr. Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the Bill, not only because I am a London Member, but, principally, because I believe it to be a very good measure. It is, after all, about improving and expanding London's transport infrastructure. Unlike the usual general powers Bills brought before the House from time to time on behalf of British Railways Board, this Bill is for the express purpose of authorising new works and improving rail services in London and the south-east.
Hon. Members will be aware that central London commuting on British Rail has increased by no less than 19 per cent. over the last four years. Off-peak travel has increased by almost one third, thanks to the Capitalcard initiative and other discounts. I also remind the House that the pattern of travel is changing significantly throughout the metropolis. Many more journeys are made around the circumference of our great capital city, particularly by road. The M25 London orbital motorway stands testimony to that.
British Rail is rising to the changes and challenges. It is making ingenious use of an abandoned railway section in the City between Farringdon and Blackfriars to link the north and the south of the Thames. From May, the Thameslink service will run from Bedford, Luton and St. Albans—I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) in his place—to the south of London and on to Sevenoaks, Gatwick airport and Brighton. That will bring many benefits and great convenience to passengers who at present have to change trains, sometimes several times, to complete those journeys.
In central London, the trains will also serve King's Cross, Farringdon and Blackfriars while the Gatwick and Brighton trains will also serve London bridge. However, the trains will not be able to serve Holborn viaduct because it is at the end of a short spur line.
There are essentially three parts of the Bill, in the sense of the works to be undertaken. Work no. 1 is to relocate Holborn viaduct station below ground on the new through route. That involves the realignment of the railway line north of Blackfriars. It is intended that the realigned route will run slightly to the east of the present line and, perhaps more important, will descend to run in a shallow tunnel under Ludgate hill.
The other points to note about the proposal are that passengers will approach the new station through the present entrance to Holborn viaduct station, as the new station will be very near the existing station, or use new entrances on Farringdon road or off Ludgate hill. The station will be fully accessible for disabled passengers. I applaud British Rail's initiative in making that a central concern and strategy of the detailed design plans.
Above the line, shop units are planned to cater for the needs of travellers. That major investment is made feasible by releasing the old Holborn viaduct station for redevelopment. All that will be beneficial for travellers and commuters, for taxpayers, for the City as a great financial
1020
centre of the world and for the regeneration of that part of the heart of London. The new station will he named St. Paul's.
Work no. 1 also involves demolishing most of the viaduct between Blackfriars and Holborn viaduct and the removal of the bridge over Ludgate hill, thus restoring the great prospect of St. Paul's cathedral. Environmentalists everywhere will see that as a great boon. I do not intend to wax lyrical about it; I only say that, as someone who qualified as an architect, I have one other thing in common with Sir Christopher Wren, the designer of that splendid, ecclesiastical pile; he, too, was a Member of Parliament. It was realised that there might be a personality clash and it was eventually agreed between our agents that Sir Christopher would promise to make no more political speeches if I promised to design no more buildings. The arrangement has stood the test of time.
British Rail applied to the Corporation of London last September for outline planning approval. At the same time, it entered into extensive local public consultations. I understand that the planning committee will consider the application shortly. Having examined the detailed plans, and speaking as a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, I commend the planning application to the Committee.
The other works proposed in the Bill—
Mr. Michael Fallon: Before my hon. Friend leaves work no. I, will he elucidate further the financial implications of the development at Holborn viaduct? Unlike a public Bill, the measure that he is commending to the House has no financial memorandum I think that I understood him to say that some or perhaps all of the costs of the development would be recouped from the sale of the station and the land immediately surrounding it. Can he tell us whether the whole expenditure will be recouped or whether British Rail is financing any of the development from its other normal capital or current expenditure?
Mr. Chapman: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important matter. I hope that I can give him all the information now. The works involved in what I will call in shorthand the Holborn viaduct section of the Bill will all be financed out of the sale for development of the Holborn viaduct station area, which is no longer needed for British Rail's purposes. It is important to stress that, if Thameslink is to become a reality, the existing Holborn viaduct station will be outdated because it will be left in limbo on a short spur and no one will use it. Everyone who wanted to get off in the area would alight at the new station.
The new station cannot be provided unless the asset of the old station is realised. The old station cannot be kept if the new station comes into being. There is no question of British Rail being able to proceed with the new station without getting rid of the unwanted old station left on the spur of the line.
British Rail has many priorities and I suspect that if it is in order we shall hear about some of them during the debate. This project will not stand above British Rail's other major priorities and it will be realised by using one of BR's assets. It could not be used for other British Rail projects, because the project would be useless unless the new station of St. Paul's, on the reopened line, comes into being.

1021
I also wish to deal with the relatively minor, but important works related to works nos. 3 and 4.
Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
Mr. Chapman: I shall give way in a moment.
I shall check this fact, but, as I understand it, these works will be financed by British Rail moneys elsewhere. They are relatively small and I am sure that British Rail will confirm that they can be allocated out of the normal funds without damaging capital investment in other major projects.
Mr. Spearing: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify this point now. As I understand it, the long-awaited and excellent Thameslink will come into use in May, so some trains will be running through. Will they not stop anywhere between Farringdon and Blackfriars? If they are able to go through from May, what is the pressing reason for the changes proposed in the Bill?
Mr. Chapman: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's great experience and knowledge of the area. The short answer is that, at present, there is no link between Blackfriars and Farringdon. As the hon. Gentleman says, this link will come into being in May, but there will be no station on that line between Blackfriars and King's Cross. I shall check these details in case I have inadvertently misled the House. The station would become useless to those people who presently use Holborn viaduct or who wish to alight from the new link in that area.
Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend said that some of the costs, which he described as relatively small, would not be met. Will he be a little more specific? What does he mean by "relatively small"? How much money are we talking about?
Mr. Chapman: I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise answer now, but I shall seek to 'do so before the end of the debate.
I shall explain the other works, which may give my hon. Friend a better idea. The asset realised will cover work no. 1 and, if there is any excess, that may cover works nos. 3A, 3B, and 4, which I wish to describe briefly.
Mr. Fallon: I hate to press my hon. Friend on this matter, but what is the normal policy in this regard? What is the normal policy if an asset is sold in a region of the British Rail network and the sum realised is more than sufficient to replace that asset with a new development of the kind described in work no. 1? Is the surplus redistributed among other capital projects in the regions or is it retained within London or Network SouthEast?
Mr. Chapman: That is exceptional, if not unique, because it is rare that an asset is realised on the site where an improvement can be made to the British Rail network.
My hon. Friend is a much greater expert than I on these matters. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give a more authoritative answer. Normally, the money would go into the finances of the British Railways Board, which would put projects to the Department of Transport. The Minister would then approve, disapprove or amend projects and they would be allocated among the many priorities of the British Railways Board.
The minor works—I use the word "minor" advisedly—relating to works nos. 3A and 3B, aim to reopen two
1022
short tunnels immediately to the north of King's Cross station to achieve a connection of this new Thameslink route to the south with the east coast main line running to the north-east. That will allow the Thameslink service to be increased, with local trains running from the east coast route through to the south.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman mentions linking this line to the east coast main line, as does the promoters' statement, as if the use of the east coast main line will allow some London local services to operate. Do the promoters see the link with the east coast main line as a way of providing access for passengers from the north-east into the Thameslink line?
Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he is a little more patient, I shall explain it to him.
Work no. 4 provides for a new escalator connection to shorten the interchange between the Thameslink platforms and the main line station at King's Cross. The main northeast line terminates at King's Cross, although some lines terminate at other stations. It would be impossible for those trains to bypass King's Cross or to continue down to the southern regions of the country because it is a normal 4 ft 8½ in gauge, but narrow width track units are being used. It is important for people from the north-east who want a quicker connection to the south-east or south of the Thames to have this much more speedy and convenient method of crossing from the main line station into the Thameslink. The escalators will do just that.
Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend has been more than generous in giving way, but is work no. 4 a compensation for works nos. 3A and 3B? He has described the opportunities to make it easier for passengers from the north alighting at King's Cross to transfer to southern routes. Just before he introduced work no. 4, he referred to the possibility of local trains from the east coast main line moving through central London. What is the position, therefore, of east coast main line passengers arriving on the InterCity 125 at King's Cross? Are they to be discharged and to have the benefit of work no. 4 or are they also to share in the glories of works nos. 3A and 3B?
Mr. Chapman: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The short answer is that if he goes to King's Cross and, for some inexplicable reason, does not want to go to Westminster but wishes to proceed further south, he will benefit from Thameslink, with its attendant physical and geographical tangential works, and the new escalator connection. When people using Thameslink wish to proceed further north, works nos. 3A and 3B will come into their own. They are adjacent developments. Of course, they are linked for the direct or indirect benefit of passengers. I have attempted to put the matter as concisely as possible. I can put it no more accurately.
The escalator link at King's Cross will provide other conveniences for passengers at that great station. There will also be a great benefit for passengers using the Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly lines. As High Barnet is at the end of the Northern line, it will beneficially affect some of my constituents. Because of the new escalator link, they will have direct access to the main line station.
At this stage, it is appropriate briefly to refer to the tragic conflagration that took place at King's Cross on 18 November last. I have made inquiries about the proposed

1023
new escalators. They will provide an alternative access to and from the three London Regional Transport underground lines. Therefore, they will be an additional route that passengers may take other than going through the ill-fated ticket booking office. The detailed design of the escalators is yet to he completed. I am glad that that is so. I assure the House that they will include all appropriate fire prevention measures. Of course, they will be approved finally only after the most detailed discussions with fire services and the railways inspectorate.
Sir John Farr: Will the latest fire protection include the provision of sprinklers?
Mr. Chapman: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. With the greatest respect, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. I have an assurance that British Rail will take full account of any recommendations that Mr. Desmond Fennell, QC, may make following his inquiry into the King's Cross disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) will agree that it is far better to wait for Mr. Fennell's report and findings rather than for me to give my view. If my hon. Friend presses me, my view is that every precaution and every modern piece of technology that is appropriate to guaranteeing maximum public safety, not least in underground areas, should be the first priority.
Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend has itemised some of the benefits that will accrue to passengers from the north who alight at King's Cross station. Are there any benefits in the Bill for passengers from the north who alight at St. Pancras station? For example, is he aware that passengers from Derby are already agitated, concerned and disappointed that British Rail has made no announcement about electrification?
Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) raises an important point for his constituents. He will know that the electrification of other lines is outwith the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I would be out of order if I were to comment on that matter. As Chipping Barnet is not on that line, I fear that my knowledge is not as good as that of my hon. Friend. If my geography remains accurate, King's Cross and St. Pancras are not many miles apart. There is an interchange between the two stations. Therefore, the escalator link will be of at least indirect benefit, if not of direct benefit, to people arriving at St. Pancras.
When the Bill was introduced into the other place, seven petitions were deposited concerning the realignment of the Holborn viaduct section. The Committee in the other place allowed the Bill to proceed, subject to British Rail giving an undertaking to Whitbreads, one of the petitioners, to return to it the freehold site of that splendid hostelry, the Old King Lud at Ludgate circus, following completion of the works. Sixteen of the 17 petitions were settled to the satisfaction of the petitioners. Four petitions have been deposited in this House by National Car Parks Ltd., Whitbreads, the City of London Real Property Co. Ltd., and Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. They were concerned about the impact of work no. 1 on adjoining property that they own or occupy.
British Rail has written to the four companies and has offered to have meetings. Indeed, meetings have been held. I am pleased to say that a settlement has already been reached with National Car Parks, and it is hoped that
1024
settlements will be reached with the other three companies. In any event, as hon. Members know, if the House chooses to give the Bill a Second Reading, its provisions and any outstanding petitions can be considered in detail in Committee.
The Order Paper confirms that there are concerns about the Bill or about British Rail. That is not surprising;. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, it will he of immense benefit to many people. If hon. Members wish to pursue points that are without the scope of the Bill, or if they wish to pursue any grievances that they may have with British Rail, I respectfully suggest that it might be more appropriate to do so when the British Railways No. 2 Bill, or the general powers Bill, comes before the House. I understand that it will do so within the month.
Mr. Beith: I am grateful for that useful piece of advice, which, of course, we shall take. For a century and a half, it has been believed that grievances about railways must be ventilated when railways legislation is brought before Parliament. That belief was somewhat strengthened when some hon. Members' arguments about sleeper service:3 were greeted by British Rail's Inter-City marketing manager's insistence that he did not wish to discuss the matter with Members of Parliament.
Mr. Chapman: Obviously, I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. Having been a witness to his considerable parliamentary skills, I know that he will devise an ingenious and effective way of allowing this beneficial Bill to go through the House while pursuing his grievances in another parliamentary way.
I am sorry for taking up the time of the House. I have tried to deal with the various points that have been raised. I believe that the works represent positive, sensible steps by British Rail. The works at Holborn viaduct show great initiative and enterprise. They will benefit London and many other parts of the country, particularly the north - east. If it is passed by the House, the Bill will be good for passengers and good for British Rail.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected either of the motions relating to the instructions on the Order Paper.
7.29 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the opportunity to raise briefly the issues in the Bill and to contrast the way in which British Rail seems so enthusiastic to invest in London and the south-east with its attitude to the north-west.
I did not intend to speak on the Bill, but just before: Christmas the north-west group of Members of Parliament asked for a meeting with the chairman of British Rail to discuss the deterioration in the service to the north-west. We were told that the chairman was too busy to see Members of Parliament and that we would have to make do with the midlands' director, Mr. Bleadsdale. When he met north-west Members of Parliament, he treated us with complete contempt. He came with no answers to our questions and made it clear that he was not prepared to listen to our views, but was prepared to allow the deterioration in the service to continue, and that we were a nuisance. I think that that was an insult, and British Rail must remember that if it

1025
wants to pass legislation through the House it must be prepared to talk to hon. Members and answer their questions.
I find it amazing that British Rail can make substantial investment in London, yet every time we raise the issue of the deterioration in the service to the north-west the argument put forward is that it does not have the money to invest in that area. We have experienced a continual running down of that service. How on earth can BR talk, as it does in this legislation, of the advantages of travelling across London from north to south when it is doing its best to get rid of passengers who want to come from the north?
A similar proposal for a cross-London route was announced with a great fanfare three years ago. Trains from Manchester and Crewe, instead of arriving at Euston, were to go to Kensington Olympia and would be able to go on to Gatwick, Brighton and Dover. British Rail said that this would be a great improvement and that it required parliamentary approval for that development. It is now saying that from May it will discontinue most of those services.
The reason given for that decision is that an insufficient number of people want to use the services. There obviously have been problems, and one of the fundamental—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At the outset the hon. Gentleman said that he would refer to the services in the north-west of which he has knowledge for contrast. He is now starting to argue the case for those services, which is out of order in the context of the debate.
Mr. Bennett: I am talking about the cross-London routes. It is perfectly all right for British Rail to tell us how desirable it is to have another cross-London route, but it is very odd that, having tried one for three years, it is now in the process of abandoning it. We must ask to what extent BR will be prepared to maintain this cross-London route, having invested a lot of money in it. I would argue that it should have invested that money in better rolling stock for the north-west and in maintaining services.
The fundamental flaw in BR's route across London was that services to the north of London had one system of electrification, while those to the south had another. A substantial amount of extra time had to be added for the changing of engines at Kensington so that trains could continue through to the south. It has been disappointed by the failure to attract passengers to that service, which is why it may be discontinuing it.
The question that we must put to the promoters of the Bill is how far they will be able to ensure that it is easy for passengers to travel on east coast lines down to the south. BR is obviously considering this improvement with a view to the Channel tunnel. There is still the fundamental problem that the railway system on the east coast line, like that on the west coast line, is incompatible with the engines that travel to the south. I hope that the promoters will tell us how they will get round that difficulty. If they cannot, I suggest to them and British Rail that it would be far better to invest the money in improving services from the north-west.
Mr. Beith: What worries me is that when British Rail is confronted with a difficulty such as the apparent incompatibility of running two services, its answer is that one of the services will have to go. That has been its
1026
argument on sleeper services. It has said that, because there must be a transfer from diesel to electric haulage, the diesel service will have to be removed altogether. Surely that must have implications for the matters that the hon. Gentleman is describing.
Mr. Bennett: I am unaware of what British Rail is doing about the east coast sleeper service. The amazing development for the Manchester service is that BR does not intend to get rid of the whole service, but only the service in one direction. Sleepers will go up the line empty and return with passengers. British Rail says that that is more economical than having trains carrying passengers in both directions. When we asked for detailed figures, it could not produce them, which is amazing. I do not want to plead the case for sleepers too strongly—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not want to plead that case at all. As far as I can see, it has precious little to do with the Bill.
Mr. Bennett: If BR cannot maintain a sleeper service from Manchester to London, it is doubtful whether it will be able to provide a service which, in the future, will enable people to catch sleepers that will run on the east coast line through London and on to the continent. I should have thought that one of the arguments for the link would be to make travelling far easier. It is not an attractive proposition at any time to have to change stations in London if one is travelling to the south, but if one is doing it in the middle of the night, that is very unattractive.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see anything in the Bill that relates to, connects with or has any bearing on the sleeper services of British Rail from Manchester to London. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the Bill.
Mr. Bennett: If I were trying to build a link from the north to the south, which is what the Bill aims to do, one of the services that I would consider using would be sleepers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am familiar with the north of the country. He knows as well as I do that trains from Manchester to the south do not go through King's Cross.
Mr. Bennett: I accept that argument, but they do go through Doncaster. I would have thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be the first to accept that it would be more attractive to catch a sleeper from Doncaster to the centre of London, and on to the continent when the Channel tunnel is open, using this route, than to wake up at 2 am or 3 am, get out at King's Cross, and transfer to Victoria, when services across London are not all that good.
The question whether sleepers will be able to run through this new link on the east coast route is relevant to the Bill. British Rail seems determined to get rid of all sleepers to the north of England—not only on the east coast route but on the west coast one—and that suggests that it does not want to run sleepers, except to Scotland. There is a good argument for it to maintain and develop its sleeper service so that, when there is a link through London and the Channel tunnel is open, it can start to use the sleeper service as a major part of a network within western Europe.
I hope that British Rail will reconsider its attitude to hon. Members and the representations that they are

1027
making. I hope that it will reconsider its investment programme. If it can find the money for this link, and could find the money for the Kensington link, it has a duty to find the money to invest in rolling stock so that the many passengers who use its services from the north-west and north-east of England are not deterred from doing so.
Last Friday, having remained here to vote, I went to Euston and was appalled to find that the 3.20 pm to Manchester had no seats left in the first-class accommodation—fortunately, I had booked a seat—and that about 10 first-class passengers had to stand all the way to Manchester. The reason was clear. The guard, for whom I had every sympathy, made the apologetic point that British Rail did not have sufficient rolling stock.
How can British Rail consider this sort of investment when it cannot invest in the rolling stock necessary to provide a decent service from Euston to the north of England? The first priority must be to get decent rolling stock. Many commuter trains in the north-west of England provide a poor service—again because of the lack of rolling stock.
I plead with British Rail to invest in the north of England, on the east and west coasts, with the same enthusiasm as it seems to have to invest money in London. One has the feeling that British Rail's only interest is in providing a service for the people in and around London, rather than one for people such as my constituents in the north-west of England.
I shall continue to take every possible opportunity to make legislating difficult for British Rail until it accepts the fundamental principle that it should talk to Members of Parliament about the problems that face them and their constituents. British Rail should re-examine its investment programme to ensure that a good service is provided for the people from the north of England who have to come to London before it invests too much money in transporting people across London. If British Rail does not invest in transporting people from the north of England, it will find that it will have a network across London, but no passengers because they cannot afford to get there.
7.41 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has taken a narrow view of the Bill. I support the Bill. But why does British Rail need to obtain powers by using the private Bill procedure? The purpose of the Bill is to execute certain works, which have been well explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). British Rail already has a lot of legislation on the statute book and has many powers concerning the acquisition of land. I should have thought that most of what British Rail wants done could be done under existing legislation and that this Bill was not necessary. But, since British Rail has this special legislation, it will be considered, of course, and supported by many Conservative Members.
Mr. Peter Snape: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech. We all feel sometimes that it is an inconvenience for comparatively minor works to be the subject of a Bill. What alternative means of providing anything new does British Rail have, given that it must first seek a statutory right from the House?
Sir Trevor Skeet: A committee is ascertaining whether the procedures can be modified to enable companies to go ahead without facing the general expense of the private Bill procedure. The Bill's promoters know how expensive the procedure is, especially when there is opposition arid relevant points are raised. If a group wanted to construct Sizewell B, it could do so by way of the private Bill procedure, but it would be much better to have a public Act and obtain powers by other routes. I merely suggest that the private Bill procedure is a rather heavy instrument to use on this occasion.
Some time ago I walked through the tunnel between Farringdon and Blackfriars. I was amazed at the ease cif the route and the perspective that British Rail had shown in reopening it. The tunnel was in use in the steam days. It will be useful, to my constituents at least, to be able to travel from Bedford through to Brighton and to Gatwick.
Two motions have been tabled, although both have been ruled by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be irrelevant. They simply reflect the protests in other parts of the country and the wish for more electrification in the United Kingdom. I think that that is generally accepted. 1 praise British Rail to some extent. Although there was a year's delay in starting operation of the line from St. Pancras to Bedford, once it began it proved to be successful and a moneyspinner for British Rail. Such developments can be most useful.
When the proposed line is completed, will there be more inter-city lines from Bedford to London, perhaps going through the tunnel to Brighton and to Gatwick? Will there be faster trains to London? I assume that there will not be. Is there any prospect of a spur line from Bedford to Oakley to bring more people into London and other parts of the south-east?
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet referred to escalators. Two weeks before the tragedy at King's Cross, I wrote to the chairman of London Regional Transport complaining about the filth of the station. Surprisingly, I did not receive a reply until after the accident—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how these matters arise from or are connected with the Bill.
Sir Trevor Skeet: With all respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the transport authorities are constructing an escalator between the stations. There must be proper safety provisions.
Sir John Farr: It is critical.
Sir Trevor Skeet: It is critical: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
Even if the escalators are not made of wood, if they are not swept, as I feel happened at King's Cross and St. Pancras, an accumulation of dust could lead to greater problems for future travellers. British Rail must satisfy itself that the highest standards are introduced and maintained and that the right cleaning facilities are provided to protect the public at all times.
I give the Bill my full support. It will improve transit through London to the south-east. I hope that the provisions will be extended to cover other people such as those mentioned by Opposition Members who want certain additional work done. We hope that British Rail can secure investment from the sale of the assets that it has in mind so that there will not be too great an imposition on the taxpayer.
7.48 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. We have seen from the speeches of the hon. Members for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) that the debate has national as well as local, London significance.
I declare an interest, if I need do so. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has a more direct claim than I have to the fame of being part of a long-serving, loyal, traditional railway family, but my father was a railwayman for many years. I spent many summer vacations in signal boxes, until an inspector came along and I was put quickly over the dike. My uncle and namesake, Archie Kirkwood, was a long-serving member of the National Union of Railwaymen. Sadly, he died some years ago. He was a mentor of mine, and my family's experience of trade unionism in the railway industry percolated through the fabric of our family life. I benefited from that and, if I have no other claim to speak in this debate, I feel that my family background entitles me to do so.
Mr. Fallon: May I intervene on precisely that point? The hon. Gentleman has touched on an aspect that has not yet been considered, which is the attitude of the National Union of Railwaymen to the proposals and to the differing effects of investment in different parts of the network. Has he received representations from the union?
Mr. Kirkwood: That is an extremely important point, to which I intended to refer. I must say that I am not one of the most obvious constituency Members for the NUR to contact and I do not hold that against it. I make no complaint about that because this is a major Bill — indeed, I commend the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on the way in which he opened the debate—but one or two gaps have been left and several questions still need to be answered.
For example, what consultations were there with the NUR—a very responsible union with a direct interest in the Bill? The Bill will affect NUR staff who operate from King's Cross and, from a more strategic point of view, the investment deployed could perhaps have been deployed differently. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman or the Minister will give us the benefit of the view of the Government and British Rail on that point.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North made a strong point about the procedures adopted. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I serve on the Committee that considers unopposed private Bills, under your own eminent chairmanship, and I therefore have some experience of these matters. I am surprised that the British Railways board should need to have recourse to such machinery. The pressures on Back-Bench Members inevitably mean that some of these important measures do not get the attention that they deserve, and that operates to the detriment of some of the projects that come before us. I am surprised that the board does not have available to it other means of achieving the ends set out in the Bill.
That leads me to one of my other concerns about the Bill. Are any short cuts—to put it pejoratively —employed in the Bill? Does it circumvent any of the normal planning processes under the planning legislation? I ask that neutrally. I do not suggest that BR is taking short cuts
1030
or that, if it is, it is doing so in a conspiratorial fashion. However, the House has a right to know whether this procedure circumvents any of the planning legislation.
That is an important question for local people. Local people have proper rights, obligations and opportunities to have their say and make proper and diligent representations through the planning procedures. Does the Bill deprive them of any of their rights under the planning Acts? British Rail would be well advised to ensure that it has recourse to private Bills only when it is essential.
It is obvious to everyone that King's Cross station has national significance. That is why people north of London are taking an interest in it. King's Cross is the gateway to the south. Hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of my constituents from the borders of Scotland use it—not just on business but for family outings, visits to friends and so on. The station has a direct link with the east coast route, which has a fine history and tradition. The facilities that obtain in King's Cross are vital not just to commuters who use it daily but to people from very much further afield who use it for a variety of purposes.
We are entitled to ask what inconvenience will be caused during the construction of the works. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet lucidly explained the works, and we have all had the benefit of the brief that the promoters helpfully provided—I am grateful for that—but what inconvenience will be involved? What will be the time scale? Will it be weeks, months, or, as I suspect, years? Some of the works may take many months. If that happens, how much inconvenience will those using the station suffer? Will they have to go to other parts of the concourse—with which they are familiar—to get tickets? Will large chunks of the concourse be shut off for substantial periods?
That important question was made even more important by the remarks of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, who recounted his problems on the train last Friday. I have experienced similar problems. As I explained earlier, my commitment to the railways is such that I try to use as many of my parliamentary travel warrants as possible on land-based transport. I travel to and from my constituency via the east coast route rather than traitorously using aeroplanes, which are only for softies and jet-set yuppies. The mark of a true, established, traditional Scottish Member is that he struggles through the hassle at King's Cross and sits on his suitcase for six hours and enjoys it because he knows that he is doing it for a greater cause—
Mr. John Home Robertson: For Britain.
Mr. Kirkwood: He does it for Britain, rather than taking the easy way out by drinking a gin and tonic on a 757 from Heathrow.
Congestion on the concourse at King's Cross is worrying. In the short term, congestion while the works are being completed may be relevant because it may drive custom away. I might even be driven to my gin and tonic on the 757 until the concourse is put right.
Mr. Home Robertson: I look forward to reading about the hon. Gentleman's drinking habits in the Berwickshire News and East Lothian Herald.
Mr. Kirkwood: It is always difficult when a constituent who represents another constituency is sitting at one's

1031
elbow taking notes for one's local newspaper. I would prefer references to gin and tonic and aeroplanes to be deleted from the record. Alas, I know that that is not possible; the cat is out of the bag.
Perhaps a more serious question concerns the long-term effect on congestion on the concourse of the new escalator and the ticket office and the rest of the works planned in the Bill.
Mr. Fallon: On the question whether congestion will increase while the works are being carried out, has the hon. Gentleman yet studied clause 22? I know that his mind has been on other matters for the past week or so, but if he studies it he will discover that the compulsory purchase powers taken for the various works at King's Cross last until 1992. It is therefore possible that British Rail will carry out the works over a period of years, as the hon. Gentleman has warned, rather than over a period of months.
Mr. Kirkwood: That is an important question, and I hope that if it is not directly addressed this evening it will be addressed in Committee—although the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet may be able to elucidate.
Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for giving way, because it may be for the convenience of the House if I deal with that point now. My understanding is—again I shall get confirmation of this — that it is anticipated that the works will take about two and a half years. It may be between two and three years—
Mr. Kirkwood: Two years?
Mr. Chapman: It will take about two and a half years from the date of the passing of the Act. I believe that it was hoped that, with Parliament's approval, work might start this May. Of course, that is now out of the question because of the length of time over which, rightly, we conduct our proceedings. I shall take further advice on that point but when I asked that question myself, I was told that it would take about two and a half years to complete all the works that are the subject of the Bill.
Mr. Kirkwood: That answer has taken me slightly aback. My initial reaction is that the works are much more extensive than the House had perhaps been previously led to understand. I do not mean that the House has been misled. Do I understand that if the works were to start immediately they would take a full two and a half years to complete?
Mr. Chapman indicated assent.
Mr. Kirkwood: Well, that adds extra point to my fears about congestion and the temporary transitional difficulties that will accrue.
Mr. Chapman: I was careful to say, "all the works that are the subject of the Bill". The substantial and major work is no. 1, the Holborn viaduct section.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about the King's Cross works and the new escalator link, I shall find out how long those works will take to complete. There would be no point in starting the works on the day the Bill becomes an Act—nor would British Rail want to do so — unless and until Mr. Desmond Fennell, QC, has reported and the proper discussions and deliberations
1032
have taken place with the railways inspectorate and the fire service. I am sure that hon. Members will think that proper and adequate.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who is being most helpful to the House. We appreciate that. He brings me to a question relating to the extensive time scale—
Mr. Beith: Before my hon. Friend turns to the consequent question about congestion at King's Cross, I wonder whether it has occurred to him — I have only just realised this as a result of what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said—that the time scale that is now described—from May this year until 1991—is exactly the period from which sleeper services are intended to be diverted from King's Cross to Euston up to the introduction of full electrification at King's Cross—that is to say, the date at which sleeper services could be reintroduced without any significant element of subsidy. Perhaps it was not planned that way, but it would open up the opportunity to regard the period during which the sleeper service is not there as one for reducing congestion with the hope of reintroducing sleepers as soon as the link is open.
Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that my hon. Friend's helpful comment will be taken on board by the powers-that-be. His suspicions are similar to my own. We are talking about—
Mr. John McWilliam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kirkwood: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. McWilliam: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would direct his mind to the thought that perhaps the Bill is premature. Given the works at King's Cross, it might be better to introduce the Bill once we have the report and know the work that must be carried out there, rather than in advance of the report.
Mr. Kirkwood: I assume that that important comment relates to the fire inquiry that is being conducted by the eminent Queen's counsel. Obviously, the Bill was written before the recent tragic event at King's Cross, but has that event been considered? Suppose there are far-reaching consequences in terms of the design of escalators, safety requirements and fire requirements on the major works described in the Bill. It may well be good counsel to hasten slowly. That may not involve terminal delay. Perhaps it will involve a delay of only between six and nine months and perhaps the Bill could be brought back to the House then. It would be sad and unfortunate if the Bill went through all its parliamentary stages only to find that the report produced by the eminent Queen's counsel required substantial amendments to be made.
If that happened, can the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet tell us whether the British Railways Board would appear on the doorstep of the House to ask for further amendments to what would then be an Act of Parliament? Would the board require secondary legislation as a result of the report, because that might cost a disproportionate amount of British Rail's budget in terms of the money that has been set aside for the project? That important question requires attention and some answers in Committee. Even if the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet or the Government cannot give those answers this evening, the

1033
House will want to know the implications of the report before it gives its final view. Of course, there will be opportunities not only in Committee, but when the Bill returns to the House on Report.
Mr. Fallon: If my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) is not prepared tonight to offer to withdraw the Bill for several months to take account of the timetabling points, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire must consider whether the Bill could at least be withdrawn for a short period so that we may prepare a more extensive Report stage, bearing in mind that the works are not urgent, and bearing in mind that other major Bills, such as the York and London Bill of the last century, were considered by the House for 82 days. Even if the Bill has to become law reasonably quickly, there is no reason why we must rush through our considerations.
Mr. Kirkwood: Eighty-two days is a long time in politics, especially if one has been in the Liberal and Social Democratic alliance during the past week.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) has made a good point. What is to prevent the Bill being put on ice? In terms of parliamentary procedure, presumably it would be possible to stage it over from one parliamentary term to another. I am an inexperienced hand at the parliamentary game, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that it is possible that there is some procedure for staging over a private Bill until the next Session. We had experience of that with the Channel Tunnel Bill, which was a hybrid Bill. This is a purely private Bill. There is nothing to stop us stopping the clock of parliamentary procedure on the Bill until we can see whether there are implications—and there are certain to be implications—as a result of the safety report by the eminent Queen's counsel who has been charged with the responsibility of investigating the causes and long-term effects of the King's Cross disaster. I hope that that important point will be given serious consideration.
I return to the point that I was about to make, having heard that the works will take two and a half years to complete. That suggests that the works are of an entirely higher level than I had anticipated, and that leads me to the question of cost. Although the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet was comprehensive, helpful and lucid in his introduction, he left out the question of the total cost. I listened carefully to his remarks and he said that the cost would more or less be met by the disposal of other assets on the site.
It would be helpful to know the gross or, indeed, the net sums involved. A course of public works over a two-and-a-half-year period will involve a different level of expenditure. If it is true, it brings into a new perspective the arguments that were deployed earlier by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about the respective and relevant merits of investment on the south-eastern route, let alone the east coast route. I can tell the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that there is life well north of Manchester.
We need more detail on costs. The House is entitled to know how much money will be spent in every category of the expenditure—not only the money being set aside for investment, but the money that it is hoped will be made from the sales of assets. What is the state of play on those
1034
sales? Have brochures and prospectuses been made ready? Are the heritable items that are the subject of these disposals ready to be put on the public market? What is their asking price? All these details are relevant so that the House can decide whether we are getting value for money for this significant investment in the four works, which will take two and a half years to complete. We need more information on costs before we make any definitive judgments.
I heard what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said about the extent of the usefulness of the line as a link. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that trains running over the route will be running through tunnels. Presumably those tunnels are many, but they are too narrow to take the InterCity 125 trains. The gauge is different—
Mr. Chapman: I told the House that the gauge was the normal 4 ft 8½ in, but the coaches are the narrow-width type because of the size of the tunnels and because of the bends.
Mr. Kirkwood: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the bends—I have been suffering from them for the past week in my party.
Mr. Spearing: It might be useful to clear up this point now. There is an abiguity about the word "gauge". There is a gauge for the width of lines and a loading gauge. We are not yet clear whether the new tunnels in King's Cross will be wide enough—wider than the existing ones—to take not only 125s but also, perchance, sleeping cars.
Mr. Kirkwood: I see we have a plethora of railway buff talent in the House and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help. What he said clarifies matters, but it leads me to another question.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet may say that the cost would be astronomic, but how much would a direct link from the east coast route cost? The hon. Gentleman may say that the sums have been done and that countless millions of pounds are involved; I accept that a cost-benefit analysis must be done. However, if the tunnels have merely to be slightly widened in order to allow the rolling stock through, doing that might not be beyond the realms of commercial possibility in the long term.
In view of what has been said about the Channel tunnel, and the opportunity that it would provide for commercial return and for passengers, the question is interesting. Have any calculations been done of what it would cost to make a direct link? The figure may be impossibly high—we are not unreasonable people and we would accept figures on the commercial viability of such a project if they were produced — but we cannot think that we are conscientiously representing our constituents if we do not at least ask that question so that a judgment can be made.
If it is too expensive to widen the tunnels, as may be the case, what is the possibility of co-ordinating timetables so that people coming from Berwick-upon-Tweed can get off at Stevenage, for example, and take a train that would take advantage of the link? What active consideration has been given to that eventuality so that people coming from Berwick-upon-Tweed would not need to go near the terminal station at King's Cross, but could link through in a co-ordinated fashion without changing there?
Mr. McWilliam: Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on the problems of freight from the north? If the

1035
tunnels and the loading gauge are not such as to be able to take freight from the north, there is no advantage to the vast areas of this country in allowing the Bill to pass. Freight is of the essence in the economics of opening up the tunnels to national use. If we cannot receive the assurances that we would like on freight access, there is no reason why the House should pass the Bill.
Mr. Kirkwood: I was coming to that point, and I shall reinforce and underline it now. Freight is an essential part of the viability and continuing prosperity of the east coast route. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet may not know — the Minister will—that important freightliner depots just outside Edinburgh have recently been closed. A route such as this could have saved the depots and made them commercially viable. That is how important having a direct route is, rather than an indirect link such as the Bill proposes.
I return to my point about co-ordinating timetables for passenger journeys. How far up the east coast route does the ability to link through the tunnel go? I assume that passengers from places such as Stevenage, Huntingdon and Peterborough can go all the way through the link. How far up the route is it proposed that the service will extend—past Doncaster, as far as York, to Darlington or even the nether reaches of Newcastle and beyond? How far down the east coast route will people be able to get on British Rail trains that will take them directly through the route that is proposed in the Bill?
As regards commercial viability, British Rail tells us a great deal about the new ethos that now prevails in its commercial judgments. We are told a great deal about ratios of profitability, investment returns and so on. I did not hear the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet say anything about the commercial return that is expected on the investment. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the sums must be done. The House is entitled to know what money it can expect in return for this substantial two-and-a-half year building investment.
Mr. Beith: It is also true that we have heard nothing about the revenue implications of the investment that we are discussing. There seems to be an assumption running through the debate that the project is viable in terms of capital invested because of the return on the land. There has been no reference to whether passengers using the route will be receiving a public subsidy in order to do so.
Mr. Kirkwood: I agree with my hon. Friend. The commercial return is closely linked to the terms of the subsidy—if there is to be any. Some hon. Members are worried about the disparities in the subsidies between one route and another and one area and another. The hon. Member for Darlington and other hon. Members advanced cogent arguments about the disparity in the subsidies that are applied per passenger journey in different parts of the rail network. These are all important matters.
The aims of the Bill are set out in the brief supplied by the promoters. The Bill seeks powers to alter the alignment of the railway. Among other things, the Bill seeks to replace Holborn viaduct and to provide a through bus interchange and better access for taxis, especially for disabled passengers. That is an important part of the Bill's provisions. From my own experience, I commend British
1036
Rail for its improvements to stations, especially main-line stations, and to Waverley station in Edinburgh and the Glasgow stations.
To a certain extent, British Rail has not made sufficient provision for services for the disabled and has spoiled the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. I hope that British Rail will pay careful attention in this major development to providing facilities that will enable disabled people to travel without let or hindrance. That is an important matter that must be considered.
The safety aspects of the escalator that will provide a quicker alternative at King's Cross for Thameslink and underground passengers was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North. I am also concerned about that. I was a bit uncertain about the detail of the objections mentioned by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I think he said that 17 objections had been lodged in the House of Lords.
Mr. Chapman: Seventeen petitions.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet skated over those. It follows from what I said earlier about the planning Acts that the position of objectors is crucial. The hon. Gentleman dealt with some of the petitions, and the sponsors' brief tells us that there are four petitions on the Bill. I was left in some uncertainty about the precise state of the 17 petitions in the House of Lords.
Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to recall that I said that 17 petitions were presented in the other place. Of those, 16 were settled and a recommendation was made about the 17th, which I shall refer to in shorthand as the Whitbread petition. Four petitions were presented to this House and one has been settled. Three are outstanding and are at an early stage of being considered. Negotiations are continuing. The three outstanding ones include the Whitbread petition.
I hope that the Bill is given its Second Reading. If it is, those three petitions, if they are still unsettled, will be dealt with under the procedures of the House by the Committee examining the Bill. There is no question of the House not being able to pass judgment, to make its view known or to impede the progress of the measure if it is not satisfied with the settlements that are made, not made or undetermined on the three outstanding petitions. It is quite possible and, according to precedent, likely to be the case that the three outstanding petitions will be settled—as were 16 of the 17 petitions in the other place—before the Bill reaches Committee, even if it is given a Second Reading.
Mr. Kirkwood: That intervention was extremely helpful and substantially sets my mind at rest. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech and was unclear, but his intervention somewhat alleviates my worries. I would not like it to be thought that I am antipathetic to the Bill and I do not want to do anything to impede its progress. Deloitte Haskins and Sells and firms like Whitbread can look after themselves and their property interests are important. They have the right to make their protests and representations in their own way and in their own time. I am quite happy to let that happen and I do not want self-interest to impede the Bill. However, I was worried about the number of petitions in the other place, but what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said about that clarifies my mind on the issue.
Mr. Jack Thompson: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the petitions submitted to this House. The petitions could include what is described in the promoters' statement as
"the comprehensive and sensitive redevelopment of the prime area to the west of St. Paul's Cathedral."
Hon. Members will know that for the last few months this has been a most contentious issue. The sensitive development of that area is of prime importance not only to the people of London but to people all over Britain.
Mr. Kirkwood: I entirely subscribe to that view. That was a helpful intervention and if the hon. Gentleman has any other thoughts I should be happy for him to share them with the House.
I was talking about petitions and objections. I do not think that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet told us what the Camden borough planning department had to say about this Bill. It would be of interest to the House to know whether it was negative, positive or antipathetic to this proposal. That is an important issue and it is part of the democratic duty of Camden borough to comment on that.
Earlier, I spoke about the difficulties of defining the interface between this parliamentary procedure and the planning Acts. What is the view of Camden borough planning department? Does British Rail know, or has it asked? If it has asked, I and the House would like to know the reply.
The London Regional Passengers' Committee also deserves to be consulted in this process. I am not an expert about the duties and responsibilities of British Rail in this context. I understand the parliamentary procedure in the House, but it would be remiss of the House if it did not ask what bodies such as the London Regional Passengers' Committee feel about this. Is it antipathetic to the proposal, or does it support the proposal as a positive benefit to the people it represents? The House would like to hear about that.
The Bill considers the possibility of opening railway lines. That is good, and I am in favour of it. I hope that it catches on, because some hon. Members could make a few suggestions about it. The Borders have never recovered from the stupid and incompetent closure in the 1960s of the Waverley line. That had a dramatic and traumatic effect on the communities in the south-east of Scotland. Railway lines can have good or bad effects on communities.
My fervent hope is that the measure will eventually go ahead, and I hope and believe that it will have a positive effect. The House would be derelict in its duty tonight if it did not pose questions such as we have heard so far in the debate, and received realistic answers which it was prepared to accept, before allowing a measure of such magnitude to proceed. Against that background, I am happy to commend the Bill's Second Reading to the House.
8.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): There have been one or two references to the events of the past few days. If the alliance returns from "Voices and Choices" to give 42 minutes to a Bill that it supports, heaven help the rest of us if we ever become involved in public debate with its members in the next general election.
1038
We have considered the content of the Bill, and have no objection to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. Indeed, we support the Bill's aims. We note that it will enable the board to provide a new, modern station on the Thameslink line. Starting later this year, commuter services will run directly between north and south London for the first time since the first world war. We have told the board that we will always support worthwhile investment to enhance the quality of service to the passenger, and this is such a case. We approved the necessary investment for the scheme in December.
The proposed new station will be funded by redevelopment, with the private sector, of the Holborn viaduct site. We are pleased to see that the board is involving the private sector in this way, in line with our requests that it should broaden the participation of that sector in the development of its property.
I hope that the House will support the Bill and enable the British Railways Board to carry out this exciting and worthwhile development. The Department of the Environment has one outstanding point on the Bill, on which negotiations are continuing with the promoters. It is hoped that the matter will be resolved satisfactorily.
Mr. Beith: I hope that the Minister will forgive me if he is about to deal with this point. However, I hope that he will give us a Government view about the prospects for through running from the east coast main line through Thameslink, and about the value or otherwise of British Rail's providing an interlinking service at this point. That must surely have played some part in the decision on whether the investment should proceed.
Mr. Bottomley: It did not. One of the differences about the present Government is that we set objectives for British Rail and then expect it to carry them out. Business interests that have petitioned against the Bill will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be able to examine in detail the issues involved, and will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading, and allowed to proceed to Committee for such detailed consideration.
8.32 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on the detailed and comprehensive way in which he moved the Second Reading. I do not know whether this is the first Bill for which the hon. Gentleman has had responsibility, but I am sure that it will not be the last, given the detailed way in which he explained it for us.
The first and most serious point that I should make, particularly in response to the hon. Gentleman's speech, is that I support all that he said about new escalators at King's Cross. All of us were appalled and horrified by the tragedy of 18 November. I know that whatever criticism may be levelled at the management of British Rail or, for that matter, that of London Regional Transport—I am never "behind the door", as the saying goes, in levelling such criticism myself — the lessons of that appalling tragedy will be learnt, and that new escalators, incorporating all the necessary fire prevention devices that are available, will ensure that it is not repeated.

1039
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on his epic speech. As the Minister said, for the Liberal party to support a Bill and take 42 minutes to tell us so—
Mr. Beith: Front Benchers always take 42 minutes.
Mr. Snape: They do not, as I shall show the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
There are exciting times ahead for the Liberal party, and I hope that, although his speech of support might be a little shorter than that of his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will do nothing to detract from his prospects in the competition to which we all look forward with such enormous interest. If I can do anything to assist him, he need only ask.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who explained that he had to leave early tonight, had some valid and trenchant points to make about cross-London railway traffic in the context of the Bill. I think that we would all regret the lack of success of the north-south services which were diverted through Kensington Olympia. There are reasons for that, which we hope will not be repeated with these new services.
The service to which my hon. Friend referred in detail was started up along a fairly old railway line, which British Rail's management had been unwise enough to run down considerably. The speed of the trains, most of which are to be withdrawn in the May timetable, averages about 44 mph, which hardly provides any marketing appeal in the latter part of the 20th century. We hope that average speeds on the new link line will be considerably higher.
I think that I can prejudge at least part of the Minister's reply, particularly in regard to the InterCity prospects for the new tunnel—
Mr. Spearing: It is not a new tunnel.
Mr. Snape: As my hon. Friend accurately, if somewhat pedantically, reminds me, it is not a new tunnel. It was closed as long ago as the first world war. The new services to the old tunnel will be confined to local trains, because of the problems with the width of the loaded gauge. I do not know whether the Minister has the figures that were requested by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the cost of doing a proper widening job on the tunnel to allow InterCity services to pass through, but the House would be interested if they were available.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Kensington Olympia link, which is used as a link through London. He seemed to imply that it had not been successful and might disappear. I am sorry to hear that, because I had not realised it. My wife travelled on the line recently, and found it a useful service. She did, however, come across a group of passengers who had alighted from a plane from Nigeria at Gatwick, and were now at Milton Keynes still hoping to reach Victoria.
Mr. Snape: I do not know whether the Bill will offer them much consolation. I do not suppose that, having embarked on such a journey, they would be over-impressed with the link via Kensington Olympia either. As I have said, I think that its lack of success was partly due to the short-sightedness of previous railway managements who ran it down. As there is only one platform available for the trains, if one train runs late—as occasionally
1040
happens, even with an average speed of 44 mph — it must wait outside the station if any other train going in either direction is occupying that platform.
One of the problems behind the introduction of Bills such as this is that London suffers from the rabid competition of the old railway companies 150 years ago. It may be a salutary lesson—I do not expect the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet necessarily to agree with me, although he will probably do so secretly—that such unbridled competition all those years ago necessitates the sort of Bill that we have before us. However, the Government are planning to unleash such competition on Monday in relation to road transport in the next two or three years. I hope that Conservative Members who tell us about the supposed benefits of unbridled competition like some ritual incantation will remember the problems when they are next tempted to throw their somewhat infantile ideology around the Chamber.
In one of his many interventions, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) asked about receipts from the land development mentioned in the Bill. That is a valid point. The problem with sectorisation in British Rail is that often, and for understandable reasons, sector directors, having acquired receipts, are unwilling to release them to other sectors.
The balkanisation of what should be a national railway system should be resisted. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Darlington ought to resist it himself, because, perhaps unlike the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, he has enormous ambitions which will no doubt be realised during a long and distinguished parliamentary career. The fact that sector directors do not like parting with receipts leads to difficulty. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet can answer that point, but it is a matter which we should like explained.
As for the marathon speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, I had not realised that he was so well connected, so to speak, in railway terms. Like his uncle, I am a member of the National Union of Railwaymen. I am glad to say that his uncle had a reputation for brevity, which the hon. Gentleman does not share. His uncle was much more sensible with regard to politics as well. Nevertheless, we welcome converts from wherever they may come. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe them as enthusiasts. I am sure that, given his railway background, provided that he renounces those false political doctrines that he has embraced for some years, and if things get too rough for him in that group of Kilkenny cats that he belongs to at the moment, the hon. Gentleman might be welcome elsewhere. He could join the calm and placid listening party which I have the honour to represent.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) referred to the improved services to his constituency as a result of what Sir Peter Parker called and which continues to be known as—the bedpan service. He will acknowledge the good fortune of his constituents which will arise out of the Bill—good fortune which is unlikely to be shared by passengers from further north because of the apparently insurmountable problems associated with passing InterCity trains in the tunnel.
We have heard the good suggestion that we should look at the timetable to see whether, instead of passengers having a cross-London journey necessitating a change to the underground to get from one terminus to another, provision could be made at Bedford or Stevenage, or

1041
wherever else BR thinks would be most suitable, for InterCity passengers to change to modern electric multiple unit trains such as it is envisaged will travel from Bedford to Croydon, Gatwick airport or Brighton. It is well worth exploring that idea. I hope that BR management, which is not always adept at snatching business opportunities, will listen to what I think appears to be an eminently sensible suggestion, which would benefit a considerable number of passengers.
There are a number of outstanding matters which the Opposition would like to pursue, but, as your predecessor in the Chair reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a general powers Bill is to follow — the debate on which will enable most of us to get most of our moans about BR management off our chest. We can talk then about the missing, diverted and empty sleeping-car trains — the new ghost trains of the modern railway.
While the Opposition welcome the Bill, we want the Minister to know that our misgivings about these other matters will receive a full airing when that Bill comes before us. If he is charged with taking it through the House, he will have a rougher ride than he has had tonight.
8.45 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: I should like to give some background to the Bill. The House is aware that the railways took powers a little while ago to construct Thameslink and run trains from the midland main line at St. Pancras to the southern side of the Thames. I should like to consider those powers in the Bill which will link that system, which is now under construction and nearly open, to the east coast main line at King's Cross. They are works nos. 3A, 3B and 4, and also involve clause 11.
I find it surprising that there is little in the notes that the promoters have circulated about the powers being sought at King's Cross. There is considerable reference in the notes to the works at Holborn to build a new station on Thameslink. We are told that those works will provide a direct connection between Bedford, Luton and St. Albans to the north, and south London, Gatwick airport, Brighton and Sevenoaks to the south; in other words, there will be services right down to the south coast. As for works nos. 3A, 3B and 4, there is no explanation of the sort of service that it is proposed to run through that link. It is unfortunate that we were not told before Second Reading the aims of three of the four works in the Bill.
Mr. Fallon: Does that not reinforce something that has emerged throughout the debate? I refer to the inadequacy of the information that accompanies the Bill. Had this been a Government Bill, we would have had a financial memorandum outlining the expenditure and detailing the cost to be defrayed on the works, and we would have had an explanatory memorandum giving much greater detail of the powers sought and the works to be undertaken. Should the promoters not now consider whether a much fuller statement should be given? Should there not be details of costs of each work and, who knows, maps and plans as well?
Mr. Trotter: I entirely agree. I was amazed that we were not supplied with that information. I hope that the matter can be put right.
If we read the proceedings in another place, where the Bill started life, we find that the sponsor, Lord Marshall
1042
of Leeds, explained that works nos. 3A, 3B and 4 are needed to connect the Thameslink direct to the east coast main line. Lord Taylor said that many people would use the service, which would establish an essential link to the rail service north of the border. He described it as an imaginative and energetic example of the management of British Rail. Many of us who have occasion to use the east coast service would not describe the management of BR as energetic and imaginative on the basis of recent experience.
It has been made quite clear, however, that the works at King's Cross are in connection with establishing a link with the east coast main line. There were many references in the other place to the large number of people who would join the main-line services from King's Cross to the north of England and to Scotland as a result of the proposed link through the Thames tunnel.
I was interested in comments earlier in the debate about the narrow gauge of the tunnel. It could not be the track, for it would have been of little use indeed if that were the case. One cannot help asking, however, what used to go through the tunnel when it was previously used. I am sure that the tunnel was not used by special freight trains in the old days. There were not special narrow wagons to pass through it.
A great opportunity will be lost if main-line passenger trains do not pass through the tunnel in future. We are led to suppose that specially thin or specially shortened trains will be built for the service, but we have been given no information on that. We do not know where these trains will come from or where they will go. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), I do not think that there is a station at Chipping Barnet. However, I suspect that there are stations close to Chipping Barnet. Will trains passing through the tunnel go as far as Stevenage and Peterborough, or will they go all the way to Newcastle and Edinburgh? Where will they go in the other direction? Will they go to the south coast, or will they stop somewhere in south London?
Mr. Fallon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that such a Bill should be promoted for works that will last for two and a half years, involving the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds, yet we have not been told by the promoters whether the tunnel will take 125s or whether it will accommodate freight trains?
Mr. Trotter: That is absolutely right. I am certain that the tunnels will not take 125s, because the new service will be electrified. A great opportunity will be lost if the link is not constructed in such a way that it can be used by through main-line trains. Perhaps there is a need to iron out the bends in the tunnel as well as in the Bill. It would certainly be more sensible for a proper long-distance through service to be provided through the tunnel.
Reference has been made to the link to the southern region from the west coast main line. I had hoped that the aim now was to provide a similar service from the east coast main line. The east coast main line is of great historical importance. The first sleeping car ran on the line from King's Cross in 1873. As far as I know, that event has not been celebrated by the present management of British Rail, and, sadly, we face losing this service in the near future.

1043
I believe that there are doubts about the future of King's Cross and over important parts of the east coast main line service. It is amazing that we are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill to deal with the interchange of large numbers of passengers between the Thameslink service and the east coast main line, yet we do not know the details of the future service on the east coast main line.
Recently, as one of its initial excuses for removing the east coast sleeping car services, British Rail said that Euston was a superior station to King's Cross for passengers to use. Obviously, if King's Cross is so inferior, we must sort out the inadequacies there. I do not believe that the provisions in the Bill will tackle the inadequacies. We need a more thorough re-examination of the position at King's Cross.
Does the future of King's Cross justify the works set out in the Bill? Will they be sufficient to improve King's Cross to provide an adequate level of facilities, which British Rail clearly feels are at present inadequate, in the light of the action that it has taken in respect of the overnight services? My colleagues from the north are well aware that Lord Taylor's description of the management of British Rail as "imaginative" and "energetic" is not a fair description of our recent experience in connection with services to the north-east. Indeed, I would say "insensitive" and "negative" are more accurate descriptions. There has been a refusal to accept the inadequacies of the proposed changes for the most important overnight services, and that is clearly relevant to what we are now talking about.
British Rail seems prepared to lose its share of the overnight market and has refused to reconsider its plans, which I believe calls into question its judgment as well as its public relations. That must make us doubt whether the plans behind the works in the Bill have been well thought out and considered.
I want to give an example of the inadequacy of the marketing on the east coast main line. The present overnight return fare from King's Cross to Newcastle is 149. I was astonished to find that the fare to Edinburgh is only £109 for the overnight journey, and the Edinburgh journey is 50 per cent. longer than that to Newcastle. To add insult to injury, I understand that one can leave one's car for a week at Waverley station. One would be lucky to get away with leaving it for one day at Newcastle.
Mr. Home Robertson: One would be lucky to get a place.
Mr. Trotter: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I am, however, advised that the facility is offered at Edinburgh.
One of our great criticisms in the north-east about the service out of King's Cross at present is the complete lack of marketing and initiative that has been shown by the east coast management with regard to the overnight services. We are being asked to incur a great deal of money in this Bill on major works at King's Cross when the management appears to be unable to market the product that it already possesses.
In the near future there will be 400 miles of main line from Kings Cross on which, for the first time in history, there will be no overnight service. The sleepers will go and people coming out of the interchange with Thameslink to use the sleepers will find that the overnight sleeping trains
1044
have been removed. We must doubt whether the sums on which the plan was prepared and is now put to the House are still accurate.
Mr. Beith: Another possibility that is closed off by that decision is that at the moment newspaper contracts go north from King's Cross. There might even be a facility for loading the papers closer to the centres where the papers are produced through the use of the link line. However, British Rail seems to be surrendering completely.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Before the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) pursues that point, I remind him that we are dealing with work in London. It would be out of order for the debate to stray beyond that.
Mr. Trotter: As I said at the beginning, we are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill a large part of which concerns the provision of a link between the service under the Thames and that from King's Cross to the north. If we consider only one half of that link, the House cannot properly consider the Bill. I would certainly not want the Bill to receive its Second Reading tonight on that basis.
The carriage of newspapers is interesting, even if that only happens between Holborn and King's Cross—to keep the point within the context of London. We may allow our imagination to look further afield. The whole question of sector costing must be considered carefully. The Select Committee on Transport, on which I have the honour and pleasure to serve, drew attention in its report on the railways to its concern over this type of case
"where InterCity … in an attempt to shed costs, moves its services away from lines or stations which it might more sensibly continue to use.'
That has been happening with the east coast main line. The removal of the overnight passengers to Euston, or more likely to the competing air services, will mean that those passengers will no longer help to fund the movement of newspapers, post or parcels on the east coast main line. These services will in turn become less competitive and a vicious circle will be created as a result of the odd costing between various sectors of British Rail.
Before we proceed with the Bill, it is important to know the long-term plans for the service out of King's Cross. It is ridiculous to suggest that there should be a link for passengers using those services if we do not know what plans there are for the future. While it has been suggested by British Rail that King's Cross is an inadequate station for passengers to use at night, the latest reason for removing the overnight services is that the diesel locomotives needed to run it are so worn out and expensive that they can no longer be justified, and that electrification is the answer.
We are being asked to agree a system of works that will link up at King's Cross with the now being electrified east coast main line. The argument now advanced for using electric trains from Euston will be removed by the electrification of the route from King's Cross to the northeast and Edinburgh. There will no longer be any need to use clapped-out expensive diesel locomotives. Indeed, if those overnight trains continue to run from Euston rather than from King's Cross, not only will the passengers not have the advantage of the link to the Thames, but several of the clapped-out, expensive diesel engines will have to be maintained to run the service on from the electric wires at Carstairs to Edinburgh.

1045
There is thus a strong argument in favour of returning the Edinburgh service to King's Cross after electrification in only two years' time. That would bring more passengers to King's Cross and more people would use the works that we are asked to agree tonight. That would be logical, but however obvious and sensible it might be, British Rail has refused to give a commitment and we are left in complete doubt about the future. It is no good saying that the alternatives that British Rail has suggested will be adequate.
Dr. David Clark: To substantiate the point that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr.Trotter) is making about the type 47s and the switching of trains from Carstairs to Edinburgh, when the point was put to British Rail about running the type 47 from Carlisle to Newcastle, it said that it was too expensive. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making about the link is quite right.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Carlisle and Newcastle are a long way from London. The debate must be directly related to London, as that is what the Bill is about.
Mr. Trotter: I am talking about people who want to go from the middle of London up to the north using the service at King's Cross. That is what the Bill is about. People want to get to King's Cross on the link line at night, so that they can go home. On the railways' present plans, they cannot do that. I believe that this should be put right.
People who wish to make an overnight journey to Newcastle now have to go to Euston instead, without, of course, being able to use the link line. They must then go all the way to Edinburgh and back to Newcastle — a total of 525 miles instead of 268. In the other direction, they must leave home at 5 o'clock in the morning to get there in time for their engagement. That is wholly unsatisfactory. One of the most astonishing features of the management of British Rail is that it has failed to accept that this is unsatisfactory. This throws doubt on the judgment of the senior management of British Rail.
Mr. Fallon: What would the position be if one of my hon. Friend's constituents wanted to return from a meeting in Holborn and be at an early-meeting on Tyneside in the centre of Newcastle? If he could not use the link and had to travel by that circuitous route through Euston and Edinburgh, what time would be available to him for the meeting at Tyneside?
Mr. Trotter: He would have to get off the sleeper in Edinburgh at dawn, to catch the first train to the northeast from Edinburgh. It is astonishing that one of the senior managers of British Rail was quoted as saying,
"He could enjoy … the view on the way."
Mr. Snape: That gentleman said:
"He could enjoy a great British breakfast and the view along the way."
Mr. Trotter: That is the full quote. The person concerned would arrive in Newcastle at 8.30 am, provided that he got up in Edinburgh at 6 o'clock.
Mr. Beith: Assuming that the sleeper was not late.
Mr. Trotter: We are talking about an unknown quantity of money for work at King's Cross, and it is difficult to see the costs in context.
The energy wastage by British Rail on the eastern region is said by its energy manager to be £7 million a year.
1046
I do not know whether the cost of these works will be more or less than that. Losses on the sleepers have been variously estimated at £1 million, £700,000, £500,000, £355,000, £250,000 and £200,000. If we keep up the pressure they may disappear altogether. However, British Rail's determination to close the service at night and prevent people from Holborn or elsewhere in London making an overnight journey to the north-east has been unchangeable.
The Transport Users Consultative Committee takes an interest in all passenger services, whether from Holborn or from King's Cross. Both the north-east committee and the national committee are concerned about British Rail's proposals on this issue.
The link envisaged in the Bill must raise the question of through trains to the continent. On the very day that the other place passed the Channel Tunnel Bill, it gave consideration to the Bill before us tonight. Many hon. Members who come from the north-east agreed wih the construction of the Channel tunnel only because we envisaged a through rail service from the north. We already suffer from the north-south divide. It is essential that we have proper rail communication in Britain. A through service by rail to the continent will be essential in future.
I had hoped that this Thames tunnel would be an ideal way of providing such a service from the eastern parts of England down under London and through to the continent. Are we to be deprived of that opportunity? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet will be able to tell us whether there is a possibility of a service through the tunnel to the Channel tunnel. We should know whether British Rail is considering that.
Hon. Members have referred to other through services in London. Those services have been reasonably successful, whatever the Opposition may say about the slow speed of such trains. I do not believe there is any need for the overall speed to be as low as it is. I suggest that any slugishness is due to these trains being badly routed elsewhere than through west London. I hope that the new link will mean we can do better in the future.
There is to be a new, experimental, sleeping car train that will run from Edinburgh to Poole that will go 180 miles off the main electrified line. I do not know where the money has been found to pay for that service. I should have thought that there were far fewer people wishing to travel overnight from Poole to Edinburgh than there were wishing to travel from King's Cross through to Newcastle. Will that costly new service use the tunnel? I do not believe that it will, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet should tell us.
Earlier in the year, the director of InterCity referred to the closing of two uneconomic night routes, one of which was the service from King's Cross up the main east coast line. He went on to say—I believe that his words were rather unfortunate—that InterCity planned to add four new ones. I do not know whether he intended that remark to merit my interpretation, but I believe that a service such as that from Poole to Edinburgh — whether it goes through Holborn or not — is likely to be far less successful than the services that we are to lose from King's Cross.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Has the hon. Gentleman taken account of the fact that the distortions that already exist

1047
in fares, particularly on some of the services that we suffer on the east coast, may be applied to services down to places such as Poole?
Mr. Trotter: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Earlier I referred to the incredible lack of marketing. The impression formed by many is that a decision was taken to withdraw the service from King's Cross up the east coast line and that more passengers would be an embarrassment and get in the way of taking that service off.
I do not know whether it is intended to run lounge cars on the Thameslink. I was astonished to read that 31 lounge cars are to be introduced on the overnight sleepers from Euston and elsewhere. It seems that the idea is that business men will spend half the night drinking gin and will then get up before dawn to have breakfast. I believe that providing and running these cars is an astonishing use of money. One cannot help but wonder whether the cost of hauling those 31 lounge cars over Shap and the rest of the system will be fully remunerated out of profits on the gin or the breakfast.
I believe that there are grave doubts about the present management of the British Rail InterCity system. Those doubts are relevant tonight, because one of the aims of the Holborn link is to feed passengers to InterCity services. Before we agree this Bill we need to be satisfied about the plans for future services out of King's Cross that are intended to he used by those coming from Holborn on the link. We need to know the complete plans for the future of the station and the services out of it.
9.8 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am inclined to support the Bill, but I wish to ask a number of questions. I believe that a number of anomalies have appeared in the course of this valuable debate.
My first hesitation is that the Bill appears to accede to the Government principle—confirmed by the Minister—that substantial investment by British Rail in new routes, new lines—or, to be more accurate, reopened lines—will be paid for only by some form of localised property development. I cannot stomach that doctrine. The Minister may look puzzled, but I understand that that is the policy in many parts of London and in particular in respect of extensions to the docklands light railway. By the time I have finished my speech it will be clear that such a Government policy has also been adopted for other extensions, not only in London but elsewhere. If it is not, I shall he glad to hear from the Minister later by letter.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who thinks that I am being pedantic, but these are not new routes. They are routes which are being reopened and refurbished. Tunnels built in the 19th century are being reopened. Although the railway routes that the trains will use may be new, the works themselves, with one exception, are not new railways. Therefore, I am not being pedantic. A principle is involved. The House is not being asked to authorise a new route.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) who is interested in the east coast main line. Many Londoners use that line. I shall not dwell on the topic at length, because it does not come within the scope of the Bill, except that British Rail wants to run it almost as a semi-commuter railway, certainly as far as Grantham,
1048
which British Rail boasts is now part of London's commuterland. It appears that British Rail wants to squeeze out other services, particularly sleeper services, which seems to be an extraordinary decision.
Even more extraordinary is the lack of assistance for the Kensington route, which is a cross-London route. We heard about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I am sorry that British Rail has not persisted with that route, because it has the advantage of no loading gauge problems. One would have expected British Rail to persist with the welcome cross-London services which it started. Perhaps those services could go faster, but they were an innovation. It will be disadvantageous to the image of British Rail if they are cut after May.
I wish to ask some questions of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) about Snow hill in particular. That is the site of the main work and there is a proposal to abandon and, in effect, rebuild the Holborn viaduct terminal. The Snow hill route was used in the postwar period, particularly for goods traffic going through London. It has been closed relatively recently, much to the chagrin and criticism of many railway-minded people.
I thought that there was a Snow hill station. Why could not that be refurbished relatively quickly at a fairly low cost? Why was that not done for the service which is to start in May to give access to Holborn viaduct to people coming through on the widened lines?
Mr. Jack Thompson: I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the area. Can he tell us about the condition of the tunnel?
Mr. Spearing: No. The point I am coming to is that the works which we are being asked to authorise are not necessary for the service which is starting in May. That service will be from Bedford to various destinations south of the Thames, particularly Bromley South, Gatwick and perhaps Brighton. Therefore, those tunnels will be in operation in a few months' time. That is not what the Bill is asking us to authorise.
We are being asked to authorise additional works, first, for the elimination of Holborn viaduct and, secondly, for the refurbishment of tunnels at King's Cross which will give a second outlet to the north. I am mystified why we need to spend a lot of money on redeveloping the Holborn viaduct area to provide a terminal on a station below, which I believe exists and through which trains will be running in the next few months.
In addition, I do not understand why there is an apparent need to remove the viaduct between Blackfriairs and Holborn and the Snow hill route which will start in a few weeks. I appreciate the architectural feature which may be an advantage if the railway is to go beneath the ground, but it is an expensive change which, apparently, will be paid for by the abandonment of Holborn viaduct. I assume that Holborn viaduct will be demolished because, ultimately, the balance of traffic north and south will eliminate the need for a terminal there. If Holborn viaduct is no longer required, surely it would be relatively cheap to put a station beneath it on the Snow hill line.
I now wish to turn to the mystery of works nos. 3A and 3B at King's Cross. I have made inquiries of British Rail about those and it has confirmed the relatively well-known fact that the York road tunnel and the Hotel curve tunnel will not take standard gauge coaches. Specially short or

1049
narrow coaches and limited gauge locomotives were used on the Moorgate service until a few years ago. I have ascertained that they will not be available for 125s, sleeping cars or the new mark 4 coaches which will be used when electrification of the east coast main line occurs. Therefore, suburban services from the Peterborough or Stevenage areas will go to the various destinations in the south.
Mr. Trotter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. Surely, if the main part of Thameslink will take proper main line stock, it would be sensible to open up the curves on the tunnels at King's Cross so that we get all the advantages of running through services from the farther ends of the country.
Mr. Spearing: Yes, that would appear to be an attractive solution, but, from what little I know about this line, I believe that the loading gauge restrictions are not only on those tunnels but found elsewhere on the line.
How expensive will it be to make the so-called widened line even wider and provide the facilities that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) mentioned? What about something more ambitious still?
My closing points relate to plans for rail traffic through London, which were produced in the mid-1960s. Under the strategic plans, there were proposals for main-line tunnels through the centre of London linking some of the mainline railways to the standard gauge size of bore. That would have been of vast benefit to Londoners. There would have been relatively short tunnels. If I remember rightly, there was a suggestion for tunnels between Paddington and Liverpool street and between Euston, Battersea and Victoria. British Rail revived such proposals not long ago in a scheme called CrossRail, but the Minister said that he was not concerned with it as British Rail had not produced any plans. He said that the Department of Transport would consider the proposals only if they were profitable.
We are now left with this limited proposal. It would be much better for strategic transport in London, where overcrowding on the underground is now a problem, for the Government to have invested in a much more ambitious scheme of standard gauge routes, either on the CrossRail principle introduced by British Rail some time ago or as envisaged in the strategic plan studies for London in the mid-1960s. That would have provided a better service for suburban traffic in London and for through-London services requested in the debate by hon. Members from the north.
9.18 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). Some hon. Members referred to him as the hon. Member for Chipping Norton. I would not ask him to choose between those two constituencies. I simply wish to put that on record. I am indebted to him for his clear explanation of the purposes of the Bill. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I now criticise to some extent the promoters of the Bill. We understand that he is not a promoter of the Bill. He is acting on their behalf and he has done his duty in as full and frank a way as possible.
The promoters of the Bill have not effectively discharged their obligations to the House. The statement
1050
circulated by the promoters — I received a copy of it only this morning — is a tatty, two-page, photocopied document. It contains neither a financial explanation of the cost of the various works to be undertaken, for which powers are sought, nor a proper explanation, other than two sentences in paragraph 4, of the various works that are described in clause 5. It would be almost impossible for a layman, looking at a copy of the Bill and a copy of the tatty statement, to have any idea of what is going on or of the purpose of the Bill.
I draw that point to the attention of the House for two reasons. First, the House is considering private Members' Bills procedure. I should have thought that the Committee, which is sitting during this Session, might want to examine the statements that are circulated in support of private Members' Bills and whether those who promote them could get a little nearer to the model that was set by the Government, and, at the outset, attach to private Bills much fuller explanatory and financial memoranda.
Mr. Chapman: If the opportunity arises, I shall reply to the points that have been made. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) about the financing of the schemes. I hope to be able, as precisely as I can, to give hon. Members the figures that they want. They were published when the Bill first came before Parliament. Of course, that was the last Parliament. I take to heart the criticism that the figures were not presented with the memorandum. They are available.
Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend, courteously as ever, has attempted to respond to my point. It is no reflection on him; it is a reflection on the promoters. I am bound to say that it will not do to tell us that the financial information was produced in the last Parliament. There are hon. Members present who were not in the last Parliament. No financial information is attached to the present Bill, the Order for the Second Reading of which the Clerk has read. It will not do to say that financial information was published at the time or that it was available in the last Parliament.
It will not do for another reason. When the debate began at 7 o'clock, somebody straying into it might have been under the impression that we were considering relatively minor works. It was only when we examined the full implications of clause 2 that we discovered that we are discussing works to be undertaken over two to three years. We are discussing a major infrastructure investment project in the heart of our capital city. We require much fuller financial information.
We require such information for a second reason. There is a growing, damaging imbalance of public expenditure on the railway network as a whole. Some of the works in clause 5 are self-financing. The return from the realisation of the existing Holborn viaduct site will cover work no. 1. My hon. Friend has already made it clear that the remaining works, works nos. 3A, 3B and 4, will not be self-financed and will require support from central British Rail funds. That means that they will require support from the taxpayer. The most heavily subsidised part of British Rail is Network SouthEast in which the works are being constructed.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State kindly supplied me with the figures before Christmas. The current passenger service obligation grant to Network SouthEast

1051
is about £232 million. That is almost as much as the entire regional aid budget. Let us leave that out of the Bill for the moment. Let us simply remind ourselves that the money for the construction of the works at King's Cross, through Snow hill, will come from that central Government subsidy. Those works will be financed not simply by London commuters such as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, but by taxpayers throughout the country who may never witness them being undertaken.
Mr. Home Robertson: Would the hon. Gentleman have more confidence in the ability of British Rail to finance these works in the medium or long term if it had not gone to such strenuous lengths to deter many of its regular passengers and to sabotage the night services that serve the hon. Gentleman's constituency and my constituents from the Dunbar area?
Mr. Fallon: That is a very strong point. I was always taught at school that those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. I have now discovered that British Rail's motto must be, "Those services that it wishes to eliminate it first makes secret."
With regard to clause 5, as I established in my reference to the taxpayers' subsidy of these works in London, it would be wholly unfair to proceed with the construction of such a link across the centre of London unless all those who use the railway network and all those who are technically able to do so, commuting on the railway network from those parts that are connected to the London link, have equal access to it. It would be wrong to construct such a link and deny those who had paid for it to the right to travel along it. That means not only equal access but access on a regular and continuing basis, not simply at certain times of the day. This is not a London link for yuppies. It should be used by all those who use the railway network and are able to transfer at points on the east coast line. We shall learn where those points are when my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet replies to the debate.
It is right that, if the taxpayer is subsidising this link across the centre of the capital, all those who wish to have access to the King's Cross line—in particular, the east coast main line—should have access to it at whatever time of day they arrive or leave. Somebody in the north-east—on Tyneside or Teesside — may wish to reach Holborn for a breakfast meeting at 8.30 or 9 am. We are also entitled to consider the position of somebody leaving Holborn who wants to make a business trip to the northeast, the Borders or Scotland.
We are entitled to ask why this appears to be a metropolitan Bill. It has been drafted by people who have no conception of the huge distances involved for those who have to leave London and do their business in the borders or the north-east, or those who live in the Borders or the north-east and have to do their business in London.
Those who drafted the Bill do not understand the implications of not allowing those who live further away on the railway network to share in its benefits. I was not surprised that the metro-cats of Marsham Street could not find much for the Minister to say in support of the Bill. They have no understanding of the huge distances involved or the rights of those in the railway regions that we from the northern constituencies are determined to protect.
We do not find work no. 2 in clause 5. Is that another British Rail service that has somehow become secret? We
1052
seem to leap from work no. 1 to work no. 3A. What happened to work no. 2? Was it considered at some earlier stage? Was it something that was included during the last Session that we are not entitled to see during this one? Should inquiries be made at the Vote Office to discover whether part of the Bill became detached in the excitement of the general election? I leave my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet to ponder that point.
Works nos. 3A and 3B pertain to King's Cross and, in a sense, lie at the heart of the Bill. As has been said many times in the debate, King's Cross is much more than a station for London commuters, enabling the yuppies who live on the outskirts of London — for example, Huntingdon — to make their money in the centre of London. It is a national station, as has been recognised from E. M. Forster onwards through the pages of our literature.
In undertaking works at this station whose benefits would not be available to those arriving overnight from Scotland or the north-east, the Bill's promoters are depriving King's Cross of part of its historic role in our railways network. They are also depriving the very people whom they seek to help—Londoners and City business men—of the opportunity to get out of London into the northern regions to see what is happening there. The promoters are doing no service at all.
I come to work no. 4. The serious point has emerged that it would be inappropriate to proceed with the development of subways and escalators in the vicinity of King's Cross when an inquiry into the tragic events of 18 November has only just been established and it will be months before we know what is recommended by the public inquiry set up under statute to be conducted on a judicial basis by Mr. Desmond Fennell QC. There is a range of issues to be considered — not simply fire detectors and sprinklers but the design of the subways and escalators.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet cannot reconsider works nos. 1, 3A and 3B, I urge him to look again at work no. 4 to determine whether it is right to ask the House to grant powers to authorise these works before the public inquiry into the tragic events of that fire has even begun.
Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. I tried to reassure the House in my opening remarks. However great the speed with which the Bill progresses through the House, it will be some months before it reaches the statute book. As my hon. Friend has said, it will be some months before Mr. Desmond Fennell QC reports. The detailed designs of these escalators have yet to be completed. Obviously British Rail will wait on the inquiry's findings. Quite apart from that, British Rail will closely consult the railways inspectorate and the fire services.
Whatever else I cannot do, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend on that important point. We are talking about the time span between the Bill being passed by Parliament and these works at King's Cross being completed — under two years. Some people complain that the works should be completed more expeditiously. Others, such as my hon. Friend, who refer to escalators rightly say that we should wait. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend on that point, which is central to the questions that I asked before preparing to introduce the Bill.
Mr. Fallon: No one could have been more forthcoming and co-operative during this debate than my hon. Friend. He has sought every opportunity to reassure those of us who have had some reservations about the Bill's detailed provisions. His remarks are, to some extent, reassuring.
However, we are talking not just about escalators but about subways and the additional congestion that will be caused precisely because it will take at least two years to complete the work. A large number of additional passengers arriving at and departing from King's Cross may be rerouted along the subways because of the other works to be undertaken under the Bill.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider carefully the import of his remarks and consider whether it might be better to separate work no. 4 from the others in the Bill, at least until the public inquiry report is available, which I understand will not be until the summer at the earliest. No one has provided any information to the contrary tonight. My hon. Friend might be better advised to return to the House with fresh legislation to seek powers in respect of work no. 4.
I conclude by making two general points. First, I return to clause 22. The Bill takes important powers of compulsory purchase—we have heard nothing of local authorities' response to them — for four years, until 1992. The Bill would allow major works in the heart of our capital city. My hon. Friend and his supporters must make their case for the importance of those powers and justify them.
Secondly, the Bill deals with improvements that will make it easier for those commuting to London—those who enjoy the benefits and southern comforts of the largest subsidy in the provincial rail network. If such benefits are to be conferred on London, it is surely right and proper that they should be enjoyed equally by the rest of the United Kingdom—the taxpayers who are forking out the money. Those who seek power to construct the link must ensure that, as far as practicable, all parts of the country have equal and regular access to it at all times of night and day.
9.37 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: This has been a very interesting debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to matters that had not struck some of us until we set to work on the Bill. That shows the value of the debate, and those who suggested that we should let the Bill go through on the nod at 2.30 pm, with not a word spoken, ought to pause and reflect that complex legislation such as this needs to be discussed in a reasonable way.
Had more time been available for the debate, other hon. Members might have wished to speak. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is a regular user of King's Cross and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) takes a similarly close interest and makes full use of the service. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman would probably use the link line if the transfer arrangements between the main line and the link line proved satisfactory. However, it has not become at all clear that those transfer arrangements will be satisfactory.
I know that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) would have liked to deal at length with a number of the worries expressed during the debate. Let me say in passing that the promoters could not have had a
1054
better or more helpful advocate than the hon. Gentleman and that we are grateful to him for the way in which he has conducted himself.
Many of us would welcome the opportunity to return to these discussions at a later debate—we could either adjourn this debate or discuss the Bill at a later stage in its proceedings if the difficulties have not been ironed out. Indeed, we may meet again to discuss a British Railways (No. 2) Bill if British Rail does not find it possible—as I am sure it could—to deal with Members of Parliament more directly and allay their fears so that it ceases to be necessary to discuss the issues in debates such as this.
The attitude of some in British Rail has not been conducive to achieving such an object. If one looks back on the long, tortuous history of railway legislation, one discovers that railway Bills generally proceed more satisfactorily when the railway company has taken some trouble to ensure that it is meeting the wide range of service needs of those represented in the House than when it has not.
I was particularly struck and, indeed, disturbed by the Government's attitude to the Bill and the reasons that they advanced for saying so little about it. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State had done some kind of deal with the promoters to keep his remarks to a minimum. I was surprised to see him in the Chamber. I thought it was a victory for the "Convert the railways into roads" lobby. I had expected to see the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box, because he normally deals with railways and takes such a close interest in them.
When the Government's doctrine was enunciated, I became even more surprised. The Minister said that the Government's attitude was that the investment was justified solely because of the return that could be gained from the redevelopment opportunities that it offered. Basically, the Government are happy about the provisions because they are self-financing. I agree with the Government that the fact that they are self-financing is to be welcomed. However, the idea that the Government's attitude should be confined to saying, "Well done, British Rail, you have found a self-financing project," seems extraordinary when one considers the revenue implications that might flow from the continued running of the services, the rolling stock that will have to be provided, the maintenance of that rolling stock, and the extent to which the receipts from the service are needed, when in the rest of Network SouthEast, one is not surprised to find a deficit or a difference between the revenue earned by the service and the cost of running it.
Another reason why I was struck particularly forcibly was that in reply to my intervention the Minister said, "Basically it has nothing to do with us. We are the Government who tell British Rail to go away and get on with the job. All that we are concerned about is to ensure that any deals that it does are self-financing."
I should find that attitude easier to understand if it was taken consistently by the Government. When my hon. Friends and I, and hon. Members of other parties, have raised other service issues relating to the east coast main line, Ministers have been only too keen to wade, with wellington boots, into all the details of the service and comment on them as if they knew precisely how much it cost to open a train door at Newcastle central station or for a passenger to alight at King's Cross. They quote figures of alleged subsidies to passeners as if they were intimate with the day-to-day workings of the rail system.

1055
Indeed, I have advised Ministers that that is not what hon. Members expect of them because we understand that the Government are somewhat removed from the day-to-day operations of the railways.
However, the Government now seem to have got themselves in the ambiguous position that if British Rail proposes to remove a service, they weigh in with all the arguments that they can muster, but if British Rail is launching a new project, the Government's sole role will be to assess whether it can be financed out of the property development deal upon which it is based. Any railway finance implications, let alone implications for the customers of the railways, are of no concern to the Government. I find that profoundly worrying.
Mr. Jack Thompson: This is an important point. It has not yet been clearly stated that at the time of the sale of the land that is now to be sold to provide the finance for the new project, market forces may be totally different from the way in which they are identified now. Present values may not be applicable 12 months from now when the sale takes place. Has that fact been taken into account?
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman can make his point with even more force having been told that the key figures that are the basis of all this were produced when the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament. Quite a lot has changed since then, not least in the vicinity of Holborn viaduct station. City firms are shedding labour at a considerable rate and the calculations about the value to the link line of its passing close to the City will need to be reconsidered. Clearly, many other financial factors will change over time.
Mr. Chapman: I want to be as helpful as I can to the House. I may not have the opportunity before 10 o'clock to give all the information that has been asked of me during the debate. However, it may be helpful for the House to know that work no. 1 was estimated on 1 December 1986—that is 13-plus months ago—at about £36 million. A complete schedule was presented to Parliament. The hon. Member for Wansbeck is perfectly correct to say that British Rail does not know the value of the assets on the redevelopable land in the proximity of Holborn viaduct, because the value can change at any time.
Of course, the planning application is pending with the City of London corporation, and quite properly, it is not yet known whether those plans will be acceptable to that local planning authority.
One final point is that the House will be pleased to know that these plans will, I think, commend themselves to the local planning authority, if only because they have just been given the approval of the Royal Fine Arts Commission.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I shall turn later to the planning issues. I wonder whether the plans have obtained the approval of the royal family, too. Its members take a close interest in developments in the area around St. Paul's.
I am glad to see that the Minister of State has joined us; I hope to come to what he said about the level of subsidy that he thought—incorrectly, as it turned out—applied to certain other British Rail services as compared with the level of subsidy that applies to passengers travelling on this link route from north London through to the southern counties.
1056
One cannot now think of King's Cross station without remembering the horrible tragedy that took place there and which so shook the nation. Those of us who use the station regularly cannot but be moved by the sight of the bank of flowers that stands outside it, and by the way in which people have added flowers and messages to that bank of flowers as the weeks have gone by. I hope that there will be some sort of permanent memorial, somewhere within the precincts of King's Cross, to those who lost their lives in that terrible tragedy. I hope, too, that lessons will be learnt from it. It was a horrifying experience and many people were directly affected by it.
The fire changed many people's perception of the station. For many people in the north-east, King's Cross has always been the gateway to London, and the facility, if it were properly organised, to travel to other parts of London directly, possibly without even changing trains—as we had hoped—or at least by making a simple connection, would be welcome to such people.
Many of my constituents come through this gateway in to London—farmers coming to the Smithfield show, for instance, although I notice that not so many are coming this year. Times are not so good for the farming fraternity, as the hon. Member for East Lothian knows from personal experience. Ministers and church members come to the numerous church conferences that seem to take place in London ; women's institute members come, as do parties of schoolchildren, who go to the Tower and see the various sights of London. King's Cross is also a gateway outwards from London, which illustrates the importance of the station, upon which so many of these works will be carried out.
I had not spotted, until the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) pointed it out, the disappearance from the Bill of work no. 2. Perhaps, one day, we shall discover what happened to work no. 2 and why, when it disappeared, works nos. 3 and 4 were not renumbered accordingly, as would be the normal practice. I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar with E. M. Forster's novel, "Howard's End", to which the hon. Member for Darlington referred. In it, Margaret Schlegel is mentioned:
"To Margaret … the station of King's Cross had always suggested Infinity."
I am not referring to the Prime Minister, who does not visit King's Cross as frequently as I would wish; neither does she travel on the trains as often as I would wish.
"Its very situation—withdrawn a little behind the facile spendours of St. Pancras — implied a comment on the materialism of life. Those two great arches, colourless, indifferent, shouldering between them an unlovable clock, were fit portals for some eternal adventure, whose issue might be prosperous, but would certainly not be expressed in the ordinary language of prosperity."
That is rather a dated view of King's Cross, because the buildings on which the works are to be carried out are now recognised for their enormous architectural value. They present a marked contrast between King's Cross and St. Pancras, where Giles Gilbert Scott worked off the frustrations of not having been allowed to build a Gothic Foreign Office — instead, he built a Gothic station. Lewis Cubitt, who had been told that a good station could be built at King's Cross for less than the cost of the ornamental archway at Euston square—its removal was one of the early tragedies of modernisation—set to and produced a remarkable building which was perhaps the first great essay in functional architecture. It was the

1057
precursor of a whole generation of architecture against which people are now turning, but it must be maintained, preserved and recognised.
In recent years, work carried out at King's Cross has tried to be sympathetic to the character of King's Cross. I know that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has a close interest in buildings and architecture and, with his training, he understands it very well. Recent works have tried to be sympathetic to King's Cross and I hope that the works to be carried out under the Bill will do no harm to that very important and historic building. That is a difficult matter for people to deal with, but it is important. I am puzzled by the attitude of British Rail management to it.
The redoubtable Mr. Prideaux is one of the many members of British Rail management who have been involved in arguments with me and with other hon. Members present. He said:
"Euston's environment for overnight services is superior to that at King's Cross."
He is arguing that King's Cross is basically an unsuitable station even for passengers who alight from an overnight train so that they can go down the escalator provided by the Bill to join the link line to go through London to Holborn and possibly to destinations to the south of London.
Mr. Prideaux says that the environment there is not suitable for that purpose. I cannot understand why, because King's Cross has refreshment room facilities, newspaper stalls, a Pullman lounge and all the facilities that one might require either on alighting in the early morning or leaving late at night. However, I wish that the refreshment kiosk stayed open a bit later at night, because at 11.30 pm one is confined to a burger stand. The facilities are adequate for the purpose, and will be particularly so if the link line is there.
I cannot see the sense of diverting all the overnight traffic from Scotland into Euston if the link line was about to be provided. The possibility that people could move directly from an overnight service on to a train which would take them into central London or out to destinations south of London, should have been foreseen by British Rail when it made its extraordinary management decision to transfer all overnight services to Euston. At the back of that desire to transfer, there seems to be a belief that in some way King's Cross is not an adequate station. I reject that view and it is implicitly rejected in the decision in the Bill to make King's Cross part of this service.
Mr. Trotter: For the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has advanced, if King's Cross is inadequate for people who simply want to get on an overnight train, it must be a great deal more inadequate for the many people who use it during the day.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I shall come to the problems related to the points about congestion that were made earlier in the debate.
One matter casts a strange light on the Bill. I went to York to discuss British Rail's plans to withdraw overnight services from the Borders. At that meeting I discovered that British Rail planned to remove them from Tyneside as well. Nothing had been heard about that decision. Indeed, I found afterwards that a press release had been
1058
issued at precisely the time that I was to meet Mr. Fraser the InterCity manager to discuss the problem. He told me that one of the results of the change in the overnight services would be that King's Cross station would be closed after 10 o'clock at night. How does that fit in with the provisions of the Bill?
Clearly, the Bill envisages that King's Cross will provide a regular service for passengers either walking directly to King's Cross station or alighting there from Holborn viaduct or stations to the south. I simply do not understand how an apparent attempt to achieve economies by closing King's Cross at night squares with the provisions of the Bill.
Problems will arise because of congestion at King's Cross while the works take place. The problem at King's Cross is not with the overnight services but arises because of the build-up of daytime services and the passengers for them. When the overnight services depart and arrive there is plenty of room on the concourse at King's Cross for all the passengers, even though the trains are full. The Minister should realise that British Rail is pulling the wool over his eyes when it says that nobody uses those overnight services. The evening sleeper service to the Borders and Edinburgh is full night after night. I know that from personal experience. The southbound service from Newcastle is frequently full, even if the northbound service is not.
The congestion problem arises during the day because of the large number of InterCity trains that are in the station for a very short time. They are heavily used—it is a case of capital being intensively used—and one of the consequences is that often the train does not sit at the platform for the 20-minute or half-hour period to ensure that passengers can get directly on to it. Passengers may be boarding the train in the last five or 10 minutes. The result is that a large number of people are queueing on the King's Cross station concourse.
It is extraordinary; it is like Hampton court maze. The entire station concourse is marked out with lines —rather like the lines on the carpet in the Chamber—in a great serpentine shape. The queues are coiled one on another like an Indian snake-charmer's basket, as people wind around to get from one side of the station to their platform, or sometimes proceed in the reverse direction, in queue B, queue C and queue D. It is a most elaborate system, and it is a tribute to the fortitude and patience of the British people — especially the Geordie, Northumbrian and Scottish travellers who use the station — that they bear the queueing system with such tolerance, and show so little irritation, even when enduring very uncomfortable and inconvenient arrangements.
Mr. Trotter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the features of the maze at King's Cross is the complete lack of anyone in authority to help with directions? Presumably that will also apply to the problem of how to get down to the Holborn link.
Mr. Beith: That is true. I have seen it time and again. I find — particularly if I am wearing a black coat, or anything which faintly resembles authority—that I am asked questions by members of the public about how they can get to, say, the metropolitan line.
Problems of congestion are bound to be more acute if a serious displacement of other activities in the station is caused by the works that are taking place. A complete

1059
escalator and ticket hall must be built. I foresee considerable problems arising from building of the ticket hall, which is one of the explicit provisions in the Bill. Someone will have to explain to the staff at King's Cross how to relate the activities of one ticket hall to those of the other.
My experience at King's Cross—and, I am sure, that of other hon. Members —has been very disconcerting. For two or three months it was impossible to book a sleeper to Alnmouth, in my constituency, because the ticket office had been told that the train did not stop there. Although the barrier, with a notice on it, was nearer to that ticket office than the new ticket hall proposed in the Bill, the staff seemed unable to observe the words written above the platform informing passengers that the train stopped at Alnmouth. Unless there is some co-ordination, there will be experiences similar to the experience—which I described in an earlier intervention—of the unfortunate Nigerians arriving in Milton Keynes.
Let me now deal with the important issue of the interchange between the link service that the Bill provides and other services out of King's Cross. It has been a great disappointment to hon. Members that there seems to be no prospect of through running, despite concern in the north about through running into the Channel tunnel and beyond.
As the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) pointed out, any support given from the north-east to the Channel tunnel, although it was pretty muted, was at least based on the assumption that there had to be a rail tunnel, with a direct rail connection. If the Bill's promoters would say that the Bill would assist through running through the tunnel that is being built in London, so that direct services to the continent would be an early possibility, it would be enormously welcome, in relation to freight as well as passenger travel.
It is important that the north-east should gain the benefits of rail haulage, which could provide the area with distinct economic advantages if there was direct linking through the Channel tunnel. However, we were told that the loading gauge made through running unlikely, unless there was some rolling stock specifically designed to enable through running from the east coast main line on to the link line and beyond.
Mr. Chapman rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 34.

Division No. 147]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Chapman, Sydney

Atkinson, David

Chope, Christopher

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Cormack, Patrick

Bottomley, Peter

Cousins, Jim

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Cran, James

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

Bright, Graham

Day, Stephen

Burt, Alistair

Devlin, Tim

Butterfill, John

Dorrell, Stephen

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Carttiss, Michael

Eggar, Tim

1060

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Mans, Keith

Favell, Tony

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Miller, Hal

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Monro, Sir Hector

Forman, Nigel

Moore, Rt Hon John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Moss, Malcolm

Gale, Roger

Neubert, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Nicholls, Patrick

Gill, Christopher

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Oppenheim, Phillip

Gorst, John

Paice, James

Gow, Ian

Patnick, Irvine

Gower, Sir Raymond

Porter, David (Waveney)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Portillo, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Raffan, Keith

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Riddick, Graham

Ground, Patrick

Rost, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Rowe, Andrew

Hanley, Jeremy

Ryder, Richard

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

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Harris, David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

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

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Sims, Roger

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Speed, Keith

Hunter, Andrew

Stern, Michael

Irvine, Michael

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Jack, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Jackson, Robert

Summerson, Hugo

Janman, Timothy

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Knapman, Roger

Thurnham, Peter

Knowles, Michael

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Trippier, David

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Lightbown, David

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Lilley, Peter

Warren, Kenneth

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Watts, John

Lord, Michael

Wheeler, John

McCrindle, Robert

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Maclean, David

Mr. Michael Brown and

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mr. Timothy Wood.

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

NOES

Ashdown, Paddy

Leadbitter, Ted

Beith, A. J.

Livsey, Richard

Buchan, Norman

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

McWilliam, John

Canavan, Dennis

Meale, Alan

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Patchett, Terry

Clelland, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Cox, Tom

Prescott, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Snape, Peter

Dixon, Don

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Eadie, Alexander

Trotter, Neville

Flannery, Martin

Vaz, Keith

Foster, Derek

Wallace, James

Foulkes, George

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Golding, Mrs Llin

Haynes, Frank

Tellers for the Noes:

Home Robertson, John

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Lamond, James

Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed.

Hong Kong
Postponed proceeding resumed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Annual Report on Hong Kong 1987 (Cm. 293) and endorses the policies which the Government is pursuing to maintain Hong Kong's future prosperity and stability.

Food Protection
10.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 11), dated 7th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
The order revokes and re-enacts with amendments the provisions of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 3) Order 1987 and the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 4) Order 1987. It continues the emergency prohibitions imposed by those orders, restricting various activities to prevent consumption of food rendered unsuitable for that purpose in consequence of the escape in April 1986 of radioactive substances from the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl. [Interruption.]
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am interested in what the Minister is saying, but I cannot hear a word of it.
Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forsyth: The order also designates again and sets out the areas in Scotland affected by the escape from which the movement of sheep and in which the slaughter of sheep are prohibited. As hon. Members are aware, the restrictions on the slaughter of sheep from the designated areas and the supply of meat derived from such sheep extend throughout the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members will know that in the interests of causing minimum disruption to normal business practice, the Government announced on 13 August 1986 the introduction of a mark and release scheme to enable sheep which failed a monitoring test for radioactivity to be moved from an area where the movement and slaughter of sheep had been restricted by order, but not to be slaughtered. Those sheep were painted on the head with a distinctive paint mark of a particular colour which denoted that they came from a restricted area and could not be slaughtered until they had successfully passed a monitoring test and were ear-tagged to denote that fact or until there was a general amnesty on sheep painted that colour, following comprehensive testing to ensure that the consumption of the sheep would no longer pose any threat to health.
Three colours are used in rotation for this marking—green, blue and apricot. The order provides that, as from Monday 11 January, slaughter controls on green-marked sheep originating in the post-Chernobyl restricted areas are lifted. It follows a substantial fall in radioactivity levels in such sheep, all of which were marked on or before 27 September 1987, following their move to clean pasture.
In addition, with effect from Monday 11 January, the colour mark used to identify hitherto unmarked sheep which are to leave a restricted area after failing a live-monitoring test for radioactivity is changed from blue to apricot. As with previous colour changes, the latest change is to enable newly marked animals to be distinguished from sheep which have moved earlier out of a restricted area onto clean pasture, thus facilitating the eventual release from controls of blue-marked sheep once the readings for radioactivity permit it.
Neither sheep marked blue on or after 28 September 1987, nor sheep marked apricot on or after 11 January

1063
1988 may be slaughtered unless they successfully pass a re-monitoring test for radioactivity and are identified with a special ear-tag.
Those changes in colour continue the central control, designed to protect the food chain, over the movement and slaughter of sheep from the restricted areas and enable sheep once contaminated to unacceptably high levels of radioactivity and in respect of which these levels have now decreased to acceptable levels, to be slaughtered.
Mr. James Wallace: If there are any difficulties after this year, are there any contingency plans about future colour arrangements?
Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman has followed the debate—I am sure he has followed the subject closely—he will know that the three colours operate in rotation and that there is no need for additional colours to be added. The additional scheme of monitoring in the slaughterhouses continues to give added protection to the food chain.
I commend the order to the House.
10.14 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: I want to know who chose the colour apricot used in the scheme. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a brief explanation of the way in which the colour coding scheme is going round in circles. It sounds rather like a variation on the alliance merger negotiations. I am sorry that neither the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) nor the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) can be with us tonight. I understand that they may be taking part in something of a greetin' meetin', in keeping with the tactics that the leader of the SDP has recently discussed.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving a brief account of the way in which the restriction scheme is operating. I understand that the areas covered are as before, and that therefore the same number of farms and broadly the same number of sheep are subject to the restrictions. I understand from the National Farmers Union of Scotland that it is as happy as can be expected about the way in which the scheme is operated. Indeed, everyone involved with farming in Scotland recognises how important it is that consumers should be reassured that meat reaching the market place is safe for consumption. It is obviously important that the Government should continue to operate such schemes for as long as necessary.
With that in mind, I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some suggestions about how long the Government's experts advise that the restrictions should remain in effect. This morning my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the shadow Minister of Agriculture, gave me a copy of a cutting from the Manx Independent of 8 September 1987. That article quoted an unnamed scientist from the industrial pollution inspectorate in Scotland who confirmed that sheep farms could remain under Government restrictions for years. He told the paper:
"Caesium levels will decay by half their value in 30 years, and because of the nature of much upland pasture, readings which are considerably above the trigger levels in operation, suggest that caesium pollution could be a problem for many years."
Clearly that is a matter of some concern. It has bearing on the considerations that the House and the nation may
1064
give to future aspects of nuclear power, nuclear waste disposal and so on. Over the years, we have had many reassurances that we have no need to worry and that we will be all right. We have been told that nothing possible could go wrong and that if it does we will be perfectly safe and that there are ways of dealing with such problems. However, here we are facing a problem that occurred hundreds of miles away nearly two years ago—
Mr. Foulkes: Thousands of miles away.
Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That problem occurred nearly two years ago, but farms, businesses and people's jobs and way of life are being disrupted in Scotland.
I make no complaint about the fact that the Government are introducing the order. Indeed, I wholeheartedly support it. However, I should be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to say how much longer such restrictions are likely to be in effect.
10.17 pm
Sir Hector Monro: Although hon. Members may greet the debate with some hilarity, I believe that there is a serious side to the problem, on two counts. First, the Government were quick to react to the problem and introduce the scheme, soon after the Chernobyl accident, in the interests of consumers. However, at the same time, it was equally important that a scheme should be provided to help farmers sell their fat lambs at the appropriate time and to ensure that they were clear of caesium contamination.
I believe that the Government and the Scottish Department, of Agriculture and Fisheries, which has administered the scheme, often with particular difficulty, have done so with great good will and good nature. Farmers are satisfied that they were helped through this difficult period by that Department, and particularly by regional offices such as that in Dumfries.
In the first six months when the scheme was new many difficulties arose. I appreciate that it took some time for that scheme to be understood in the markets and in the farms. However, the compensation that was paid and the arrangements that were made have, in the long run, proved satisfactory. However, I appreciate that many farmers have been greatly inconvenienced by the order, especially in south-west Scotland.
I am grateful for the opportunity to thank the Minister and his Department for being so helpful and understanding and for administering the scheme in the best way possible.
10.19 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: I apologise for being a fellow Celt and not a true Scot. My wife is Scottish, and in the past I farmed 1,500 acres in Scotland, so I know a little about the farming scene there. It is sensible to continue with the order. We have had a similar problem in north Wales. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has also experienced similar problems in his constituency.
The main point is that the health of the public must be protected. All farmers accept that. That is a fundamental requirement of the order. It is also necessary to protect farmers' products and markets long term.
The CEGB proposal to conduct an experiment at Trawsfynydd power station in Wales is irresponsible. It

1065
could cause problems if it is not monitored carefully. I do not think that it is wise to proceed with it. It should be remembered that the original experiment at Chernobyl caused all the trouble that we are discussing. It must also be remembered that farmers are now into the third year of disruption and are not able to market sheep from the upland areas. The Scottish Office should ensure that those farmers are adequately compensated. Considerable compensation has been given but, as I have just said, this is the third year in which the upland sheep farming system will be affected.
Upland areas throughout the United Kingdom have been affected. The Scottish colleges should monitor farm accounts closely to find out the long-term effect on the profitability of the Scottish upland farms. The Government should try to ensure that there is not a continuing decline in farm incomes. Therefore, the Minister should take careful note of the monitoring from the point of view of the contamination of the sheep and the effect on the profitability of sheep farming systems.
10.21 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the introduction of the order and the fact that the Government are continuing to act sensibly and sensitively, as they have done from the outset, on the problems faced by sheep farmers. After all, it was not the action of sheep farmers that brought about the difficulties. It is wise to remember, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has said, that such things are with us and that they could happen again.
What comes through clearly is that, whatever we decide to do in the United Kingdom, it will not in the end have any impact upon totalitarian regimes wherever they are, and particularly on the one that initiated the problem. We can only hope that our example will encourage or embarrass that country so that never again will we face a similar situation.
The Government have adopted a realistic approach. We have dealt with the effects of the fallout and we have put into operation a system of monitoring that continues to protect the consumer while at the same time ensuring that farmers do not go out of business during the term of the order. On that the Government are to be congratulated.
10.23 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I declare an interest from the point of view of my constituency, which is affected by the order and by the contamination, as the Minister knows. As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) knows only too well, my constituency is large, being 800 square miles in area. It is interesting to note, in view of the debate in which I participated earlier, that my constituency is twice the size of Hong Kong, which has a population of 5·5 million. My constituency is sparsely populated; it is rural, with many high parts, and has a heavy rainfall. It was one of the areas most seriously affected by contamination because, unfortunately, we had very heavy rainfall just after the Chernobyl incident.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries that this is not a humorous or facetious issue. It is important in terms of compensation and effect. We must remember that this
1066
incident, involving serious contamination and restriction on the slaughter of sheep, took place almost two years ago, yet it is still having a serious effect. We must also remember that it was not a nuclear explosion. It was a conventional explosion in a nuclear power station resulting in the emission of radioactive material which went into the atmosphere, was transported through the atmosphere and deposited, in particular, in Scotland, Wales and Cumbria. It was a case of caesium contamination, which decays very slowly.
It is a very serious matter, but there is no harm in bringing humour into a serious matter—as I have been known to do from time to time — because it can sometimes illustrate a point extremely well, as the Minister managed to do in his reference to the colouring of sheep.
This matter has caused a great deal of concern in my constituency. I have raised the post-Chernobyl effect with the Minister on several occasions, but, like his predecessor, he tends to shrug it off in a Pavlovian way. In my younger days, I studied psychology a little, including the matters studied by Pavlov. Scottish Office Ministers tend to react in that sort of way when hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, raise such issues.
I have mentioned on previous occasions the effect of the build-up of radioactivity after the Chernobyl incident in the bodies of people in south-west Scotland. Although there is a restriction on the slaughter of sheep which register above the 1,000 becquerel level, contaminated sheep below that level are still being slaughtered and sent to market. Sheep are also being slaughtered and being sent to market at a later stage when the becquerel level falls.
There has not been sufficient study of the other ways in which accumulated radioactivity gets into the body through food chains and accumulates. If that effect is evident in sheep and lambs, it must surely be present in the bodies of other animals that we eat. It must be present in grain and root crops and is therefore coming through all the food chains into the body. That is why I have been urging the Minister to institute a systematic study of whole-body monitoring.
Mr. Livsey: The becquerel level of a married couple farming in north Wales has been monitored. The becquerel level recorded in the wife was 4,500 and the level in the husband was 4,800.
Mr. Foulkes: I can give other similar examples. The Minister, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), brought the matter to the attention of the media. He supplied other figures for me and then shrugged them off. I regret that he does so. There were high radioactivity levels for trout in Loch Doon, for rabbits—the level for rabbits in my constituency was very high—and for deer. Of course, radioactive material is concentrated in animals' bodies.
I have been arguing for systematic whole-body monitoring. The Minister said that it is already happening because volunteers are going to east Kilbride. Professor Baxter and his staff at the Scottish university research and reactor centre are doing whole-body monitoring. But that is not a systematic study to try to compare one part of the country with another. Of course, volunteers are not always those who need to have their radioactivity levels checked. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. Opposition Members were worried recently by a report in The Observer that the radiation monitoring unit at the Ministry of Defence had warned against—
Sir Hector Monro: That is quite incorrect information. A fortnight ago, I received a letter from the Ministry of Defence — it was well publicised in the press—stating that that was a lot of nonsense.
Mr. Foulkes: If that is the case, I look forward to receiving a copy of the letter from the hon. Gentleman. The information was certainly not refuted at the time. Many weeks ago, a full account appeared in The Observer, including a quotation from a Ministry of Defence spokesman, stating that the Department had warned against military personnel going to the south-west of Scotland because of the danger of radioactivity in the Purple Warrior exercise. I observed that exercise and had certain comments to make.
There is general concern not just because of the post-Chernobyl effect but because there are other potentially radioactive nuclear establishments in the area. There is Hunterston in the north. Right in the centre there is the radioactive establishment of great interest at Chapelcross, which many people forget. Not only is it a generating station but it has other significant functions as a producer of tritium and plutonium. Therefore it is important in terms of the weapons programme. It is right in the centre of south-west Scotland. Sellafield is south of south-west Scotland.
We know about the concern that has been expressed about Sellafield. The latest Sellafield proposal is that the enriched plutonium that is brought here from Japan for reprocessing should be flown back from Prestwick airport. A previous Energy Select Committee pointed out that the most dangerous radioactivity scenario that one can envisage is an aeroplane crash. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is an expert on the matter. There is concern about road and rail transportation and possible accidents. The worse possible scenario is an air crash, a subsequent fire, and the effect of radioactive discharges and the contamination that should take place.
We in south-west Scotland consider that the area is targeted. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumfries mutters away. His majority is reducing progressively as mine rises progressively. Bit by bit, the people of southwest Scotland are giving their verdict. There will soon be few Tories in that area. I receive letters from the hon. Gentleman's constituency and from the neighbouring constituency, stating that the Conservative Members are not adequately reflecting local people's concerns.
There is genuine concern that the south-west of Scotland is targeted. Of course, we cannot blame Chernobyl; it was entirely an accident. There was certainly no intention to target any part of the country. It was an unfortunate thing, and it added to people's worries. They are already concerned about the incidence of radioactivity and the potential for further radioactive contamination in the area.
I hope that the Minister will give a more positive reaction about the monitoring for which not only I but other people have been calling. If he does not, we shall continue to press him in order to obtain a response. I hope that he will, for once, show some concern. He is following the path of his predecessor in accepting the bland assurances that he is given by his Department and regurgitating them. He should remember what happened to his predecessor the Earl of Ancram, who is no longer a Member of the House.
10.35 pm
Mr. Michael Forsyth: By leave of the House, I shall try to answer some of the main points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said that I follow a long line of Ministers who repeat what the Department says. I took the trouble to read some of the speeches that the hon. Gentleman has made on this issue. He seems to make the same point over and over again and, although it is answered, he does not accept the answers that are given. He has a characteristic of trying to stir up anxiety about these issues because of his particular antipathy to nuclear power. It is slightly mischievous of him to create needless concern among his constituents.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about whole-body monitoring, he knows very well that there is a project being carried out at East Kilbride, which he mentioned. He says that it is not a proper project because it is based on particular selected volunteers. My understanding is that to make the data from the project valid, it is essential to have volunteers whose dietary behaviour has been considered to obtain worthwhile results. I would rather take the word of the scientist responsible for the project on the best ways of achieving that than take that of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that scientists have put to him a proposal that has not been approved by the Department?
Mr. Forsyth: We are supporting the project that is currently being undertaken.
Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is dodging.
Mr. Forsyth: I am not dodging at all. It has shown quite clearly that the assumptions on which our action was based were valid.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for the tributes that they paid to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which handled an extremely difficult matter extremely well. It has served the people of Scotland very well indeed.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley must not try to imply that the levels of radioactivity concerned are anything but nominal. Even at the 1,000 bq/kg level in lamb, if someone consumed 5 kg per year it would be equivalent to the levels in half an X-ray. We should bear that point in mind.
The hon. Gentleman asked about deer, rabbits, trout, grouse and other animals that have been affected. One would have to eat about 20 grouse per year to reach the levels with which we are concerned. The higher levels that are sometimes referred to occurred on the leg meat of the grouse, and there is not much leg meat on a grouse.
Mr. Foulkes: I did not mention grouse. I mentioned rabbits, trout and deer. I specifically did not mention grouse because very few of my constituents are able to afford it. Some of them manage to catch trout, and the Minister will recall that the level in trout in Loch Doon was about 4,500 bq/kg. The Minister is shrugging off concern about such information.
Mr. Forsyth: The reason why I mentioned grouse--the hon. Gentleman is right, he did not mention grouse specifically—is because the highest levels of radioactivity have been encountered on the leg meat of grouse; I was

1069
giving the worst case to reassure the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The levels of bq/kg discovered in deer, rabbit and trout are very much less. The point that I am trying to get across to the hon. Gentleman is that the quantity of meat consumed determines the dosage. The dosages concerned are very low and are comparable to half an X-ray. It is irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman to imply that his constituents are somehow threatened. If they were, the Department would have taken action, as it has done over the sheep problems.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked why we chose particular colours. It arose because of the dyes. I am sure that he will be relieved to know that red is used only in England and not in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman assumed that the number of farms affected would be broadly the same, and went on to say that this problem would be with us for a considerable time. This year 69 farms are covered, compared with more than 2,500 the previous year. The worries expressed by the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues do not appear to be reflected in the number of farms affected.
The hon. Gentleman talked about sheep farms being affected for years to come and quoted the 30-year half-life of caesium. What matters is not the half-life of caesium but the time that it takes for the caesium to be dispersed. That is affected by rainfall, soil and vegetation structure, and so on.
Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister referred to the 69 farms covered. I understand that that is precisely the same number of farms that were covered by the order that we debated on 16 November, which, incidentally, included a number of farms that had not been covered by previous orders. There seems to be an indication that there was a build-up in some areas. I press the hon. Gentleman again to take the opportunity to give some sign of the Government's view, on the strength of the scientific advice available to them, of how much longer this type of restriction is likely to have to remain in force.
Mr. Forsyth: There are 69 farms involved, and about 124,000 of the sheep population in Scotland of 8·;8 million are affected. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that some additional farms came within the system. As he has studied these matters, he will know that, for example, the structure of the vegetation in some areas results in a concentration of caesium. That is why some farms came back into the system, as I explained when we debated the matter previously, along with the orders that applied to other parts of the United Kingdom.
1070
The Government will continue to operate the system so long as our monitoring indicates that it is necessary to do so to protect the food chain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports us.
Mr. Home Robertson: I am sure that the whole House would support any responsible Government in applying restrictions where they are necessary. I am trying to press the Minister to throw some light on one point. I am certain that his officials have given him some information on the likely prognosis. How long is it likely that such restrictions will have to remain in force, either on these farms or on others? Are we talking about weeks, months or, indeed, years?
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman may believe that the Scottish Office is omniscient, but it does not have the qualities of precognition. There is no way of predicting exactly how quickly dispersal of the caesium will take. The position that the hon. Gentleman appeared to think existed is not nearly as bad as he suggested.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to compensation. To date, the compensation paid in Scotland amounts to £1·4 million. The hon. Gentleman talked about the tests to be carried out in a nuclear power station, which is something of a red herring. I refer him to the excellent reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, which he obviously has not had an opportunity to read.
We shall keep the situation in Scotland under review to ascertain how far restrictions will need to be maintained in 1988. For the immediate future, however, we believe that the present movement and slaughter controls represent the most practicable way of ensuring the continued safety of the food chain and of maintaining public confidence with the minimum disruption to farmers' normal husbandry practices. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohitions) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 11), dated 7th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  FEES AND CHARGES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Department of Trade and Industry (Fees) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Question agreed to.

Exhaust Emission Control
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]]
10.45 pm
Mr. Graham Bright: The impact of the motor car on our lives is obvious to us all. It is an essential means of transport for business and leisure activities for the majority of the population. Indeed, no modern economy could survive or prosper without it. The growing number of vehicles on our roads has created a series of problems — congestion, inadequate traffic-carrying capacity and a shortage of parking spaces in our towns and cities. We are all familiar with those problems.
The Government and local authorities rightly give high priority to the task of tackling those problems. However, there is a second concern — less obvious but equally serious. We have become much more conscious of the effects of vehicle exhaust on the atmosphere. That was one of the reasons for our welcome decision to move from the use of leaded to the use of unleaded petrol. But car engines are also the source of a substantial proportion of the carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and unburnt hydrocarbons being pumped into the air every single day.
I do not pretend to be a medical expert, but I know that the harmful effects of the emissions are widely accepted. More than 90 per cent. of the carbon monoxide detected in cities in the United States, which has far more stringent standards than we have, comes from car exhausts. Carbon monoxide is a poison that reduces the flow of oxygen into the blood. People with weak hearts and the very young suffer extra strain even at low levels of exposure.
The second major source of pollution is to be found in the oxides of nitrogen. Admittedly, cars are not normally responsible for as high a proportion of these as of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. They are responsible perhaps for only 30 to 40 per cent. in most urban areas. Even a small concentration has been shown to cause respiratory problems for children and asthmatics—something that concerns me as an asthmatic.
Finally, there are the unburnt hydrocarbons, which, in combination with nitrogen oxides, have been identified as a major cause of acid rain and photochemical smog. Two years ago, I had the dubious privilege of seeing the disastrous results of acid rain pollution on the Black forest in West Germany. It would be most unwise to think that those effects occur only there and in Norway. Every time that we get a really fine summer day without strong winds, we also get ozone pollution outdoors at levels of concentration well above those permitted in factories by the factory inspectors. There is no escaping those effects; they are all around us.
Other countries have acted to control such emissions. The Clean Air Act passed in the United States in 1970 required motor manufacturers to cut atmospheric pollution from vehicle exhausts. The technology needed to do that was available in the form of autocatalysts. Since those became compulsory in 1975, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions have fallen by 90 per cent.—as a result of oxidation catalysts being fitted to the exhausts of new cars. Since 1981, when the three-way catalysts capable of removing nitrogen oxides also became compulsory, the emission of that gas has dropped by 75 per cent. Therefore, it is not surprising that other countries such as Australia, Canada and Japan have followed the American lead.
1072
Here in Europe, members of the Stockholm group have adopted the United States emission standards. Austria, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway have all decided to take that course. In the European Community, West Germany, Holland and Luxembourg have used fiscal incentives to promote the use of autocatalysts.
As a result of the Luxembourg compromise in 1985 — I emphasise the word "compromise" — the Commission produced a draft directive requiring cars with a capacity of more than 2 litres to have three-way catalytic converters fitted by 1989; those with engines between 1·4 and 2 litres would either have to have three-way catalysts or lean-burn engines fitted with oxidation catalysts, while those under 1·4 litres would require lean-burn engines alone.
I now understand — this is one reason why I have sought this debate—that the Community's Environment Ministers agreed at their meeting on 3 December that the directive should now be issued. I understand also that they have not yet decided what should happen about small cars. I understand further that Denmark is to go it alone arid have more stringent controls. I say, "Good for Denmark." That is undoubtedly progress. My hon. Friend will be entitled to claim credit for that on both economic arid technical grounds when he replies. However, the key question is whether it is an entirely appropriate solution in the long-term.
This issue is of great importance to my constituency, where General Motors' main United Kingdom plant, Vauxhall, is situated, and to the British-based motor manufacturing industry in general.
There is no doubt that we have the technology to solve the problem. Indeed, a British company, Johnson Matthey, pioneered the development of autocatalysts and is still the world leader in this field. That company, together with General Motors, is a major exporter of autocatalysts to the American and European markets. The difficulty that motor manufacturers based in Britain and suppliers like Johnson Matthey will face lies in the mixture of lean-burn and autocatalysts technology that is proposed in the directive.
It is not true to claim that lean-burn technology in itself offers a solution. Lean-burn engines cut emissions of nitrogen oxides at low speeds, but increase them at higher speeds. There has been some misleading, not to say irresponsible, advertising by one of our major motor manufacturers on that point. Furthermore, the leaner the engine, the higher the hydrocarbon emissions. That explains the need for oxidation catalysts to reduce carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions on lean-burn engines.
The study conducted by the Warren Spring laboratory for the Department of the Environment suggests that, on official traffic forecasts, the adoption of the directive will reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from vehicles by between 12 and 32 per cent. by 2010. If three-way catalysts were fitted to all cars, the estimated reduction would be between 60 and 69 per cent.
The directive offers a second-best solution, even if it is adopted now. A delay in its adoption until the 1990s will simply put back the date at which atmospheric pollution begins to be reduced.
I appreciate that one or two manufacturers face difficulties in completing their engine technology to accommodate autocatalysts on all their models. But all our manufacturers are already faced with the task of meeting

1073
American emission standards, if they are exporting. They will have to confront the problems of meeting those standards and complying with the much less rigorous European Community requirements in the 1990s. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory long-term prospect. Two of our major producers of motor vehicles are American, so they have the technology because that is what they provide in the United States. There is no reason why that technology should not be transferred.
The alternative is obviously to adopt three-way catalysts for models of all sizes, which is what I would prefer. Such catalysts are capable of dealing with unburnt hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, and of converting them into harmless carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen. On environmental grounds, that is a clearly preferable course. I recognise that extra costs would be incurred by motor manufacturers and, in due course, by car purchasers. The basic cost of a catalyst is now about £50, although further modifications to an engine have to be made if one is fitted. In West Germany, where identical models with and without autocatalysts capable of meeting the proposed European standards on emission are available, the average price is about £214, and the figures of £500 to £1,000 that have been bandied around by some critics are highly exaggerated.
It is equally untrue to suggest that the fitting of autocatalysts has a dramatically adverse effect on engine performance and fuel economy. The figures that I have seen of tests on continental manufacturers' models suggest reductions in maximum speed for medium-sized cars—between 1·4 and 2 litres—of just over three miles per hour, and for larger cars of more than 2 litres of fractionally more than two miles per hour. On fuel economy, there was a marginal loss for small cars of 1·3 miles per gallon, and for large cars of 0·2 miles per gallon; medium-sized cars actually gained. I have taken part in a scientifically monitored test that confirmed those findings. The results are, I believe, acceptable in the light of the environmental gain offered — even when the cars are pushed, no difference in performance can be found.
The technical case for supporting three-way catalysts rather than the directive's compromise is compelling. This is an area in which Britain has a technological lead. We have taken the necessary steps to reduce the emission of lead, even though I am afraid that customers at the petrol stations have been very slow in demanding the product. That situation cannot last. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel able to provide an incentive to encourage the use of unleaded petrol when he makes his Budget statement later in the year. Unleaded petrol is essential if we use autocatalysts.
I do not believe, however, that we should settle for a second-best solution to the problem of exhaust emissions from motor vehicles. It may not, in any case, be possible to sustain the compromise envisaged in the Community directive indefinitely. There is pressure for environmentally clean vehicles to be produced here in the United Kingdom and in continental countries where the Green movement is strong.
It is interesting that a survey by a Scandinavian poll in this country shows that 45 per cent. of the public identified that cars were associated with contributing to acid rain. The adoption of American requirements within the European Community to conform with other continental
1074
countries is bound to reappear on the agenda. It may well enjoy some support from the Japanese and United States-based manufacturers operating in a global market. The threat of further penetration of our markets by such manufacturers cannot be discounted.
Let me put the issues as clearly as I can to my hon. Friend the Minister. Action has had to be taken to control vehicle exhaust emissions. The EEC's directive offers only a partial solution, even though the technical means to resolve the major problems is available. Three-way catalysts are already available for all classes of vehicle. They are relatively cheap and have little adverse effect on engine performance or fuel economy. A British company is the leading manufacturer, and most car producers such as Vauxhall are perfectly capable of adapting their vehicles to use them. It is in our commercial and environmental interests to adopt this solution.
My hon. Friend understands, I know, how technical a subject this is. It is vital that the Government's position is fully explained to satisfy the legitimate environmental concerns which underlie this debate. It will also help to clarify the thinking of the motor manufacturers and their suppliers. I accept that we have moved forward. I had hoped that we could move further and faster. I trust that the Minister will recognise the force of these arguments.
11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) for raising the question of motor vehicle emissions and their control. As the House will know, he has an excellent record as an assiduous and able advocate for his constituents and the companies operating within his constituency. I am certain that that point will be particularly appreciated by the Vauxhall Motor Company.
My hon. Friend has raised some important points and his proposal justifies careful consideration. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the issue and to place on record the considerable progress that we have made and to say what action is planned for the future.
My hon. Friend correctly identified the importance of the contribution made by road traffic to air pollution. He mentioned specifically carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and lead. I add to that list smoke emissions. In addition to these primary pollutants, vehicle emissions contribute to the formation of secondary pollutants, such as ozone, which he mentioned. The fact that legislation is in place or under discussion within the European Community to deal with all these pollutants demonstrates that the problems are taken seriously. I believe that these measures will lead to a significant improvement in air quality.
First, I should like to deal with the so-called Luxembourg package or compromise as it used to be called. The European Community directive specifies new standards that member states may apply to car emissions. It is to this directive in particular that my hon. Friend has drawn our attention. The Luxembourg package is an agreement made for European cars in the context of the European environment.
In approaching negotiations, the Government aimed for a step-by-step approach designed to tighten standards as improving technology allowed us to do so in a cost-effective manner. An important part of this approach was

1075
to take account of the fuel-efficient lean-burn technology being developed by various manufacturers, including those in the United Kingdom.
The directive in its final form reflects our approach. The standards agreed are a substantial improvement on previous regulations, but car manufacturers are able to take full advantage of new technologies and, in particular, the lean-burn engine. Standards are given for three categories of car — those above 2 litres in engine capacity, those with engines between 1·4 litres and 2 litres and those with engines of less than 1·4 litres.
My hon. Friend has summarised admirably the technical options that car makers will probably adopt to meet the new regulations. This is important. We do indeed expect that some manufacturers of medium cars will decide to fit three-way catalysts to particular models. My hon. Friend will no doubt be pleased to see a growing number of catalyst-equipped cars on the road. The new directive will allow enterprising manufacturers to continue to follow the lean-burn route, but it will not prevent the use of catalysts.
As my hon. Friend said, the Luxembourg directive was finally approved by the Environment Council last December. We have recently committed ourselves to implementing all its provisions. As regards the mandatory application of the exhaust emission standards for small and medium cars, we want to harmonise the dates as far as possible with other manufacturing countries. We are in active discussion with other member states to that end. We also intend to apply the large car standards as soon as practicable.
Predictions of future emissions and the formation of secondary pollutants are made within the Department's air quality research programme. My hon. Friend has raised two further issues essential to predictions of this kind — the growing number of vehicles on our roads, and the fact that pollutant emissions vary with speed. I should like to assure him that both factors have been taken into account in our calculations. It is currently estimated that the implementation of the Luxembourg package will more than offset the effects of traffic growth. Levels of both primary and secondary pollutants will be significantly below today's levels by the year 2000. Clearly, tighter standards of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend, for example, would further reduce pollutant levels. However, the improvements would be subject to a law of diminishing returns both in terms of the air quality improvements achieved and the cost of achieving them.
The costs associated with the new standards can, of course, only be estimated, and as technology develops so the estimates are revised. In the House last year my hon. Friend asked about those costs, and I am pleased to be able to give him more recent information. Our latest estimates are that controlled three-way catalysts would add £370 to the purchase cost of a car before tax. By comparison, the lean-burn plus oxidation catalyst route would add £150. Overall, we estimate that the Luxembourg agreement, as it stands, will add £550 million annually to United Kingdom motoring costs.
By contrast, the costs of applying three-way catalysts to all new cars are estimated to be well in excess of £1 billion a year. Those estimates do not take fully into account the potential for fuel economy improvements with lean-burn vehicles. Looking to the future, this potential, which is lost with three-way catalyst cars, is of major significance. Taking those costs together with the
1076
diminishing benefits obtained, we believe that United States levels of emission control would not be cost-effective for Europe.
Unleaded petrol has a link with the Luxembourg agreement, as the directive gives dates from which member states may insist that all cars must be able to run on unleaded petrol. The United Kingdom insisted on early dates, consistent with our policy of reducing environmental lead. A separate directive covering the distribution of unleaded petrol was approved in 1985. My Department has energetically pursued the directive requirement for balanced distribution of unleaded petrol throughout the United Kingdom by October 1989. This has to be a joint enterprise with the oil and motor industries, and we have set up the machinery for effective co-ordination. Now that the Luxembourg package has been approved, we will be implementing the earliest possible dates for cars to be required to be able to run on unleaded petrol and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be issuing draft regulations for consultation in the near future.
My remarks so far on the Luxembourg directive, in terms of the emission reductions expected and the costs, refer only to the first stage. The directive requires that proposals for a second stage of emission limits for the small car category be discussed this year. We are currently waiting for the Commission to present proposals to the Council.
The 3 December Environment Council agreed a common position on a directive, providing a first stage of limits for particulate emissions from diesel cars. Like the Luxembourg directive, this proposal also includes the provision of a second stage, to be considered in 1989.
The December Environment Council also gave its final approval to a directive limiting for the first time gaseous emissions from heavy diesels. Again, this is a first stage of regulation. Proposals for a second stage will be ready for consideration by the Environment Council by the end of this year. This second stage will further reduce the limits on emissions and introduce a limit on emission of particulates. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport told the First Standing Committee on European Community Documents on 25 March 1987, large diesel engines are now the dominant source of black smoke in urban areas. We shall be pressing the Commission to bring forward tough proposals for the most stringent limits technically and economically feasible.
In summary, we have at our disposal powerful new measures against air pollution from motor vehicles, arid more are to come. The Luxembourg agreement enables us to impose emission limits on cars which give a substantial reduction in primary and secondary pollutants, but which also encourage new and cost-effective technology. We remain convinced as a result of our most recent estimates that the adoption of emission limits for cars equivalent to those of the United States would entail additional costs that would not be justified by the air quality improvement likely to be achieved.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I know that he has taken a close interest in vehicle emissions and that the Vauxhall Motor Company in his constituency is concerned with the issue. It has been most useful to have the opportunity to discuss these very important matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o 'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  "British and American Approaches to Intelligence"
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) whether he intends to seek an injunction against Macmillans to prevent the distribution of the book "British and American Approaches to Intelligence";

  (2) why he has failed to prosecute under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act Mr. Robert Cecil for providing information for inclusion in the book published by Macmillans, "British and American Approaches to Intelligence";

  (3) why he has failed to prosecute under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act Mr. John Bruce Lockhart for providing information for inclusion in the book published by Macmillans, "British and American Approaches to Intelligence";

  (4) whether the Government have approved for publication the book "British and American Approaches to Intelligence";

  (5) whether he intends to prosecute Mr. Ken Robertson, editor of the book "British and American Approaches to Intelligence", under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act for securing the publication of information, knowing it to have been provided by persons subject to a duty of confidentiality to the Crown.

  The Attorney-General
  The contributions of Mr. Robert Cecil and Mr. John Bruce Lockhart were published with authority.

  RUSI Publications
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will list those publications by the Royal United Services Institute which have been approved for publication by Her Majesty's Government since 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  This matter is not for me but for my ministerial colleagues in those fields for which they have responsibility.

  Deputy Judges
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what steps he takes to ensure that deputy judges appointed to hear cases in the High Court do not have, or may not shortly have, direct financial or pecuniary interests in companies with cases which the said deputy judge is appointed to hear in the High Court;

  (2) what steps he takes to ensure that deputy judges appointed to handle individual cases are not in any way connected financially with companies, organisations or individuals who are parties in such cases;

  (3) if he will take steps to change the rules to ensure that Queen's counsel appointed to act as deputy judges divest themselves of all pecuniary interests which could in any way he connected with any cases on which they may adjudicate.
  704
  The Attorney-General
  It is not necessary for the Lord Chancellor to take any such steps. It is a fundamental principle of English law that no man can be a judge in his own cause. It is well established that any judge who finds that he has a financial or other personal interest in the case which he is to try shall declare it forthwith and shall take no further part in the proceedings without the express agreement of all parties. If a judge acts as such in a case in which he has a financial interest, his judgment can be set aside unless the parties knew of his interest and accepted him as judge in that knowledge.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those Queen's counsel who are eligible for appointment as deputy judges.

  The Attorney-General
  By virtue of section 9(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 all barristers of 10 years' standing or more are eligible to sit as deputy judges of the High Court, whether or not they are Queen's counsel.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will institute measures to ensure that all Queen's Counsel eligible to act as deputy judges declare all their existing financial interests and such interests as they may shortly be in a position to declare.

  The Attorney-General
  No; it would be neither appropriate nor practical for the Lord Chancellor to seek such a declaration.

PRIME MINISTER

  AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she is yet in a position to nominate a successor for Lord Whitelaw as chairman of the Interdepartmental Committee on AIDS.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 9 July 1987, at column 207.

ENERGY

  Radioactive Material (Sellafield)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will explain the circumstances in which a canister of radioactive material was removed from Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria; what security measures exist to stop the removal from the plant of such material; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The security measures in force at nuclear installations are the responsibility of the operators concerned. I understand from BNFL that the substance which was removed was a very small amount of liquid of low radioactivity which is freely available from laboratory suppliers.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy on the siting of nuclear power stations in or near large metropolitan areas.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The siting of each nuclear power station is considered by the Health and Safety Executive's
  705
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate against the background which is set out in chapter 5 of the booklet titled "The Work of HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many nuclear reactors will be in operation or under construction in Avon, Somerset and Dorset by 1995 under the Central Electricity Generating Board's proposals for the next power station development.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

  Fuel Disconnections
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received any report of the Gas Consumers Council on disconnection.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I understand that the Gas Consumers' Council is preparing for publication a report on disconnections, but that it is not yet finalised.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what energy savings have been achieved by Government programmes in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is estimated that gross annual energy savings of about £700 million can be attributed to the Government's programmes covering the industrial, commercial and domestic sectors.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Universities (Computer Contracts)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply of 14 December 1987,Official Report, column 341, on what occasions in the last two years his Department has allowed a single tender to be submitted for the supply of computers or communications equipment to a British university; what were the names of tenderers involved; and which of them was foreign owned.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the last two years single tender action has been agreed for the following university computer procurements involving capital grants of £100,000 or more:

  Birmingham University

  DEC VAX 8700

  Edinburgh University

  Meiko

  Glasgow University

  ICL 3980

  Kent University

  Meiko

  Nottingham University

  ICL 3980

  Open University

  SUN workstations

  Queen Mary College, London

  AMT DAP

  South West Universities Regional Centre

  ICL 3980

  Strathclyde University

  DEC VAX 8600

  University College Cardiff

  DEC VAX 8530

  Two single tender orders costing £100,000 or more have been agreed in the last two years for communications equipment. One was placed with GEC Computers Ltd for enhancement of packet-switching exchanges and the other was placed with CAMTEC Electronics Ltd for upgrading packet assemblers/disassemblers and gateways for the joint academic network (JANET).
  706
  In addition, IBM donated computer systems to the University of Glasgow and the Manchester business school. No DES capital grants were involved in these procurements.

  Of the suppliers of equipment listed below, the parent companies of Digital Equipment Company Ltd (DEC), SUN Microsystems (UK) Ltd, and IBM United Kingdom Ltd (IBM) are based in the United States; in the case of Active Memory Technology (AMT), International Computers Ltd (ICL), Meiko Ltd, GEC Computers Ltd and CAMTEC Electronics Ltd, central control and management are exercised in the United Kingdom.

  Goldsmiths' College
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the funding of Goldsmiths' college in the light of the resolution passed by the senate of London university to admit the college as a school of the university from 1 August.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Goldsmiths' college is currently funded direct by the Department. In the light of its new status from 1 August, I have today written to the vice-chancellor of London University, the chairman of the University Grants Committee and the warden of Goldsmiths' college agreeing that, from that date, funding for Goldsmiths' should be added to the funding for London university which is paid from the universities vote on the advice of the UGC. Subject to parliamentary approval, the appropriate transfer will be made to the universities vote. This includes an addition of £800,000 for 1988–89 to meet the necessary transitional costs of Goldsmiths' new status.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for political asylum were received during 1987; and if he will list the countries of origin of the applicants.

  Mr. Renton
  Information for 1987 is not yet fully available. It is hoped to publish the figures, by nationality, in a Home Office statistical bulletin by the end of May. Figures for 1986 were published in table 7 of Home Office statistical bulletin "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom, 1986" (issue 13/87), copies of which are in the Library.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will construct a table showing the average number of doses of drugs administered per inmate in each of Her Majesty's penal establishments in the latest available year;

  (2) what were (a) the categories and (b) the numbers of individual doses of drugs administered to inmates at (i) Her Majesty's prison, Liverpool and (ii) Her Majesty's prison, Manchester.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following table provides the available information in respect of the financial year 1986–87 for establishments served by more than one medical officer. Establishments in which medical services
  707
  were largely provided by a single doctor are omitted in keeping with the long established policy of not publishing information relating to the prescribing practice of individual doctors.

  Number of Doses of Medicine Administered to Inmates in Prison Service Establishments in England and Wales 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987

  Prescription only Medicines

  Establishment

  Medicines available without prescription in the community

  Psychotropic drugs (ie antidepressants, sedatives and tranquillisers)

  Hypnotic drugs

  Drugs acting on the central nervous system other than those shown in cols. (2) and (3)

  Other drugs and medicines

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  HMP Birmingham

  153,859

  23,051

  3,830

  25,715

  96,048

  HMP Bristol

  84,805

  15,900

  690

  8,702

  57,465

  HMP Brixton

  208,806

  64,118

  12,312

  41,576

  179,814

  HMP Canterbury

  16,986

  11,329

  5,484

  13,313

  24,783

  HMP Cardiff

  73,504

  7,031

  1,040

  7,031

  58,118

  HMP Dartmoor

  99,262

  25,792

  3,501

  33,621

  37,734

  HMP Durham

  90,120

  13,308

  2,471

  25,386

  61,269

  HMP Gartree

  53,393

  16,396

  9,880

  3,813

  30,813

  HMYCC Glen Parva

  33,486

  10,272

  3,603

  13,206

  74,974

  HMP Grendon

  96,237

  17,954

  3,090

  18,009

  40,718

  HMP Holloway

  120,884

  77,841

  21,911

  28,237

  132,079

  HMP Hull

  61,705

  6,728

  820

  6,655

  45,006

  HMP Leeds

  139,070

  20,629

  655

  68,628

  79,843

  HMP Leicester

  57,556

  18,638

  1,694

  6,828

  27,658

  HMP Lincoln

  41,456

  13,162

  700

  11,906

  30,795

  HMP Liverpool

  100,419

  23,951

  2,624

  39,767

  78,557

  HMP Maidstone

  99,680

  16,220

  3,200

  44,080

  49,580

  HMP Manchester

  109,087

  19,023

  1,858

  30,409

  60,317

  HMP Norwich1

  100,564

  20,540

  3,268

  21,320

  68,608

  HMP Parkhurst

  76,846

  44,974

  6,258

  33,994

  37,107

  HMP Pentonville

  112,801

  20,863

  1,504

  20,185

  90,583

  HMRC Risley

  162,100

  24,814

  9,223

  22,667

  68,345

  HMP Wakefield

  304,861

  72,897

  18,379

  82,566

  478,876

  HMP Wandsworth

  248,160

  39,364

  3,324

  30,504

  110,899

  HMP Winchester

  112,587

  22,410

  2,798

  44,206

  55,351

  1 Footnote: The figures for HMP Norwich are estimated as the returns from this establishment are incomplete. No information is available for HM Remand Centre Ashford, HM Youth Custody Centre Feltham, or HM Prisons Long Lartin and Wormwood Scrubs.

  Magistrates' Courts (Press Information)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue fresh guidance to magistrates' courts on the provision of information to the press.

  Mr. John Patten
  Individual clerks to justices are responsible for the day-to-day running of courts and it is open to newspaper editors to seek to make suitable local arrangements with them.

  DNA Tests
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the Government's trial to test the acceptability and feasibility of the DNA technique for immigration work has been completed; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his provisional timetable for DNA tests to be available for all seeking right of entry to Britain at United Kingdom embassies and commissions on the Indian subcontinent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government's pilot trial is in its final stages. A report is being prepared, and a copy will be placed in the Library. No decisions have been taken yet on the policy arising out of DNA testing, but meanwhile facilities are available at British diplomatic posts in Dhaka 708
  and Islamabad for blood samples to be taken and transported to the United Kingdom in connection with commercial DNA tests in immigration cases.

  Firearms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what arrangements are in force to require each police force to keep a detailed inventory of its firearms; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what arrangements are in force to require each police force to ensure that, following operations involving firearms, the same number of weapons are returned as were issued; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what arrangements are in force to require each police force to ensure that its supply of firearms does not fall into non-authorised hands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Every police force armoury is required to keep a detailed inventory of all weapons held within that force. When firearms are issued for police operations, they are issued only to those officers who produce a current authorisation certificate.

  All forces maintain a separate record which details the type of weapon issued, its serial number, the name of the officer to whom it is issued and the number of rounds of ammunition issued. Each entry is signed and counter-signed. Upon return of the weapon, the issuing entry is

  709
  checked and a separate entry is made showing the number of rounds returned or used. If any rounds are used a report is completed by the firearms officer. Again, each entry is signed
  and counter-signed.

  As part of its annual inspection of police forces, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary examines closely both force policy and the administrative arrangements relating to the storage, issue and use of police firearms.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now arrange for the reasons, in summarised form, for refusal of entry to those in possession of valid entry clearance to be kept centrally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No. It would not be right to increase the amount of centrally collected information for this or any other group without a strong, continuing purpose.

  Central Mobilising Project
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated date by which the central mobilising project being produced by Marconi will be operating on behalf of the London fire and civil defence authority; on what date it was initially planned to be introduced; whether the authority will insist upon the fixed price; at what cost other United Kingdom fire brigades have purchased other systems because of the delay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are informed by the authority that it is hoped that the new central mobilising system will be operational by the end of 1988. The contractual date for completion was 1985 which would have led to an in-service date of late 1985 to early 1986.

  We are informed that the question of the price of the system is a matter of contract between Marconi and the authority, and the contract is not for a fixed price.

  Neither we nor the authority are aware of any impact on other United Kingdom fire brigades resulting directly or indirectly from the delay in this case.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases there have been, of which he is aware, over the past two years involving abuse of the police national computer; what was the nature of the abuse in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not been informed of any such cases.

  Video Films
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a detailed list in the Library of all video films which the British Board of Film Classification has so far refused to classify or has censored in some way, together with a summary of the reason for so doing in each case.

  Mr. Renton
  Arrangements have been made to have placed in the Library a consolidated list published last year by the board of decisions made under the Video Recordings Act in 1985 and 1986. The board is at present 710
  preparing a further consolidated list which will, in addition, record decisions made in 1987, and a copy of this will be placed in the Library when it is available. The list shows those works in respect of which the board decided not to issue a classification certificate and those which were given a certificate only after cuts had been made. It does not record the reasons in each case, but the board's annual report for 1986, copies of which are in the Library, explains the main grounds on which the board refuses a classification certificate or cuts works before classification. If the hon. Member wishes to know the reasons in any particular instance, I am sure the board would be glad to explain them to him.

  Citizenship
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of the Republic of Ireland applied for British citizenship in 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  This information is not yet available.

  Night Patrols (Prisons)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is given to civilianised night patrol guards before they first go on duty in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Night patrol officers receive their induction training at the prison to which they are recruited. It includes security, the purpose of the regime, statutory obligations and emergency arrangements.

  Dangerous Driving Offences
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation to enable a charge of manslaughter to be brought against persons alleged to have caused death by dangerous driving or other motoring offences.

  Mr. John Patten
  The law already permits a person who kills another when driving recklessly to be charged with manslaughter. It is for the prosecution to decide on which charge to proceed in any particular case. This area of the criminal law is being examined by the road traffic law review, and we shall consider any proposals for change which may be made in its report.

  Law and Order (Grants)
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes in the arrangements for the payment of grants made by his Department to support law and order services.

  Mr. Hurd
  As part of the preparation for the new local government finance arrangements proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I have been reviewing the role of specific grants paid to local authorities to support the law and order services. We intend to retain the grants paid in respect of the police service, the civil defence service, the magistrates' courts service and the probation service. Such grants will continue to be paid to the authorities responsible for meeting the expenditure, not into the proposed community charge fund.

  I shall, however, consult the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the local authority organisations

  711
  concerned about changes to the present arrangements for the imperial and national services grant and other minor direct payments presently made to the Metropolitan police fund, including their possible integration into the main police grant.

  I also intend to consult the local authorities and the services concerned about the scope for modifying the magistrates' courts and probation service grant arrangements so that the amount paid out by central Government to support these services is known before the beginning of the financial year, and is distributed on an equitable basis to local authorities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, as a rural development area, the Isle of Wight will qualify for the new incentives to be introduced in April in development areas announced in the White Paper entitled "DTI — the department for Enterprise"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The investment and innovation grants to be introduced from April 1988 will be available only in the development areas as designated in the Assisted Areas Order 1984. The Isle of Wight travel-to-work area (TTWA) is not so designated and the new incentives will not, therefore, be available in the TTWA.

  Exports
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate what proportion of British goods has an export value tied to the United States dollar, what to the pound sterling and what to the deutschmark.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The percentage of United Kingdom exports tied to the United States dollar, pound sterling and deutschmark in 1986 was 18, 56 and 4, respectively. These percentages are based on results of surveys to identify currencies used for invoicing.

  Arbitration Law
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the conclusions of his Department's Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law on the issues raised by the Consumer Arbitration Agreements Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth.

  Mr. Maude
  I have placed a copy of the committee's report in the Library today. Copies may be obtained from the secretary of the committee on (01) 215 3481.

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply of 16 December 1987,Official Report, column 540, how many staff are employed by the overseas trade divisions to examine and advise on hidden trade barriers; how many cases they have investigated in the last 12 months; and what has been the result of these investigations.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In my Department's overseas trade divisions some 57 staff years were spent dealing with trade 712
  relations, including examining and giving advice on barriers to United Kingdom exports, during 1987. A considerable number of cases were the subject of representations to overseas Governments either bilaterally or through the European Commission, who have competence for external trade issues, and progress has been made in some areas.

WALES

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met officers of the Welsh health authorities to discuss proposed hospital closures.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has not met officers of all Welsh health authorities to discuss proposed hospital closures. Officials of the NHS directorate are in regular contact with health authority officers and keep my right hon. Friend and me informed of developments, including both the many new capital programmes as well as closures.

  NHS (Theft and Malicious Damage)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of items stolen or maliciously destroyed in the National Health Service in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The following table shows the value of losses of equipment, property and cash in the NHS in Wales due to theft, fraud or arson, neglect of duty or gross carelessness. The figures also include losses due to malicious damage.

  £

  1982–83

  26,743

  1983–84

  35,039

  1984–85

  39,207

  1985–86

  57,606

  1986–87

  90,292

  Source: White Paper Accounts.

  Battery Hens
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his estimate of, and basis of calculation for, the cost to the Welsh egg industry of adapting to EEC legislation on battery cages;

  (2) what is his estimate of, and basis of calculation for, the recurring costs of compliance with the additional requirements for three, two and one birds under the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987 for egg producers in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  EC directive 86/113 places inescapable obligations on all member states. The cost of compliance will vary from producer to producer according to the type of cage in use, its age, and how the space allowance and other requirements contained in the directive are to be met. No estimate of the aggregate cost to Welsh producers is available.

  The same consideration will largely apply in the context of the allowances for three, two and one birds specified in the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the effect on the numbers
  713
  of Welsh egg producers of compliance with the additional requirements for three, two and one birds contained in the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No information is available on the numbers of egg producers who may cease production, if any.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to ensure that Welsh egg farmers are not put at a competitive disadvantage with their European counterparts in the implementation of the provisions of EEC directive 86/113.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  EEC directive 86/113 lays down minimum standards. Other than in situations where fewer than four birds are housed in a cage, these minimum standards will apply in the United Kingdom. In the majority of cases, therefore, Welsh farmers will be in an identical situation to most of their European counterparts, though it is worth pointing out that in Denmark and in West Germany national rules will be somewhat stricter than the directive. We shall be keeping the matter under review.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) of 7 December 1987,Official Report, columns 25–28, he will give the actual costs to each district health authority of employing agency staff after taking account of the rates of pay which would have been expended had the posts for which agency staff were used been filled.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested cannot be provided as the Department does not receive details of all posts filled by agency staff in the respective authorities.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his responsibilities in respect of the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Nature Conservancy Council is my right hon. Friend's statutory adviser on nature conservation in Wales. His main responsibilities include confirming appointments to the council's advisory committee for Wales, making nature conservation orders and designating marine nature reserves. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment consults the Department in exercising his responsibilities in respect of Nature Conservancy Council matters which affect Wales.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether there is to be any change in his Department's provision for running costs in this current financial year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department's running costs limit is to be increased by £750,000 to £38,516,000. The increase is to be fully offset through reductions in capital expenditure within my Department's Central Administration Vote (class XVII, vote 9).

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he will introduce legislation to allow his Department to purchase milk quota which comes on the market for redistribution to new milk producers and young farmers in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will introduce legislation to prevent loss of milk production to Wales through sales of milk quota.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answers 19 January 1988]: No.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implementation in Wales of the European Commission's 435 million ecu scheme to meet management costs of dealing with extra beef during the two years following the implementation of further milk quota cuts, agreed by the Council of Agriculture Ministers in December 1986.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: The Commission recognised that measures taken in the milk sector would have an impact on beef producers. 435 million ecu was its estimate of extra expenditure on aids for private storage and export refunds which would arise in 1987 and 1988 as a result of the extra cow beef coming onto the market. The level of refund and the introduction of private storage schemes are decided by management committee, but we are ready to press the Commission to ensure that the market is supported if there is any undue weakness.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage change in farm incomes in Wales for the most recent 12-month period for which information is available; and what were the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: Based on the aggregate income calculation for Welsh agriculture, farm incomes in Wales rose by 57 per cent. in 1986. In each of the preceding seven years to 1979 the percentage change in incomes was as follows:

  Year

  Percentage change

  1985

  -49

  1984

  45

  1983

  -49

  1982

  31

  1981

  41

  1980

  8

  1979

  -50

  River Teifi
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total expenditure on clearing debris from the River Teifi between Cardigan and Llechryd, during the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: This is a matter for the Welsh water authority.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are at present employed in agriculture in Wales; and what are the corresponding figures for 1978, 1968 and 1958

  1958

  1968

  21978

  11987

  Agricultural workers

  39,323

  23,124

  23,026

  19,965

  Farmers, partners and directors and their spouses

  1—

  1—

  45,687

  45,666

  Total labour force

  —

  —

  68,713

  65,631

  1 Not collected until 1970.

  2 Figures include estimates for minor holdings.

  Patients (Conveyance)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales under what circumstances each of the Welsh health authorities expect patients to attend hospital by public transport rather than ambulance.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: All health authorities in Wales apply the guidance issued in Welsh health circular (77)4. Ambulance transport is provided for patients medically unfit to travel by other means. Patients not in medical need are expected to travel by private or public transport. Individual cases of difficulty are treated sympathetically.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Forestry Commission is presently taking to review its broadleaves policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A review of the Government's broadleaves policy will be put in hand this autumn.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to prevent, contain and treat outbreaks of meningitis in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The evidence at present is that meningitis in Scotland is confined to sporadic cases with no significant upsurge in numbers beyond anticipated variation. We are, however, keeping the situation under close review.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research is being undertaken to deal with outbreaks of meningitis in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Home and Health Department is not at present funding any research project

  Reserve

  Region

  Hectares

  Tenure

  New reserves

  Mealdarroch, Strathclyde region

  South-West

  205

  Owned by Nature Conservancy Council

  716
  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: The numbers employed in agriculture in Wales are given in the following table:

  relating to meningitis but assistance has been offered by the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust for one such project.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation has taken place with health authorities south of the border to learn lessons from recent meningitis outbreaks in England.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My officials are in regular contact with their counterparts in England and are being kept fully informed on the recent outbreaks of meningtis there.

  Battered Wives
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research is being undertaken into the incidence of battered wives in Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the problems.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Recently completed research commissioned by the Scottish Home and Health Department into the working of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 examined, among other matters, the influence of the Act on the incidence of domestic violence. I hope soon to publish the report of this research.

  The provision of services for the victims of domestic violence is the responsibility of local authorities, which are assisted by Scottish Women's Aid, a voluntary organisation which receives grant assistance from my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those nature reserves situated in Scotland presently in public ownership.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  National nature reserves as at 31 March 1987 are listed, with details of the type of tenure in each case, in the Nature Conservancy Council's annual report 1986–87, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament. Since that date the following national reserves have been declared in Scotland:
  717

  Reserve

  Region

  Hectares

  Tenure

  Moine Mhor, Strathclyde region

  South-West

  493

  Owned by Nature Conservancy Council

  Adjustments to existing reserves

  Clyde Valley Woodlands (extension)

  South-West

  128

  Owned by Nature Conservancy Council

  Loch Lomond (extension)

  South-West

  112

  Owned by Nature Conservancy Council/Nature reserve agreement

  Kirkconnel Flow (adjustment of boundaries)

  South-West

  143

  Leased to Nature Conservancy Council

  Ben Wyvis (extension)

  North-West

  12,339

  Owned by Nature Conservancy Council

  1 Area of extension only.

  One national nature reserve, Haaf Gruney, Shetland, has been de-declared since 31 March 1987.

  Comprehensive information on the ownership of local nature reserves, which are declared by local authorities, is not readily available.

  Roxburgh District Council (Computer System)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the findings of the Scottish Audit Commission's special investigation into Roxburgh district council's decision to replace its computer system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Secretary of State has not received any report on this matter from the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the measures taken since 1979 to improve energy conservation in commercial and industrial undertakings, local authorities and domestic households in Scotland and indicate how much was spent promoting the schemes and the estimated benefits in energy conservation which accrued.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have achieved considerable success in encouraging the efficient use of energy in all sectors in Scotland through their ongoing energy efficiency campaign.

  I regret that I am unable to provide a detailed breakdown of Government measures, expenditure and estimated benefits in the way suggested by the hon. Member, but I can say that there are now over 1,000 energy managers in Scotland. Commercial and industrial organisations and local authorities have, since the inception of the energy efficiency survey scheme in 1984, received Government grants amounting to £600,000 for energy surveys. These have identified potential estimated savings of £18 million per annum. In addition, since 1979, through the energy efficiency demonstration scheme £1·9 million has been provided to test new energy-saving technologies in working situations; and in the domestic sector almost 140,000 grants totalling £9·1 million have been provided through the homes insulation scheme to improve home comfort levels and provide lower fuel bills.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much capital spending on trunk roads in Scotland has increased since 1978–79.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Net capital expenditure on trunk roads in Scotland has increased by £30 million:718
  from £65 million in 1987–79 to £95 million in 1986–87, the latest year for which final figures are available. Net outturn expenditure in 1987–88 is expected to be of the order of £110 million—a further increase of £15 million.

  Local Authorities (Archeological Advice)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration has been given to the importance of local authorities having advice from expert archaeologists.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities can play an important part in heritage conservation, and to this end may wish to have professional advice. It is, however, for authorities themselves to decide whether or not to employ archaeologists.

  Local Government Archaeological Services
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to improve local government archaeological services in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for local authorities themselves to determine, in the light of their local circumstances and priorities, the nature and extent of their archaeological services.

  Sites of Archaeological Interest
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to extend the number of sites preserved under the terms of the Archaeological Areas and Ancient Monuments Act 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Increased effort is now being directed to the scheduling of sites, and the annual rate is between 150 and 200.

  School Computers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice is being provided by the Scottish Education Department to local education authorities on the characteristics of school computers to be purchased when they come to replace the current BBC models.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have no plans to issue advice direct to education authorities in Scotland. One of the functions of the Scottish Council for Educational Technology is to advise on computers in schools. In discharge of that it is in regular and continuing discussion with education authorities about the specification and the facilities which are desirable in school computer hardware.

  Councillors (Remunerated)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement the Widdicombe committee recommendation on reform of the way local authority councillors are remunerated.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are giving careful consideration to all the recommendations made by the Widdicombe committee and the many comments made by all those who responded to consultation. Conclusions will be announced as soon as this consideration has been completed.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time taken to reach a decision on public inquiry reports submitted to him.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There were 38 decisions made in 1987 following public inquiries into town and country planning matters. The average time taken was 23 weeks.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public inquiry decisions are outstanding in Angus district; what were the dates of conclusion of the public hearings; and when the final decision will be announced in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I assume that the hon. Member has planning decisions in mind. The only outstanding decision is in relation to planning proposals for housing development at Small Glebe, Newtyle, which were the subject of a public local inquiry in March 1987. My right hon. and learned Friend will issue his decision on this case shortly.

  Maternity Units
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many small maternity units, particularly in rural areas, have been closed in each of the past five years; if he will list these by health board area; and what was the total number of maternity beds, affected in each year, also by health hoard area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Only one maternity hospital has been closed in the past five years, Buckreddan maternity hospital, Kilwinning. The 26 beds were transferred to the Ayrshire central hospital when accommodation became available there, on transfer of services to the New Crosshouse hospital.

  Details are held centrally only for complete hospital closures. Records on partial closures of hospitals, or where there has been a change of use, are not available.

  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many small maternity units, particularly in rural areas, are currently subject to formal health board proposals for closure; and if he will list these numbers by health board area and indicate the number of maternity beds involved in each area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend is involved in hospital closures or major changes of use only when health boards submit formal applications to him. At present no such applications are outstanding.

  Housing (Basic Facilities)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses in Scotland lack at present basic facilities such as hot water, electricity and inside lavatories; and how many of these are in rural areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the following table, which gives the numbers of dwellings below the statutory tolerable standard and, of those, the numbers lacking one or more of the standard amenities (sink, hot water and inside WC). It also shows the numbers lacking a fixed bath or shower.

  Dwellings below tolerable standard at 31 March 19871

  Number of dwellings below tolerable standard

  Lacking one or more standard amenity2 3

  Lacking a fixed bath or shower2 3

  Scotland of which in districts classified as

  54,791

  31,389

  29,406

  Rural4

  24,786

  10,994

  9,125

  1 Including most recent years' figures for those local authorities which have not submitted returns for 1987.

  2 Some local authorities were unable to provide information on dwellings in this category.

  3 A dwelling may be recorded in both of these columns and there is therefore an element of double counting.

  4 As defined in table 16 of Scottish Office central research unit paper "A Study of Multiply Deprived Households in Scotland", comprising Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Grampian (excluding Aberdeen district), Highland and Tayside (excluding Dundee district) regions; Islands areas; and north-east Fife, East Lothian, Argyll and Bute, Clydesdale and Cumnock and Doon Valley districts.

  Greenland White-fronted Geese (Islay)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has issued licences to permit the shooting of Greenland white-fronted geese on Islay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reason permission was given to allow the shooting of white-fronted geese on Islay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Licences have been granted under powers contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to two farmers on Islay to shoot white-fronted geese. This step has had to be taken because substantial increases in the numbers of such geese on the island have led to serious damage being caused to grassland. The very limited issue of licences is intended to enhance the effectiveness of the scaring programme recently introduced with the aim of restricting the geese to the sanctuary areas. The effects will be closely monitored.

  Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd.
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to privatise Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 3 December 1987 at column 669.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan (Plutonium)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his reply,Official Report, 30 November 1987, column 372, to the hon. Member for Meirionydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on alleged black market sales of plutonium in Sudan, this issue has been raised elsewhere within the structures of the EEC.

  Mr. Mellor
  The matter has been discussed in political co-operation but these discussions produced no evidence of a black market in nuclear weapons material in Khartoum.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received representations and a transcript from the "20–20 Vision" television programme regarding allegations of a black market in plutonium in the Sudan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from "20–20 Vision" television, which he is considering. We have a transcript of the programme in question, but no evidence to support allegations that weapons-grade nuclear material has been on sale in Sudan.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the recent suggestion by Dr. Blix, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that the agency's expertise in safeguarding nuclear materials should be used in future verification of nuclear disarmament treaties.

  Mr. Mellor
  Dr. Blix has made no approach to us. In our view, treaty verification is a matter for the parties to each treaty. But if they needed to seek assistance from an international organisation to enhance verification the International Atomic Energy Agency's experience could be valuable.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he intends to take to encourage the nuclear weapons threshold nuclear states such as India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  We take every opportunity to impress upon the threshold states the importance we attach to their signature of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any recent opportunity with(a) NATO allies and (b) officials from the Soviet Foreign Ministry to discuss progress in technical verification towards the completion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  The technical aspects of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty are regularly discussed in the 722
  conference on disarmament's ad hoc group of scientific experts to consider international measures to detect and identify seismic events. Its next meeting is planned for 7 to 18 March. Representatives of the Soviet Union and some NATO allies participate.

  Sophie Desta
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the living condition of Sophie Desta and her sisters, of the family of the late Emperor of Ethiopia; what representations have been made to the Ethiopian Government regarding the imprisonment of these women; and what response was obtained.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We understand that the seven female prisoners belonging to the family of the former Ethiopian royal family are held in a cell approximately 20 ft by 12 ft in an Addis Ababa prison. We have made numerous representations to the Ethiopian authorities on behalf of these and the many other political prisoners in Ethiopia. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development took the matter up during a visit to Ethiopia earlier this month. The Ethiopian Deputy Prime Minister responded that the release of the prisoners was being considered in the context of the new Ethiopian constitution.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail (Trespass)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many legal actions for trespass were initiated by British Transport police during 1986 and 1987; and what were the results of the actions;

  (2) what are the criteria employed in deciding whether or not legal action is initiated for trespass on British Rail property;

  (3) who makes the decision whether or not to initiate legal proceedings for trespass on British Rail property.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand that the British Transport police initiated legal action for trespass as follows:

  Year

  Number of offences

  1986

  2,353

  11987

  1,363

  1 First nine months.

  Details of the results of the actions are not readily available. The Railways Board has also considered civil proceedings in a relatively small number of cases.

  Decisions on offences investigated by the British Transport police are made by BTP senior officers, who take into account the Attorney-General's guidelines and other relevant factors as set out in Home Office circulars. For civil cases involving British Rail operational land, I understand that decisions are normally taken at area manager level; for non-operational land, decisions are taken by the British Rail Property Board. They take into account whether BR's operational activities and other local landowners or residents are adversely affected.

  BR (Public Holiday Services)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the case for providing at least some Sunday services on Network South East serving the Portsmouth area on Boxing day 1988;

  (2) if he will raise with the chairman of British Rail the case for providing some rail services on Boxing day 1988.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  This is entirely a matter for British Rail, who are responsible for the detailed management of the railway system.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report those areas of his departmental responsibility which extend to Scotland.

  Mr. Channon
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: The Secretary of State has the following responsibilities in Scotland:

  Railways
  Overall policy towards the railway network, statutory case work, and railway safety.

  Ports
  All ports matters, other than marine works.

  Marine
  The safety of merchant ships and fishing vessels; the prevention of marine pollution by ships and arrangements for cleaning up in the event of a serious pollution incident; the work of Her Majesty's Coastguard; marine pilotage; civil hydrography; oversight of the Northern Lighthouse Board.

  Shipping
  Most aspects of shipping policy, including sponsorship of the shipping industry and defence and emergencies planning.

  Aviation
  Policy towards the civil aviation industry; airports policy; sponsorship of the Civil Aviation Authority; policy on aircraft noise and security; accident investigations.

  Road traffic and licensing
  Road traffic law and the Highway Code. The registration, licensing, construction, safety and testing of road vehicles; the licensing and testing of drivers; and related enforcement, including vehicle excise duty.

  Road haulage and bus services
  The licensing of goods and PSV vehicle operators; the issue of international permits to road haulage operators; the registration of local bus services; fuel duty rebate; and the carriage of radioactive materials and dangerous goods.

  Research
  Government-sponsored transport research (the Scottish Office undertakes additional research for local purposes).

  International
  The conduct of transport international relations and negotiations, including aviation, shipping and road freight, either bilaterally or in international organisations such as the EC and ECMT.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations have taken place between his Department and British Nuclear Fuels plc concerning the transport of plutonium by aircraft; and what were the results.
  724
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is no need for consultations between this Department and British Nuclear Fuels on this issue until it submits a package design for competent authority approval.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to consider and take any action in regard to the Civil Aviation Authority's draft charging proposals for Manchester airport and their implications for the gateway international airport status of Manchester, for the Government's national aviation policy objectives and for the future economic progress of the north-west region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under the provisions of part IV of the Airports Act 1986, the charging proposals are now a matter for the CAA alone. The authority is fully aware of the Government's published aviation policy, including its policy on the gateway status and development of Manchester airport.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  BP Shares
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ordinary shares in BP plc are held by the Bank of England on account of Her Majesty's Government following the recent buy-back offer; what proportion of the total they represent; and what plans he has for their disposal.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answers of 14 January at columns 384–5 to the hon. Members for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) and for Easington (Mr. Cummings).

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial consequences there have been for the Exchequer as a result of the rights issue of 459 million BP shares occurring simultaneously with the sale of the Treasury's holding.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Goverment agreed to subscribe for the issue of BP shares on a fully-paid basis and immediately to sell the shares together with the Government's existing shares. The cost of this subscription (£1·5 billion) was more than offset by the proceeds of the first of three instalments from the combined offer (£2·5 billion).

  Personal Borrowing
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the source and the breakdown of the figures he gave to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 9 December 1987, HC 197, Q.152, for the levels of personal sector borrowing other than mortgage borrowing in 1979–80 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Lilley
  The figures quoted to the Committee were for borrowing by the private, not the personal, sector. The same definition was used for chart 2·4 of the 1987 Financial Statement and Budget Report and the supplementary note by the Treasury published as an appendix in the Select Committee's report on the 1987 Budget, although there have been some subsequent minor
  725
  revisions to the figures. The latter gives the sources of the figures quoted. The private sector includes both the personal sector and industrial and commercial companies. The most recent figures for consumer credit and other personal sector borrowing are contained in table 9·3 of the December 1987 edition of "Financial Statistics". The figures were correctly ascribed to the private sector in the oral evidence. Unfortunately, the reference to the personal sector arose as the result of a later transcription error, of which the Committee has now been informed.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for 1979 and 1986–87 the number of cases of tax fraud detected for which the amount recovered exceeded(a) £100,000, (b) £500,000 and (c) £1 million.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Inland Revenue do not keep records of the number of investigations opened in any particular year, but the information for the number of investigations settled is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  1979

  1987

  £100,000 to £499,999

  53

  229

  £500,000 to £999,999

  —

  13

  Over £1,000,000

  —

  6

  The amounts shown are total amounts recovered including, where appropriate, interest and penalties as well as tax.

  Unpaid Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was remitted or written off as irrecoverable in 1979 and 1986 and what was the number of tax payers for whom the ground for non-payment was(a) that they had gone abroad or were untraceable, (b) insolvency and (c) hardship.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The tax remitted or written off as irrecoverable amounted to £60·3 million in 1979 and £299·8 million in 1986. The number of taxpayers for whom the ground for non-payment was(a) that they had gone abroad or were untraceable, (b) insolvency and (c) hardship is as follows:

  1979

  1986

  (a)

  26,171

  51,304

  (b)

  23,032

  56,693

  (c)

  7,988

  5,349

  Tax Investigations
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax office and inquiry branch investigations there have been where additional tax has become due in 1987, broken down by those paying tax at a top rate of(a) 60 per cent., (b) 55 per cent., (c) 50 per cent., (d) 45 per cent., (e) 40 per cent. and (f) 27 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the year to 31 March 1987, a total of 61,656 tax office and inquiry branch investigations were settled in which additional tax became due. I regret that this total cannot be broken down in the way requested except at disproportionate cost.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of undeclared value added tax discovered and recouped by his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  The total value of underdeclared value added tax discovered each year since 1979 is as follows (figures relate to the financial year ending 31 March):

  £ million

  1979

  61

  1980

  84

  1981

  146

  1982

  169

  1983

  290

  1984

  320

  1985

  392

  1986

  496

  1987

  597

  Information on the amount of underdeclared tax actually recouped is not available. However, approximately 99 percent. of all declared and assessed tax is collected.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage rise in the value of under declarations of value added tax discovered per value added tax control officer since(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Lilley
  The figures are as follows:

  (a) The percentage rise since 1 April 1979 after allowing for inflation is 368 per cent.

  (b) The percentage rise since 1 April 1984 after allowing for inflation is 37 per cent.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many value added tax control officers are at present employed in the United Kingdom; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  The number of value added tax control officers employed in the United Kingdom for the financial year ending 31 March 1987 was 4,330. The figures for each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Number

  1979

  4,000

  1980

  3,700

  1981

  3,600

  1982

  3,800

  1983

  3,550

  1984

  3,650

  1985

  3,900

  1986

  4,040

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average increase in the value of under declarations of value added tax discovered per value added tax control officer in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  The increases year by year in the average value of underdeclarations discovered by each value added tax control officer are as follows (figures relate to the financial year ending 31 March):

  £

  1980

  +7,450

  1981

  +17,850

  1982

  +3,950

  1983

  +38,350

  727

  £

  1984

  +4,850

  1985

  +12,800

  1986

  +22,300

  1987

  +15,100

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the ratio of current employment costs of the value added tax control officers to undeclared value added tax discovered and recouped; and what are the figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  The ratio of current employment costs of value added tax control officers to underdeclared value added tax discovered is 1:7·5. The figure is for the financial year ending 31 March 1987. The corresponding figures for each financial year ending 31 March since 1979 are as follows:

  Ratio

  1979

  1:1·4

  1980

  1:1·7

  1981

  1:2·8

  1982

  1:2·9

  1983

  1:5·1

  1984

  1:5·4

  1985

  1:6·0

  1986

  1:6·9

  Information on the amount of underdeclared tax actually recouped is not available. However, approximately 99 per cent. of all declared and assessed tax is collected.

  Relocation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list in the Official Report those members of staff or Departments which are currently under consideration for relocation to sites outside London;

  (2) whether there are any plans to relocate civil service staff or Departments to Scotland;

  (3) whether he will now consider sites in Scotland for dispersal of civil servants or Departments being moved out of London;

  (4) if he will list all examples of decentralisation of civil service staff which moved staff or Departments to offices in Scotland since 1979.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since 1979, some 5,560 Civil Service posts have been dispersed from London under the Government's dispersal programme including 1,930 posts to Scotland. The Scottish posts were in the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration. Further moves to Scotland of at least 125 posts are planned under this programme.

  For the future, Departments will be encouraged to consider all suitable locations, including those in Scotland, on the basis mentioned in my answer of 18 January to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) at columns 475–6. Any specific plans will be announced as and when they are prepared.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the practice of the Inland Revenue as regards the treatment of regional selective assistance for the purpose of assessment of pre-tax profits.
  728
  Mr. Lamont
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: The precise tax treatment will depend on the facts of each case, but, in general, regional selective assistance is taken into account in determining the taxable profits of a business.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in resolving the budgetary crisis of the EEC; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards approving in principle the creation of a fourth resource for the EEC based on national gross national products.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: The Budget Council has met four times in an effort to establish a draft budget for 1988, but has failed on each occasion to reach agreement. It will renew its discussions in the light of the outcome of the European Council on 11–12 February.

  The fourth resource proposed by the Commission would link budget contribution shares more closely to shares in Community GNP, and hence to relative prosperity. It is worthy of further consideration.

EMPLOYMENT

  Benefits
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of unentitled benefits claims discovered and recouped by his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department's fraud investigation work was reorganised in 1984 and comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  The estimated value of benefit saved by fraud investigation work in the Department for each year is as follows:

  £ million gross

  1984–85

  19·2

  1985–86

  33·8

  1986–87

  54·9

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage change in the value of unentitled benefits recouped per Department of Employment investigating officer since(a) 1979 and (b) since 1984.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department's fraud investigation work was recognised in 1984 and comparable figures for earlier years are not available. There has been a 67·5 per cent. increase in the estimated value of benefit saved per fraud investigator between 1984 and 1987.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the average change in the value of unentitled benefits recouped per Department of Employment investigating officer in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Lee
  The estimated value of benefit saved per fraud investigator in each year since 1984–85 is as follows:
  729

  Year

  £

  1984–85

  49,450

  1985–86

  73,015

  1986–87

  82,860

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the ratio of current costs of his Department's investigation into fraud to the benefits recouped; and what are the figures for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Lee
  The ratios between costs and estimated benefit saved are as follows:

  ratio

  1984–85

  1:2·4

  1985–86

  1:2·9

  1986–87

  1:3·7

  11987–88

  1:4·4

  1 First half year.

  Benefits (Fraud Investigating Officers)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many officers are employed in England and Wales by his Department in investigating fraud; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department's fraud investigation work was reorganised in 1984 and comparable figures for earlier years are not available. The number of fraud investigators employed by my Department in each year since 1984 (excluding those employed in Scotland) is as follows:

  Number

  1984–85

  396

  1985–86

  590

  1986–87

  651

  In addition a number of other staff are engaged, on either a part or full-time basis, as support staff to these investigators.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the reply of 11 January, what plans he has to change the nature of the community programme so that it qualifies as suitable employment within the meaning of section 20(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1975.

  Mr. Cope
  None. The community programme is already covered by section 20(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1975.

  Restart Programme
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each month the spending on advertising for the restart programme since the inception of the scheme; and if he will give the reasons for the trend shown by the figures.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: Expenditure on advertising the restart programme and the programmes included in the range of opportunities are shown below:
  730

  £

  1986

  August

  1,004,493

  September

  1,987.858

  October

  991,159

  November

  1,920,104

  December

  489,621

  1987

  January

  1,029,574

  February

  1,302,849

  March

  367,568

  TOTAL

  9,093,226

  (April to date)

  Nil

  Advertising expenditure was heavy during the launch period to establish an initial awareness of the new programme. A lower weight was then possible and television commercials could concentrate on promoting the individual programmes under restart eg — EAS, jobclub, community programme and the restart course.

  Advertising was stopped during the Christmas period when air time is at a premium and experience shows it to be less effective. It was resumed again at a slightly heavier weight to regain awareness.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Youth Training Programme
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people participated in the youth training programme schemes in the districts of Castlereagh and Ards during the past 12 months; how many of these persons subsequently gained apprenticeships; and if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the youth training programme scheme in the constituency of Strangford.

  Mr. Viggers
  The total number of young people participating in all full-time training schemes in the 12 months ending 31 December 1987 in the districts of Castlereagh and Ards was 902 and 631 respectively. In addition, a number of 17-year-olds were in employment with training under YTP work scheme.

  Figures relating specifically to apprenticeship training within the Castlereagh and Ards districts are not available.

  I am satisfied that the effectiveness of this programme is as positive in the Strangford constituency as it is in the remainder of Northern Ireland.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why there is radioactivity monitoring in Northern Ireland; why it is only applied to lambs; and what are the sources which have contributed to the existence of radioactivity in livestock in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Radioactive monitoring of the air and waters around the Northern Ireland coastline is carried out to assess the possible effect of radioactive discharges from nuclear energy installations.

  Following the accident at Chernobyl, radioactive monitoring of agriculture products was introduced to ensure that foodstuffs were safe. As a result it has been found that only in sheep have radiation levels remained high enough to warrant continued monitoring. Three

  731
  small hill areas were identified where some young lambs not yet ready for market had levels of radioactivity above the United Kingdom trigger level of 1,000 bq/kg. As a precaution the Department introduced controls on the movement and slaughter of sheep from these areas. Continued monitoring of sheepmeat indicates that Northern Ireland lamb products in the shops are safe.

  The radioactivity found in livestock is characteristic of the Chernobyl fall out.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what systems of checks for the level of radioactive radiation are presently carried out on(a) sheep, (b) cattle, (c) pigs and (d) poultry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Department of Agriculture monitors (at slaughterhouses) the radioactivity levels in marketable lamb. All sheep leaving three designated areas are subject to movement controls and monitoring of radioactivity levels to ensure that these animals are not slaughtered unless cleared by the Department. Monitoring during 1986 and 1987 has shown other agricultural products to be safe so checks on cattle, pigs and poultry are not currently being carried out.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for checking the level of radioactive radiation in Angora goats; whether their wool presents any risk to human beings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I have no plans to check Angora goats for radioactivity, as there is no evidence of Angora goats being kept in any of three designated areas; nor is there evidence that the wool from Angora goats presents any risk to human beings.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all members of staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the civil service, which was published by the Cabinet Office (MPO) in 1984. Sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter through the usual Civil Service complaints procedures.

  Action is in hand to issue guidance to all members of staff in the near future.

  In the past five years eight complaints have been reported. All have been resolved without recourse to disciplinary action.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to publicise the new pesticides laws due to come into force in 1989; and if he will make a statement.
  732
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 15 January, at column 438.

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations have been made to the European Community Commission regarding the need to establish a rural development agency to offset the reductions in agricultural support which are currently proposed by the European Community Commission.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There is already an agency, the Development Commission, to promote rural development in England; and there are similar agencies in Scotland and Wales. I am well aware of the challenge posed to farmers by the need to adjust their businesses to a reduced level of agricultural support. My Department has announced a range of policies which can help on this, including

  incentives for the planting of woodlands on farms;

  grants to encourage the diversification of farm businesses;

  the designation of environmentally sensitive areas;

  proposals for implementing a Community set-aside policy.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of state support for agriculture as a percentage of the value of production in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the EEC as a whole and what equivalent information he has about the United States of America.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is difficult to make comparisons of national spending on agriculture between different countries as definitions of support vary and information on agricultural expenditure in other regions is incomplete. The most reliable statistics cover direct support for prices and incomes, although these understate the true amount of aid. In the United Kingdom and the Community direct support equates to spending under the guarantee section of the common agricultural policy, and in the United States of America to equivalent expenditure by the Federal Government. For 1986—the latest year for which comparative figures are available — the percentages requested are as follows:

  per cent.

  (a) United Kingdom

  11·4

  (b) EC (12)

  12·2

  (c) United States of America

  17·6

  Food Labelling
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the light of the known connection between diet and health and its particular relevance to coronary heart disease, the Government will invoke their right under the relevant provisions for safeguarding public health, as laid down in article 36 of the treaty of Rome, to introduce mandatory labelling of foodstuffs to show the saturated fat, sugar, fibre and salt content, as recommended by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The EC food labelling directive (79/112) has harmonised within the Community the information that may be required to appear on food labels and to that extent therefore article 36 of the treaty of Rome is not available to member states to act unilaterally.
  733
  We are discussing with the EC Commission a way forward within the framework of the Community rules for the introduction of fat labelling regulations only, which follows the recommendations of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. Meanwhile, guidelines published in July 1987 by me provide a standard format for nutrition labelling of foods. This format is intended to be the basis for legislation when we have experience of its uptake by industry and EC intentions in the area of nutrition labelling are clearer.

  Soil Erosion
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he proposes to continue in the current year the Agricultural Development Advisory Service scheme to monitor water erosion of arable land in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will establish a body to investigate soil erosion; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what plans his Department has to monitor soil erosion in upland areas of England and Wales.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The results of a five-year collaborative project which studied soil erosion on arable land are now being assessed by a small working group comprising representatives of the main interested organisations. This group will draw up proposals for further work covering soil erosion on lowland arable land and in the uplands.

  Free Food
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he is proposing to deal with the distribution of free EEC foods to those in need in the Easington area during 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 12 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) at columns 198–9.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Adoption
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was, for 1984 and each subsequent year(a) the number of children placed for adoption, (b) the number of those children who were placed for adoption while in local authority care, (c) the number of children on whom adoption orders were made, including the number made on children in local authority care, (d) the number of adoption orders made in cases where the court dispensed with parental consent, (e) the number of children freed for adoption and (f) the breakdown of age of children for each of the above categories.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that not all the figures requested are available. The available figures are set out in the tables:

  Children and young people adopted from local authority care in England and Wales 1984–86

  Age group

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Total

  2008

  2001

  1987

  Under one

  588

  569

  581

  734

  Age group

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1–4

  646

  602

  603

  5–9

  516

  538

  482

  10–15

  202

  231

  266

  16 and over

  56

  61

  55

  Table 2

  Total numbers of adoption orders granted in England and Wales 1984–86

  (including adoption orders made in respect of children in care)

  Age Group

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Total

  8,648

  7,615

  7,892

  Under 1 year

  1,843

  1,605

  1,572

  1–4 years

  1,935

  1,645

  1,748

  5–9 years

  2,613

  2,261

  2,349

  10–14 years

  1,730

  1,625

  1,652

  15–17 years

  527

  454

  495

  Not stated age

  —

  25

  76

  Figures for the year 1984 incorporate a distribution of 11 children whose exact age was not stated.

  Table 3

  Freeing orders became notifiable on 27 May 1984, the date on which freeing for adoption was first introduced. Freeing orders made in England and Wales which were notified 1984–86

  Age Group

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Total

  16

  235

  244

  Under 1 year

  10

  66

  50

  1–4 years

  3

  86

  90

  5–9 years

  2

  52

  60

  10–14 years

  —

  15

  26

  15–17 years

  —

  4

  1

  Not stated age

  1

  12

  17

  Further information on adoptions in 1985 and 1986 is contained in OPCS Monitor (Reference FM3 87/1) published on 11 August 1987, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of hospital beds were on average unoccupied in the Mersey regional health authority in(a) 1981 and (b) the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.

  All National Health Service hospitals in Mersey region

  1981

  1986

  Average daily number:

  Available beds

  21,025

  17,959

  Occupied beds1

  17,290

  14,880

  Percentage occupied beds

  82·2

  82·9

  Percentage unoccupied beds

  17·8

  17·1

  1 Bed occupancy figures are based on a midnight count and do not therefore reflect the use of beds by patients who do not stay overnight.

  The health services information steering group (chaired by Mrs. Körner) recommended in its first report that bed use data should include all patients using a ward in a 24-hour period and that aggregated bed occupancy statistics should not be used as an indicator of efficient bed use. A more useful measure of bed utilisation is patient throughput per available bed. For Mersey region this increased from 14·2 to 18·8 between 1981 and 1986.

  Heating Additions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services w hat was the total cost of heating additions paid by benefit offices in the Nottingham, North constituency in 1986–87; if he will break down this figure by week of payment; and if he will estimate the total number of claimants involved.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available. Statistics on the number of people who receive heating additions and the costs involved are collected on a national basis and we are unable to supply information for individual areas.

  Newcastle East (Saxon House) Amount (£)

  North Shields (Unicorn House) Amount (£)

  Wallsend (The Green) Amount (£)

  8 April-5 May 1987

  35,076

  29,829

  17,916

  6 May-2 June 1987

  28,430

  35,260

  28,381

  3 June-30 June 1987

  27,263

  29,702

  29,967

  1 July-28 July 1987

  49,201

  32,862

  31,937

  29 July-25 August 1987

  35,996

  40,227

  31,452

  26 August-22 September 1987

  34,550

  41,878

  18,238

  Totals for each office

  210,516

  209,758

  157,891

  Combined Total for 8 April 1987 to 22 September 1987 £578,165

  Notes:

  1. The figures given are provisional and subject to amendment.

  2. The boundaries of Newcastle (East), North Shields and Wallsend local offices are not exactly conterminous with those of North Tyneside local authority.

  Heating Bills (Seaham and Peterlee)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many households within the Seaham and Peterlee area of his Department he estimates will lose help they at present receive for heating bills, with the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986;

  (2) how many households in the Seaham and Peterlee area of his Department are in receipt of social security payments to help towards heating bills.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that no information is available concerning the number of households in the Seaham and Peterlee area which are in receipt of supplementary benefit heating additions.

  The amount of money spent on heating additions has been included in the resources for the new income support scheme. Extra help will be directed more effectively through the premiums at those in greatest need—pensioners, sick and disabled people and families. Under the arrangements we have made for transitional protection, claimants whose benefit entitlement on the introduction of the income support scheme would be less than their existing benefit entitlement will have their benefit level maintained.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants of income support aged 60 years or over will be entitled to the severe disability premium.

  Single Payments (North Tyneside)
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the expenditure on single payments benefits for the months of April to September 1987 from the offices at Saxon house, Newcastle, Unicorn house, North Shields and The Green, Wallsend to claimants residing in North Tyneside; and what is the total sum for this period.

  Mr. Portillo
  The expenditure on single payments from 8 April 1987 to 22 September 1987 by the local offices in question is given in the table.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that about 4,400 income support claimants aged 60 or over will be entitled to the severe disability premium.

  Widows (Death Benefit)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures for weekly industrial death benefit paid to widows for each of the last 20 years.

  Mr. Scott
  The weekly rates of industrial death benefit since 1948 are shown in table 22.01 in Social Security Statistics 1987, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 12 January, what account he proposes to take in deciding the details of new arrangements for severe weather payments of the unusually mild conditions so far in the current winter.

  Mr. Portillo
  The details of the new arrangements will be considered in the light of the whole of this winter's experience.

  Departmental Local Offices
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the grants, loans, and combined grants and loans budgets of each local benefit office expressed as a sum per head of the supplementary benefit claimant case load of each office.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is available in the Library.

  Benefits
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what has been the percentage rise in the value of unentitled benefits recouped per fraud detection officer of his Department since(a) 1979 and (b) 1984;

  (2) what was the total value of unentitled benefits claims discovered and recouped by his Department in each year since 1979;

  (3) what has been the average change in the value of unentitled benefits recouped per fraud detection officer of his Department in each year since (a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Fraud
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many officers are employed in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) England and Wales by his Department in investigating fraud; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am able to provide information only in respect of Great Britain. The information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Precise figures for staff investigating fraud are not available but it is possible to calculate the amount of staff time expended in the Department on fraud-related work. On that basis the equivalent full-time staff employed on fraud work have been as follows:

  England and Wales

  Great Britain

  1979–80

  2,026

  2,311

  1980–81

  2,092

  2,336

  1981–82

  2,086

  2,346

  1982–83

  1,933

  2,185

  1983–84

  1,975

  2,211

  1984–85

  1,946

  2,204

  1985–86

  2,029

  2,285

  1986–87

  2,152

  2,390

  1987–88

  2,314

  2,607

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the ratio of the current cost of his Department's investigation into fraud to the benefits recouped; and what are the figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on which to base a reliable estimate is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement, in the light of the proposed revised social security system, of the position of 16 to 18-year-olds who(a) are single parents and (b) who are unable to secure work in suitable YTS placements, with regard to their entitlement to benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Sixteen and 17-year-olds who are single parents are currently entitled to supplementary benefit if they are not in full-time work and if their income does not meet their requirements. Their position from September,738
  when the Government's proposals for this age group are planned to take effect, will be unchanged, and they will be able to receive income support without time limit.

  Under the Government's proposals other 16 and 17-year-olds, with certain exceptions, such as the severely disabled, will normally have no entitlement to benefit. Instead, if they are registering for work or a YTS place their parents will be entitled to claim an extension of child benefit in respect of them. Child benefit will run up to the end of the calendar year for summer school leavers and for up to three months for others. Our intention is that certain young people for whom child benefit is not relevant (eg. orphans and those living away from home because they would be at risk of physical or sexual abuse) will be entitled to income support, but only during the extended child benefit period.

  During this period all these young people will have the opportunity of considering the job and YTS opportunities that are available to them. The YTS guarantee applies to all in the age group. After the termination of the extended child benefit period no further child benefit will be paid in respect of them, nor will income support be available.

  Pension Age
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive a report on the cost and other implications of either a change in the pension age for men or a more flexible retirement age to apply to men and women.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir David Price) on 24 November 1987 at column 181–82.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's intentions in regard to the resolution on implementation of the world programme of action concerning disabled persons adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its 1987 session.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government are considering the recommendations of the 42nd session of the United Nations General Assembly on implementation of the world programme of action concerning disabled persons. We have made it clear that we support the overall objectives of the programme.

  Welfare Rights
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has yet replied to the letter sent to him on 9 November 1987 by the welfare rights team of Newham borough council.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the Department has no trace of the correspondence from the welfare rights team of Newham borough council.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why his Department has stopped sending press releases to welfare rights organisations; on whose authority the decision was taken; and when it was taken.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's press office has not stopped sending press notices to any one group of
  739
  recipients. It does, however, review its long press lists from time to time. It works on the principle that press notices are designed and intended for the press and this is where they are mainly sent. Organisations, companies and individuals write in from time to time asking for press notices and these requests are considered on their merits.

  The headquarters of voluntary and other charitable organisations who receive calls from the press or the public about health or social security are among those added to our press lists on request. If the hon. Member knows of any organisation which has a particular need for the Department's press releases and has recently been unable to get them I would be grateful if he would write to me.

  Therapists and Midwives (Training)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the number of (i) trainee physiotherapists, (ii) trainee speech therapists, (iii) trainee occupational therapists and (iv) trainee midwives (Royal College of Midwives) entering courses in England during each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 15 January 1988]: Information for (i) and (iii) is not available on an England-only basis. However, the number of trainee physiotherapists and occupational therapists entering courses in Great Britain over the past 10 years is as follows:

  Trainee physiotherapists and occupational therapists entering courses 1978 to 1987 (Great Britain)

  Academic year commencing

  Physiotherapy trainees

  Occupational therapy trainees

  1978

  960

  634

  1979

  988

  658

  1980

  996

  695

  1981

  991

  714

  1982

  977

  766

  1983

  954

  751

  1984

  960

  747

  1985

  967

  760

  1986

  962

  754

  1987

  969

  814

  For (ii) information on the numbers commencing degree courses related to speech therapy is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science since all courses are run by universities and polytechnics.

  The information requested for (iv) is as follows:

  Student midwives—England—1978 to 1987

  Year

  Total numbers in training at 31 March12

  Numbers entering training during year ended 31 March2

  1978

  4,230

  3—

  1979

  4,230

  3—

  1980

  3,870

  3—

  1981

  3,910

  3—

  1982

  3,910

  3—

  1983

  4,190

  3—

  1984

  3—

  3—

  1985

  4,363

  2,916

  1986

  4,227

  2,961

  1987

  4,487

  2,759

  Source: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and predecessor.

  1 Figures prior to 1985 have been estimated as 95 per cent. of the

  740

  England and Wales totals.

  2 The length of midwifery training was extended to 18 months on 1 September 1981.

  3 Not available.

  It is important to note that the numbers of midwives intending to practise on qualifying have increased from 52 per cent. in 1978–79 to over 70 per cent. in 1985–86.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Scottish Standing Committee
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he has as to the number of occasions since 1958 on which right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies outside Scotland have been nominated to serve on the First or Second Scottish Standing Committee.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1988, c. 486]: No Members representing constituencies outside Scotland were nominated to the First or Second Scottish Standing Committee in the 1980–81 Session and not one Member, as indicated previously.

ENVIRONMENT

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to respond to the consultations on his proposals for a National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Ridley
  A memorandum setting out the Government's policy on the National Rivers Authority was placed in the Library on 17 December, in reply to a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairmen of the water authorities to discuss his proposals for a National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's last formal meeting with the water authority chairmen was on 25 June 1987. He proposes to meet them again on 19 January. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, when Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Water, and I, met them on 16 December.

  Schindler Homes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to relieve the hardship suffered by residents who purchased Schindler homes from the former NCB, which were defective under the housing defects legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Owners are entitled to assistance from their local housing authority under the housing defects legislation, provided they meet the conditions for eligibility. Those owners who do not qualify for HDA assistance but consider they face hardship should seek their own provisional advice on the courses open to them. I have recently invited the hon. Member to a meeting about this, together with other interested Members and local authority representatives.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to revise planning procedures to be used in dealing with applications for approval of sites for the disposal of radioactive waste.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to increase the commercial efficiency of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what future role he sees for the Property Services Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Deloitte Haskins and Sells have reported to me proposing adoption in PSA of commercial accounts as a prelude to establishing a trading fund. I hope to reach decisions on these proposals before long in the light of consultations with my colleagues.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the level of funding of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  PSA's expenditure on civil accommodation is planned to increase by £60 million in 1988–89 and £74 million in 1989–90 above the levels in last year's public expenditure White Paper.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the effects of competitive tendering on local authority services.

  Mr. Howard
  We have received a large number of representations, the most significant of which make it clear that exposing services to competition brings real and substantial benefits to ratepayers and service customers.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to bring forward proposals to oblige local authorities to charge for the services they provide, such as planning permissions and fines for overdue return of library books on the basis of the income of the payer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  No, it is entirely appropriate that local authorities should levy a flat rate charge for services of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any representations from Dulwich regarding the proposed poll tax legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Since the publication of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" I have received six such representations, and one from someone with a second home there.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will be taking on the petition against the poll tax from the people of Nottingham presented to the House on 16 December 1987.
  742
  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend will be making his observations on the petition from residents of Nottingham shortly.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the additional costs to hostels for homeless people resulting from the proposed community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  There is no need for hostels to incur additional costs under the new system. Hostel residents will pay the community charge either direct, or via their landlord in the form of collective community charge contribution. Landlords of properties designated for the collective community charge will be able to keep five per cent. of the conributions to cover administrative costs.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the population of Lambeth which is likely to be unable to pay the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  I hope that Lambeth borough council and ILEA will ensure by their spending behaviour that the community charge in Lambeth will never exceed a modest and affordable level. People on low incomes will, of course, be eligible for rebates of up to 80 per cent. to help them pay the charge.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many derogations are currently in force to permit water authorities to have public water supplies with nitrate levels in excess of 50mg; and what estimate he has made of the size of the population receiving public water supplies in the areas concerned.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There are currently 48 supplies with nitrate derogations, serving some 900,000 people. These derogations were granted because the concentrations in the supplies are not a health risk. However, in the light of recent legal advice I have decided that these derogations should be withdrawn. The Government will in due course publish their proposals for limiting nitrate concentrations in water. In the meantime studies are proceeding into solutions to the problem, including water de-nitrification processes and the feasibility of protection zones.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, following the review of the investment programmes of water authorities to meet the European Economic Community quality of drinking water directive and the discussions being undertaken with them over meeting the standards of the bathing water directive, he will announce a date by which both directives will be fully implemented.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have nothing further to add to my answers to the hon. Member's questions of 2 and 15 December about the EC directive on the quality of drinking water.

  The bathing water directive is being implemented. We have identified 391 bathing waters which fall within its scope. These waters are kept under surveillance and reports on quality are made annually to the Commission. Some 60 per cent. of waters so far meet the directive's quality standards and some £70 million a year is now being spent on improvement schemes to bring the remainder up to standard.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will meet the Building Societies Association to discuss the role of building societies in investing in rented housing.

  Mrs. Roe
  I have already discussed this topic with the Building Societies Association. I am pleased to see that a major building society has announced a significant initiative in rented housing, and I hope that others will also wish to involve themselves in this area.

  Leigh Environmentals
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on which dates since 1 January 1980 inspectors from his Department have visited the works of Leigh Environmentals and its predecessors at Killarmarsh, Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement based upon his inspectors' reports.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Since 1981 air pollution control inspectors have made over 100 visits to the site or its immediate vicinity, and hazardous waste inspectors have made nine visits. The purpose of these visits has been to ensure that the operator uses best practicable means to minimise emissions to air from registered processes, and to help the local authority to secure proper control over other processes.

  European Year of the Environment
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many environmental projects have been undertaken as a result of the European Year of the Environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Our national committee for European Year of the Environment has been notified of more than 3,000 events and projects taking place in the United Kingdom under the EYE banner. I warmly welcome this excellent British contribution to the year and I pay tribute to the committee for its successful campaign to increase public involvement in caring for the environment.

  Cricket World Cup Final
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the decision by the Minister with responsibility for sport to attend the cricket world cup final in Calcutta in November 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received one letter from a member of the public asking for information about my attendance at the Cricket world cup final (and a letter of thanks from the chairman of the TCCB). In addition, I have answered written questions from the hon. Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr Snape).

  Teesside
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of Teesside urban development corporation to discuss progress in attracting private investment into the area.
  744
  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of the Teesside development corporation on 8 December 1987.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the Housing Corporation's funds are earmarked for spending in rural areas in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Information is not readily available on Housing Corporation allocations to rural housing associations other than in the 14 rural stress areas designated by the corporation. For 1987–88 the amount allocated to these associations to cover the cost of new rented and low-cost home ownership schemes approved during the year was some £9 million or 1·5 per cent. of the total for England. Forecast expenditure on these schemes, and other projects approved in the designated rural areas in prior years, is not separately available. The Housing Corporation has been reviewing the definition of, and allocation of funds to, rural areas with a view to implementing new arrangements in time for the allocations to be made within its 1988–89 programme, on which decisions will be made shortly.

  Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses and new town commission houses have been sold in Basildon in each of the last four years.

  Mrs. Roe
  Figures reported by Basildon district council and by the Commission for New Towns are published in "Local Housing Statistics", copies of which are held in the Library. The relevant issues are:

  Number

  1983–84

  75

  1984–85

  79

  1985–86

  83

  1986–87

  83

  Housing Land
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for increasing the amount of land available for housing in the south of England; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Responsibility for the provision of land for housing, in so far as that can be secured through the planning system, rests with county planning authorities in preparing structure plan proposals and with district planning authorities in making local plans arid considering planning applications. In approving structure plans and alterations, my right hon. Friend takes into account the likely overall need for housing and the suitability of the proposed ways of meeting those needs.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on his Department's initiatives to encourage tree planting.
  745
  Mr. Moynihan
  A number of representations have been received about various aspects. My right hon. Friend is considering the arrangements which should apply in 1988–89 and subsequent years.

  Lambeth Council (Direct Labour Organisation)
  Mr. William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about his decision to limit work undertaken by Lambeth council's direct labour organisation to contracts worth £50,000 or less; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has received one representation from Lambeth council. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of that, together with the Department's response.

  Protected Buildings
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations from local authorities concerning their existing powers of enforcement against developers who threaten to demolish protected buildings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Not currently. If my hon. Friend is concerned about a particular property I would be happy to investigate the problem if he would send me written details.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce a new planning circular; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be publishing his conclusions on the draft statement of planning policy on large out-of-town shopping centres.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend is publishing today two new series of guidance notes. Planning policy guidance notes (PPG) will provide guidance on general and specific aspects of planning policy, and minerals planning guidance notes (MPG) will give advice on the control of minerals development.

  PPGs and MPGs aim to provide concise and practical guidance on planning policies, in a clearer and more accessible form than in departmental circulars, the earlier series of development control policy notes (DCPNs), and other statements. In future, advice on legislation and procedures will be given in departmental circulars, while PPGs and MPGs will be the main source of policy guidance on planning matters.

  In most cases the content of the new notes will be based on extant circulars and DCPNs. An index of all the relevant circulars is also being published today — in fulfilment of an undertaking in response to the fifth report, Session 1985–86, of the Environment Committee in the last Parliament. Unless otherwise stated in the PPGs and MPGs, those circulars remain extant for the time being, but the need to retain them will be reviewed in the light of experience with PPGs and MPGs. DCPNs are now being withdrawn to the extent indicated in the relevant PPGs.

  The PPG and MPG notes published today are:

  PPG1—General policy and principles

  PPG2—Green belts

  746

  PPG3—Land for housing

  PPG4—Industrial and commercial development and small firms

  PPG5—Simplified planning zones

  PPG6—Major retail development

  PPG7—Rural enterprise and development

  PPG8—Telecommunications

  PPG9—Regional guidance for the south east

  MPG1—General considerations and the development plan system

  MPG2—Applications, permissions and conditions

  Except for PPG2, 3 and 9, these notes are being issued jointly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Further titles will be published in due course.

  Copies of the PPG, MPG, and the index of extant circulars, are being placed in the Library.

  Empty Council Houses
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available figure for the number of council houses which have been empty for more than six months.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  English local authorities provided information on the number of their dwellings vacant for more than six months, for the first time in their housing investment programme returns for April 1987. It is estimated that there were then about 44,000 such dwellings.

  Peak Park Planning Board
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to pay a visit to the area covered by the Peak Park planning board.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a visit at present.

  Berkshire Structure Plan
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now intends to make a statement on the Berkshire structure plan.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend expects to publish his modifications to Berkshire county council's submitted replacement structure plan very soon.

  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he is doing to encourage the provision of low cost housing to rent and for sale in rural areas.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The White Paper published last September "Housing: The Government's Proposals", Cm. 214 set out the Government's proposals for housing generally including proposals to expand the housing association programme which provides low-cost homes for rent and other tenures in rural and urban areas.

  I am currently considering whether any further measures, designed specifically to help rural areas, are needed.

  PRC Houses
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department has spent on assistance under the Housing Defects Act for people living in PRC houses.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Under the housing defects legislation central government contributes towards the costs local authorities incur in assisting eligible owners of designated dwellings with reinstatement grants or repurchase. Authorities claim Exchequer contribution a year in arrears, and the payments take the form of annuities, payable over 20 years. The total contribution claimed by authorities for each financial year following the introduction of the HDA scheme, and the Exchequer payments made on those claims, are as follows:—

  Claims made £

  Claims paid £

  1984–85

  21,963

  21,963

  1985–86

  2,250,297

  2,200,659

  1986–87

  4,836,225

  12,079,997

  1 Including payments made in January 1988.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the level of prior consultation taking place with landowners, farmers and those with sporting rights before a site of special scientific interest is designated.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Yes. I am generally content with the present consultation arrangements, but I am reviewing the matter with the chairman of the NCC to see whether improvements can be made.

  Pollution (North Sea)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will be taking, following the recent conference on North sea pollution, to monitor the reductions in pollution in the North sea agreed at that conference.

  Approved Estate Action Homelessness Schemes: as at 19 January 1988

  Local Authority

  Estate

  Number of units brought back into use

  £ Allocation 1986–87

  £ Allocation 1987–88

  Birmingham

  Various

  209

  370,306

  —

  Bolton

  Various

  13

  23,000

  —

  Bradford

  Woodside

  14

  37,200

  39,839

  Bristol

  Various

  80

  207,918

  —

  Bury

  Springs

  25

  145,000

  —

  Greenwich

  Lolland House

  40

  325,000

  —

  Guildford

  Guildford Park and Westborough

  17

  312,500

  57,500

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  White City

  69

  147,000

  349,000

  Hyndburn

  Woodnook

  36

  158,000

  —

  Islington

  Grimaldi House

  15

  130,817

  —

  Leeds

  Cripton and Seacroft

  10

  20,000

  200,000

  Manchester

  Various

  261

  351,000

  —

  Mansfield

  Oak Tree Lane/Bellamy Road

  10

  60,282

  —

  Milton Keynes

  New Bradwell

  4

  29,631

  —

  Newham

  Hameway 3A

  8

  177,017

  —

  748
  Mr. Ridley
  I propose shortly to issue a guidance note concerning the implementation of the agreements to reduce pollution reached at the second international conference on the protection of the North sea.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he proposes to reduce levels of homelessness.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 2 December last, at column 927.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list each scheme selected for an additional allocation of housing investment programme funds, under the homelessness initiative promoted by his Department's Estate Action team(a) during 1986–87 and (b) during 1987–88; how many units of accommodation each scheme will bring into use for homeless households; when these units will be available for letting; and whether they will provide permanent, or temporary accommodation for homeless households;

  (2) if he will list each scheme submitted for additional housing investment programme resources, under the homelessness initiative promoted by his Department's Estate Action team (a) during 1986–87 and (b) during 1987–88; and if he will list the criteria used by his Estate Action team in selecting (i) which schemes should receive additional resources, (ii) which authorities should receive additional resources and (iii) what additional resources each authority should receive.

  Mrs. Roe
  The local authorities which have so far received additional allocations under the Estate Action homelessness initiative, the amount of their allocations and the numbers of dwellings brought into use for the homeless are as follows.

  The criteria used in assessing the bids submitted by some 40 local authorities are based on the initiative's stated objective of bringing vacant council dwellings back into use at reasonable cost.
  749

  Local Authority

  Estate

  Number of units brought back into use

  £ Allocation 1986–87

  £ Allocation 1987–88

  Gooseley Lane

  23

  250,000

  —

  Rushmoor

  Maitland Road

  23

  165,000

  —

  Sheffield

  Various

  37

  110,000

  180,000

  Slough

  Manor Park

  1

  9,100

  —

  South Tyneside

  Tyne Dock

  16

  167,000

  55,000

  Stockport

  Adswood and Gorsey Bank

  25

  87,500

  —

  Thamesdown

  Latton Close

  14

  67,425

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  Ocean

  40

  —

  314,000

  Wakefield

  Airedale

  16

  60,000

  90,000

  Walsall

  Various

  101

  314,000

  —

  Westminster

  Queens Park

  241

  515,000

  —

  Beachcroft House

  29

  Woodspring

  Several

  14

  18,982

  —

  York

  Several

  12

  77,000

  62,700

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list each scheme selected for additional housing investment programme resources in 1987–88 under the initiative announced by this Department on 30 November 1987, to enable local authorities to provide additional accommodation to meet the needs of the homeless; how many units of accommodation each scheme will provide; when these units are likely to be available for letting; and whether they will provide temporary or permanent accommodation for the homeless;

  (2) if he will list each scheme submitted for additional housing investment programme resources in 1987–88, to enable local authorities to provide additional accommodation to meet the needs of the homeless, under the initiative announced on 30 November 1987; and if he will list the criteria which his Department used in selecting (a) which schemes should receive additional resources, (b) which authorities should receive additional resources and (c) what additional resources each authority should receive.

  Mrs. Roe
  In making these allocations through the Department's regional offices account was taken of proposals put forward by authorities. The objective was to enable schemes to go ahead this year which would reduce reliance on bed-and-breakfast accommodation or would otherwise benefit the homeless. Preference was given to those authorities with the most serious homelessness problems as indicated by the number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the number for which authorities had accepted responsibility, and the proportion of council lettings taken up by the homeless.

  It is for authorities to decide how to use their allocations. However, the proposals put forward mainly related to bringing empty council dwellings back into use or to the acquisition of properties for use as hostels for the homeless.

  Table 1 lists the authorities given allocations and their estimates of the extra dwellings or hostel places that would result. In total these estimates amount to nearly 2,800 extra dwellings/places.

  Table 2 lists the authorities which applied but did not receive allocations.
  750

  Table 1

  Authorities given additional allocations

  Region and Local Authority

  Allocation £ '000

  Dwellings/Places

  Northern

  Durham

  60

  5

  Gateshead

  40

  2

  Hartlepool

  300

  15

  Langbaurgh

  90

  5

  Middlesbrough

  84

  10

  Newcastle

  300

  15

  North Tyneside

  74

  4

  South Tyneside

  51

  14

  Yorks and Humberside

  Barnsley

  280

  40

  Bradford

  80

  20

  Kirklees

  200

  20

  Sheffield

  400

  32

  Wakefield

  100

  8

  York

  40

  2

  East Midlands

  Ashfield

  50

  6

  Derby

  267

  12

  East Lindsey

  40

  4

  Leicester

  295

  38

  Nottingham

  150

  45

  Northampton

  198

  13

  Eastern

  Aylesbury

  55

  33

  Colchester

  190

  6

  Ipswich

  30

  6

  Luton

  111

  10

  Milton Keynes

  159

  10

  Peterborough

  165

  5

  St. Albans

  150

  8

  Southend

  400

  18

  Thurrock

  40

  3

  South West

  Bath

  150

  6

  Bristol

  200

  40

  Isles of Scilly

  160

  2

  Kennet

  115

  8

  North Dorset

  210

  7

  Poole

  100

  8

  Purbeck

  125

  9

  South Somerset

  80

  6

  Weymouth and Portland

  160

  10

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  325

  71

  Cannock Chase

  18

  4

  Dudley

  40

  3

  751

  Region and Local Authority

  Allocation £'000

  Dwellings/Places

  North Shropshire

  10

  8

  Redditch

  22

  9

  Sandwell

  100

  26

  South Herefordshire

  55

  6

  South Shropshire

  50

  6

  South Staffordshire

  50

  6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  50

  4

  Walsall

  130

  22

  Wolverhampton

  200

  40

  Wrekin

  50

  8

  North West

  Blackburn

  180

  90

  Blackpool

  100

  10

  Bolton

  40

  20

  Bury

  70

  5

  Carlisle

  100

  8

  Chester

  80

  5

  Chorley

  70

  6

  Congleton

  40

  5

  Hyndburn

  50

  10

  Manchester

  1,000

  400

  Rochdale

  160

  18

  Stock port

  50

  10

  Tameside

  100

  6

  Wigan

  60

  60

  Greater London

  Brent

  1,300

  52

  Camden

  960

  118

  Greenwich

  1,275

  81

  Hackney

  1,300

  145

  Hammersmith

  800

  75

  Haringey

  910

  137

  Islington

  800

  129

  Lambeth

  900

  83

  Lewisham

  900

  88

  Newham

  1,255

  141

  Tower Hamlets

  1,150

  110

  Wandsworth

  750

  32

  Westminster

  1,300

  50

  South East

  Brighton

  300

  6

  Canterbury

  240

  18

  Crawley

  150

  14

  Dover

  200

  6

  Gillingham

  275

  14

  Gravesham

  70

  7

  Guildford

  200

  6

  Hastings

  113

  10

  Lewes

  15

  3

  Medina

  250

  8

  Newbury

  150

  6

  New Forest

  400

  20

  Reading

  235

  13

  Slough

  330

  8

  South Oxford

  25

  2

  Wealdon

  200

  5

  Woking

  47

  3

  Table 2

  Authorities who applied but did not receive additional allocations:

  Region and Local Authority

  Northern

  Alnwick

  Derwentside

  Easington

  Stockton

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Beverley

  Calderdale

  Craven

  Doncaster

  Harrogate

  752

  Leeds

  Ryedale

  East Midlands

  Lincoln

  Mansfield

  Oadby/Wigston

  Eastern

  Braintree

  Cambridge

  Chelmsford

  Hertsmere

  Maldon

  North Bedfordsh

  Norwich

  South Norfolk

  Stevenage

  Waveney

  Greater London

  Barking

  Barnet

  Bromley

  Ealing

  Harrow

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Kensington

  Merton

  Redbridge

  Richmond

  Southwark

  Sutton

  Waltham Forest

  South East

  Adur

  Cherwell

  Fareham

  Horsham

  Oxford

  Portsmouth

  Rochester

  Southampton

  South Wight

  Tunbridge Wells

  Winchester

  Worthing

  South West

  Bournemouth

  Caradon

  Carrick

  Cheltenham

  Exeter

  Gloucester

  Kerrier

  Mendip

  North Wilts

  Penwith

  Restormel

  Sedgemoor

  South Hams

  Stroud

  Taunton Deane

  Teignbridge

  Torridge

  West Dorset

  Wimborne

  Woodspring

  West Wiltshire

  West Midlands

  Malvern Hills

  Nuneaton

  Worcester

  North West

  Nil

  753
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department has taken to assist young homeless people during the United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.

  Mrs. Roe
  Young people like others stand to benefit from the proposals in the current Housing Bill for increasing the supply of rented accommodation. Further specific steps taken during 1987 include the funding of the Housing Corporation's investment in hostels and other shared housing; the introduction of a new mixed-funding programme for housing association schemes for young job-movers; leaflets produced to encourage householders to take in lodgers and grants given to CHAR, First Key and other voluntary bodies for advice and assistance to the homeless. My Department has also been helping fund the

  Outcome of planning appeals: Buckinghamshire district councils

  Local authority

  Appeals received

  Appeals decided

  Appeals allowed

  Appeals dismissed

  Appeals withdrawn

  Aylesbury vale

  1984

  62

  42

  11

  31

  8

  1985

  72

  57

  25

  32

  10

  1986

  84

  69

  28

  41

  13

  Q1, 2 and 3 1987

  76

  48

  17

  31

  7

  South Bucks

  1984

  69

  50

  12

  38

  6

  1985

  79

  62

  25

  37

  6

  1986

  80

  63

  24

  39

  12

  Ql, 2 and 3 1987

  77

  57

  25

  32

  20

  Chiltern

  1984

  81

  47

  19

  28

  13

  1985

  70

  76

  35

  41

  9

  1986

  97

  69

  34

  35

  13

  Ql, 2 and 3 1987

  101

  65

  29

  36

  11

  Milton Keynes

  1984

  25

  21

  5

  16

  4

  1985

  25

  24

  15

  9

  2

  1986

  31

  25

  8

  17

  1

  Ql, 2 and 3 1987

  33

  12

  6

  6

  8

  Wycombe

  1984

  91

  52

  21

  31

  16

  1985

  105

  79

  21

  58

  25

  1986

  177

  119

  50

  69

  30

  Ql, 2 and 3 1987

  117

  97

  37

  60

  20

  Note: Milton Keynes Development Corporation—No record of appeals during 1984, 1985, 1986 or 1987.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the total annual emissions of(a) nitrogen oxides, (b) hydrocarbons and (c) carbon monoxide from all petrol-engined vehicles registered in the United Kingdom for each of the following categories (i) over 2 litres cubic capacity, (ii) 1·4 to 2 litres cubic capacity and (iii) under 1·4 litres cubic capacity in each of the years between 1970 and the present day; and what was the number of vehicles in each of the categories for each of the specified years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I regret that the information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  754
  IYSH trust's booklet "Moving Out" which aims to prevent homelessness among young people by informing them about housing options before they decide to leave home.

  Planning Appeals (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Raison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of planning appeals made to him in each of the last five years for each district council in Buckinghamshire; and how many such appeals have been upheld, and how many rejected, in each year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The following table shows the number of planning appeals received, decided, allowed, dismissed and withdrawn in each district council area in the county of Buckinghamshire between 1 January 1984, the earliest date from which information on an individual planning authority basis is available, and 30 September 1987.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mr. K. Adams of his home at 66 Tayside Court, Denmark Hill, London SE5, from Southwark council;

  (2) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mr. J. R. Young of his home at 20 Bromleigh Court, Sydenham Hill, London SE23, from Southwark council;

  (3) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mrs. E. Kirkby of her home at 9 Hazel Close, Copeland Road, London SE15. from Southwark council;
  755
  (4) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mr. R. E. Crawford of his home at 101 Scylla Road, London SE15, from Southwark council;

  (5) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mr. D. J. Vince of his home at 160B Friern Road, London SE22, from Southwark council;

  (6) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mrs. G. Mells of her home at 6 Steen Way, London SE22, from Southwark council;

  (7) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mr. and Mrs. I. Whitton of their home at 37 Attie Borough Court, Sydenham Hill, London SE23, from Southwark council;

  (8) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mr. and Mrs B. Tripp of their home at 181 Crystal Palace Road, London SE22, from Southwark council;

  (9) what information he has as to the reasons for the continued delay in the purchase by Mr. Andrew Jamieson of his home at 8 Spring Hill Close, Champion Hill, London SE5, from Southwark council;

  (10) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mr. W. B. Hammond of his home at 12B Mount Adon Park, London SE22 0DT, from Southwark council;

  (11) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mrs. R. Newton of her home at 10 Denesmead, Herne Hill, London SE24, from Southwark council;

  (12) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mrs. M. A. Brewster of her home at 49 Casino Avenue, London SE24, from Southwark council.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Department has taken up with the council the cases mentioned. The council says that it is now clearing the backlog and that it has issued approximately 1000 section 125 offer notices in recent weeks.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by his Department with its inquiries into the cases of the Southwark council tenants mentioned in his answer to the hon. Member for Dulwich on Tuesday 3 November 1987.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Department wrote to Southwark about these cases on 3 November 1987 but, despite reminders, the council has so far failed to reply fully. It says that it is giving priority to clearing the backlog of outstanding section 125 offer notices. The Department is continuing to press the council, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the information requested is available.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report in rank order, starting with the local authority with the highest proportion of rent arrears, the total arrears of rent outstanding for domestic properties owned by each local authority in the county of Essex for the latest available date and for 1982–83.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The cumulative rent arrears owed to each local authority in Essex as at 1 April 1983 and 1 April 756
  1987, together with the percentage those arrears represent of the rent collectable, are listed as follows. The authorities are ranked according to the percentage figure.

  Rent arrears (£)

  Rent arrears as percentage of rent collectable

  i. at 1 April 1983:

  Thurrock

  859,775

  6·08

  Basildon

  197,000

  4·26

  Castle Point

  69,468

  3·13

  Uttlesford

  74,000

  2·26

  Brentwood

  62,000

  2·21

  Epping Forest

  178,237

  2·18

  Harlow

  258,500

  2·17

  Chelmsford

  122,721

  1·89

  Colchester

  123,489

  1·81

  Braintree

  135,702

  1·59

  Maldon

  30,453

  133

  Southend on Sea

  102,794

  1·32

  Tendring

  43,769

  1·31

  Rochford

  10,965

  0·52

  ii. at 1 April 1987:

  Thurrock

  1,010,011

  7·5

  Colchester

  236,634

  2·8

  Basildon

  148,195

  2·55

  Uttlesford

  92,000

  2·47

  Castle Point

  46,719

  1·99

  Harlow

  244,391

  1·83

  Chelmsford

  125,672

  1·64

  Southend on Sea

  133,150

  1·44

  Epping Forest

  116,667

  1·42

  Maldon

  32,053

  1·42

  Tendring

  55,095

  1·41

  Brentwood

  40,000

  1·15

  Braintree

  81,485

  0·83

  Rochford

  13,328

  0·53

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest available figures on the arrears of rent outstanding to each local authority in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have today arranged for this information to be placed in the Library. All but 26 authorities provided figures on their subsidy claim forms, and figures for the missing 26 were provided to my Department over the telephone.

  The figures show that, at 1 April 1987, rent arrears owing to all English local authorities amounted to almost £196 million, or 5·1 per cent. of the rent collectable. The total is some £15 million less than at 1 April 1986, when arrears stood at £211 million (5·7 per cent. of rent roll). However, we know that, in the past, some authorities provided figures for all arrears outstanding—rents, rates and service charges—while for 1987 some of these have made an estimate of rent arrears alone. These reporting changes could account for the whole of the apparent improvement, and we believe that there has been little change in the total level of rent arrears between April 1986 and April 1987.

  Over 150 authorities have reported arrears of less than 2 per cent., and some of these are below 1 per cent. Once again it is the few poorly-performing authorities which are mainly responsible for the enormous sums due. The 20 worst authorities—17 of which were on the 1986 list of poor performers — have reported arrears of rent collectable ranging from nearly 8 per cent. to 38 per cent., and together were carrying a debt burden of £92 million in uncollected rent.
  757
  In May 1987, my Department issued a circular to all local authorities, drawing their attention to Ministers' increasing concern about the high level of arrears owed by their tenants. The circular was based on best practice observed in those authorities where rent collection methods had proved effective, and recommended steps which all authorities might take to improve their performance. It is too early to say whether this advice has been heeded: we will be better able to judge when the figures for 1 April 1988 are available.

  Postal Services (Stray Dogs)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the London borough of Ealing about the suspension of postal services on the Hanwell estate, Hanwell, as a result of the dangers to postmen caused by the failure of Ealing council to control the incidence of stray dogs in the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None. I understand that the police, who are primarily responsible for the control of stray dogs, have not been informed of any particular problem with stray dogs on the estate and that postal deliveries have now been resumed.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications for the reform of the law relating to dog licences of the suspension of postal deliveries to the Hanwell estate, Hanwell, W7, as a result of the danger to postmen of uncontrolled dogs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The law relating to dog licences is quite distinct from the legislation governing dog control, which will be unaffected by the abolition of licensing.

  Floating Jetty, Coulport
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the companies which have been invited by the Property Services Agency to submit tenders for the construction of a floating jetty at Coulport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  On commercial grounds it is not the Property Services Agency's policy to publish the names of tenderers until after the award of a contract.

  Rate Support Grant (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much Oxfordshire county council has lost in grant for the next financial year as a consequence of the rate support formula for redistribution from areas of high rateable value to areas of low rateable value.

  Mr. Howard
  Under the present system the domestic ratepayers of Oxfordshire will pay £9·2 million more in 1988–89 than they would in the absence of resource equalisation.

  Carroll Group (Appeal)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the reason for the delay in the appeal in the High Court by the Carroll Group against his decision on a major development at Hurn, Christchurch, Dorset.
  758
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The judge who was to hear this case has stepped down, necessitating the appointment of a replacement.

  GLC (Seaside and Country Homes)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current situation in respect of the disposal of the Greater London council's seaside and country homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The London residuary body expects to complete arrangements for the disposal of the portfolio to North British Housing Association by the end of March.

  Hampstead Heath
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current situation in respect of Hampstead Heath; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The London residuary body issued, on 11 January, a further consultation paper inviting views on whether the London borough of Camden, the corporation of the City of London, or a local trust should become responsible for the ownership and management of the heath. Comments are sought by 19 February. The LRB expects to make its recommendations to the Secretary of State thereafter with a view to a formal transfer of the heath as from 1 April 1989.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will itemise the services transferred to the London residuary body which are currently the subject of negotiation with potential successor bodies.

  Mr. Chope
  The following services, which were transferred to the London residuary body, are currently the subject of negotiations with potential successors:

  London Scientific Services

  Computing Services

  Hampstead Heath

  Home Loans

  Superannuation Fund

  Industrial Mortgages

  Housing Association Loans.

  Estate Action (Walsall)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Walsall metropolitan borough council will be notified of the outcome of the applications for estate action allocation for several estates in the borough.

  Mrs. Roe
  We have already approved £2.72 million of additional resources this financial year for Walsall's estate action schemes at the Rose Hill and Delves estates. The borough council's outline bids for new EA schemes in 1988–89 are being assessed alongside schemes submitted by other local authorities and we will be inviting authorities to work up successful bids in February. Schemes will then be approved as soon as satisfactory detailed submissions are received.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names, professions and salaries of the members of the board of each water authority.
  759
  Mr. Moynihan
  Information about board members, their occupations, and emoluments is included in the regional water authorities' 1986–87 annual reports and accounts. These were presented to Parliament on 15 July 1987.

  Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his Department's public expenditure plans, following publication of the White Paper setting out the Government's expenditure plans for 1988–89 to 1990–91 (Cm. 288).

  Mr. Ridley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has today laid before Parliament "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" (Cm. 288).

  The White Paper explains in more detail my Department's plans for expenditure for 1988–89 to 1990–91, announced in summary at the time of the Autumn Statement, and gives comprehensive information about what we have achieved through our programmes in past years, and about our targets for the future.

  HOUSING

  Substantially higher levels of planned gross expenditure on housing were announced in the Autumn Statement. Gross provision for housing capital expenditure in 1988–89 is now 11 per cent. higher than previous plans and £158 million higher than estimated outturn for 1987–88. In 1989–90 expenditure will be £284 million higher than previous plans. Increases on this scale have been made possible by the continuing success of the right to buy, and by the disposal of new towns land for housing, which is generating higher levels of capital receipts than previously forecast.

  This year's White Paper provides more information about the housing programme than has been previously published. There is a more detailed breakdown into components of the programme and, for the first time, this detailed breakdown is extended to future years' plans. Information on the outputs achieved by the expenditure is continued from previous years and developed. The balance of planned spending between components of the programme reflects the policies set out in the White Paper "Housing: the Government's Proposals", published in 1987 (Cm. 214).

  Housing Associations

  Housing associations are playing an increasing role in the provision of new social housing for rent. This will be further encouraged by the increase of some £50 million in planned gross provision for the Housing Corporation in 1988–89. The Government expect some of this money to be used to attract additional investment from the private sector, thereby increasing the amount of housing which can be built for the available public resources. Details of the corporation's development programme will be announced shortly.

  Local Authority Programmes

  Planned local authority gross capital expenditure is £313 million higher in 1988–89 than in previous plans. After taking account of the increased spending power available to local authorities from higher levels of receipts, this leaves housing investment programme capital
  760
  allocations at £1,150 million. Individual local authority allocations were announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 18 December 1987. As the figures show, local authorities are spending a growing proportion of their resources on the renovation of the existing housing stock. The plans published today reflect the Government's intention that this trend should continue and it will he encouraged. There is also a very substantial increase in the size of the estate action programme, to allow £140 million of targeted allocations. This should permit work to begin on a further 70,000 or so rundown local authority dwellings, to add to the almost 100,000 included in schemes so far. Disposals to private sector owners and managers are running at the rate of about 8,000 units a year, the target for 1988–89 has been set at 15,000 disposals.

  Housing Action Trusts

  A new component of the housing programme is expenditure on housing action trusts (HATs). Proposals for the establishment of these trusts are currently before the House. The Government intend to launch a pilot programme of HATs in the first instance to tackle the problems of some of the worst areas of public housing. In designated areas they will take over the ownership and management of local authority housing, implement a programme of renovation and repair and pass the property on to different forms of ownership and management. HATs will also have a role in encouraging local enterprise and employment in their areas. £125 million has been earmarked for HATs in their first three years of operation.

  OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

  Urban Development Corporations

  Urban development corporations (UDCs) are planned to spend over £200 million in each of the next three years. There are now six UDCs in England. I intend to set up three more during 1988, in Bristol, Leeds and Manchester. This reflects the high priority I give to regenerating the inner cities, and the effectiveness of the UDCs in London Docklands and Merseyside in regenerating their areas. For example, three quarters of Merseyside development corporation's area was derelict initially—more than 70 per cent. of that derelict land has already been reclaimed. In London Docklands, 1987 saw the opening of the Stolport and Docklands light railway, and the signing of an agreement to develop Canary wharf.

  Urban Programme and Derelict Land Grant

  Despite the increased emphasis on UDCs, planned expenditure by DOE on the urban programme (including urban development grant and urban regeneration grant) and derelict land grant amounts to nearly £300 million a year. In 1987–88 local authorities' inner area programmes, supported by Government grant, are forcast to create or preserve about 31,000 jobs and support about 60,000 training places. Urban development grant projects approved since 1982 will generate over £500 million of private sector investment a gearing ratio of 4:1.During the same period over 6,000 hectares of derelict land have been reclaimed with the aid of derelict land grant.

  New Towns

  The new towns programme of disposals of commercial and industrial property continues successfully as the

  761
  private sector takes an increasingly prominent role in the future of the towns. This is reflected in the high level of forecast receipts — £311 million in 1988–89. Capital expenditure—planned at £81 million in 1988–89—is now aimed at rounding off development in the remaining new towns and bringing forward asserts for disposal. Throughout the plan period capital receipts continue significantly to exceed gross capital expenditure.

  Countryside

  I have increased resources for the countryside agencies and the Sports Council. Next year's increase for the Nature Conservancy Council will finance the designation of 500 sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) and several new nature reserves. It will also cover the cost of 500 new management agreements with farmers and landowners to protect SSSIs, and 600 grants for voluntary conservation work. The Countryside Commission, is aiming to plant 2·25 million trees in 1988–89, in addition to those planted in the aftermath of the 15·16 October storm. Their increase in funding will allow the commission to make a start on a major programme to upgrade the nation's footpaths by the end of the century. Next year's increase for the Development Commission will enable it to continue to develop its successful job creation programmes in support of the rural economy. The increases for the Sports Council will enable it to undertake more work in areas of high priority need in the inner cities, and in particular to increase participation among young people. The council's expenditure is "pump priming" and so will help to stimulate additional private sector involvement.

  Local Environmental Services Capital

  Gross provision is £627 million per annum for 1988–89 to 1990–91. Capital receipts generated by local authorities on LES have risen sharply in recent years and forecast receipts have accordingly been revised upwards to £542 million per annum.

  British Waterways Board

  The British Waterways Board external financing limit (EFL) is increased by £1·6 million. This is intended to preserve the real value of the grant for 1988–89. Efficiency savings are expected to flow from the preparation of the waterway plans for the board's network, and the implementation of the MMC report.

  Water Authorities

  Water authorities continue to reduce real operating costs and this, taken with increased profitability, will enable them to finance large increases in investment proposed in their 1987 corporate plans, with a slight reduction in borrowing. Capital expenditure has already grown in real terms by 40 per cent. since 1980–81 and is currently running at about £1 billion. Further major growth is now assured in programmes to improve water and sewage treatment and to renew underground assets.

  Property Services Agency

  On PSA's civil accommodation programme, disposal and property repayment services (PRS) receipts are planned to increase by £86 million in 1988–89 and £136 million in 1989–90, enough to allow expenditure increase of £60 million and £74 million and net reductions of £26 million and £62 million in these years. Some of the increase in expenditure is needed to meet unavoidable demands,
  762
  such as higher rents to be paid to landlords. But enough will remain to carry out priority major new works and to halt the deterioration in the condition of the civil estate in 1988–89 and start making inroads on the backlog of maintenance work in 1989–90.

  Local Authority Capital Expenditure, England

  Gross provision for capital expenditure by local authorities under the main local authority capital cash limit, DOE/LA1, is £5,173 million, £246 million higher than the equivalent provision for 1987–88. Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act local authorities have two main sources of capital spending power: capital allocations issued by the Government and a prescribed proportion of their capital receipts. Capital allocations on DOE/LA1 in 1988–89 will total £2,625 million, broadly similar to this year. Because local authorities are continuing to generate more capital receipts, particularly under right to buy, their potential spending power from capital receipts will be £300 million higher than in 1987–88, at about £3·6 billion. The Government's plans take account of the fact that in aggregate local authorities do not make full use of their potential spending power.

DEFENCE

  Irish Sea (Incidents)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents involving fishing boats and submarines were reported in the Irish sea in 1987.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The only incident involving a Royal Navy submarine and a fishing vessel occurred in the Irish sea on 6 December 1987.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service which was published by the Cabinet Office (Management and Personnel Office) in 1984. Sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter through the usual Civil Service complaints procedures.

  The MOD is in the process of discussing and agreeing departmental guidelines, on policy and procedures to be followed in cases of sexual harassment, with the MOD trades unions.

  Cases of sexual harassment are recorded centrally in MOD only if they result in a disciplinary penalty. Statistics are available for the past four years; there have been four such cases and the penalties ranged from dismissal to suspension from duty without pay.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any agreements exist for military nuclear waste to be(a) taken into the United Kingdom from other

  763
  countries and (b) taken to other countries from the United Kingdom; and whether any such waste has been moved under either of these two categories.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no formal agreements involving acceptance overseas of nuclear wastes from British defence operations in the United Kingdom, and none has been sent.

  Nor are there formal agreements for acceptance into the United Kingdom of nuclear wastes from British defence operations overseas, but small quantities have been returned to the United Kingdom on an ad hoc basis.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many plutonium and radioactive waste related projects at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston, have been agreed by Ministers in each year since 1979; what have been the costs of each project(a) at the time agreed and (b) currently; and if he will make a statement about the reasons for changes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information on past and current estimates of the capital works programme at AWE Aldermaston, together with the progression of costs were contained in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the "Control and Management of the Trident Programme" (HC 27). I have nothing to add to this information.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which private contractor has been chosen to oversee and complete nuclear work for the Trident missile programme at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston; and what is the exact nature of the contractor's responsibilities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Tenders for the role of facilities project management contractor for the capital programme at AWE Aldermaston were received from five firms on 18 December 1987. The proposals are still under consideration. Tenderers will be advised of their success or otherwise in accordance with normal MOD practice.

  Harrier GR5
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is proposed that the Harrier GR5 will replace Jaguars in the ground attack role; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on 11 December at column 307.

  Military Bases and Facilities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of(a) United States and (b) United Kingdom military bases and facilities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are approximately 700 principal military bases and facilities in the United Kingdom wholly under United Kingdom command. There are a further 66 military bases and facilities in the United Kingdom made available for use by United States forces under United States national command. In addition, there are two 764
  armament depots run by United Kingdom civilians on behalf of NATO which provide a service for United States forces.

  Service Establishments, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the medical facilities at all service establishments in Nottinghamshire, along with the number of beds available and average number occupied for which suitable figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no military hospital facility in Nottinghamshire. The only service medical bed facility is eight beds at the station medical centre RAF Newton. Bed occupancy statistics are not kept for this unit which is provided only as a recovery facility for sick single personnel.

  RAF Molesworth
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what time he expects to make a decision about the future use of RAF Molesworth after the implementation of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No decision on this is expected for some time.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of his Department of the proposal to centralise parts of his Department at Thames house, Millbank.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no plans to centralise parts of the Ministry of Defence in Thames house, Millbank.

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were received about low-flying aircraft in 1987 from England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  During 1987 the Ministry of Defence received 4,053 inquiries and complaints about military low flying in relation to England, 729 in relation to Scotland and 913 in relation to Wales.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of aircraft movements authorised for flying below 250 ft over the United Kingdom in 1987; on how many days such low flying took place; and if he will provide a breakdown of these figures for(a) the northern Scotland tactical training area, (b) the central Wales tactical training area, (c) the Borders tactical training area and (d) other areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested regarding aircraft movements authorised for flying below 250 ft within the tactical training area is given in the table. The number of days on which such flying actually took place is not however available, and could not be provided without disproportionate effort. Figures in the table relate to the number of days on which flying was authorised to take place. We would expect actual figures to be significantly lower because alternative dates are often prebooked for use in case of bad weather. Operational low flying only takes place in the United Kingdom in the three tactical training areas.
  765

  Tactical training area

  Northern Scotland

  Central Wales

  Borders

  Total

  Operational low flying movements

  518

  242

  626

  1,386

  Number of days on which operational low-flying was authorised

  133

  101

  110

  145

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of low-flying sorties carried out over the United Kingdom in 1987, calculated by(a) counting the number of sorties directly and (b) the pre-1985 method of logging movements between low-flying areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total number of sorties flown during 1987 was 147,661. The approximate total number of sorties flown, as recalculated from movements by the pre-1985 method, was 133,213.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the total number of low-flying sorties flown over the United Kingdom in 1987 was accounted for by(a) fast jets, (b) light jet trainers, (c) heavy propeller-driven aircraft, (d) light propeller-driven aircraft and (e) helicopters.

  Mr. Freeman
  The proportion of military low-level training sorties flown over the United Kingdom during 1987 for each of the categories stated is as follows:

  per cent.

  Fast Jets

  60

  Light Jet Trainers

  10

  Heavy propeller-driven aircraft

  2

  Light propeller-driven aircraft

  1

  Helicopters

  27

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the total number of low-flying sorties flown over the United Kingdom in 1987 was represented by(a) British military aircraft, (b) United States air force aircraft, (c) other NATO air forces aircraft and (d) aircraft from non-NATO countries.

  Mr. Freeman
  Central statistics do not distinguish between categories(c) and (d) in the question. Otherwise available information for 1987 is as follows:

  Operating authority

  Proportion of sorties flown per cent.

  British Military

  84

  USAF

  15

  Others

  1

  Research Projects
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report research projects currently under way in Welsh university colleges that are funded by his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes. The list is as follows:

  Serial

  Title

  1.

  Synthesis and reactions of boron alkyls.

  2.

  Fundamental studies into the influence of rotation on heat transfer in flow geometries appropriate to the coding of gas turbine rotor blades.

  3.

  Prediction of stress corrosion crack propagation in welded aluminium alloys.

  4.

  Mixed layer dynamics at ocean weather ship Lima.

  5.

  Short fatigue cracks in near-alpha-titanium.

  6.

  Creep strain and creep life prediction for commercial aluminium alloys.

  7.

  A novel numerical technique for the calculation on electromagnetic coupling to structures at high frequencies.

  8.

  Review of elastic-plastic finite element analysis of welds.

  9.

  Mathematical modelling of the circulation in the Tamar.

  10.

  Numerical modelling of shallow oceans and supporting measurements.

  11.

  Improved/novel techniques for atmospheric ion production—Phase II.

  12.

  Special resource requirements of a fielded network.

  13.

  IR emission from combustion products of pyrotechnic propellants.

  14.

  Improved digitial terrain models.

  15.

  Practicality of tool support interfaces for the APSE.

  16.

  Electromagnetic energy coupling into gaseous detonation waves.

  17.

  Provision of ophthalmological services.

  18.

  Human information processing under high work load.

  19.

  Confidence band estimation for distributions used in probabilistic design.

  20.

  The prediction of percutaneous absorption.

  21.

  Automatic natural language generation.

  22.

  Vicon/Pasco "development".

  23.

  Thermo-dynamic equilibria for metal complex reactions.

  24.

  Flow cytometry and cell sorting of micro-organisms.

  25.

  Investigation into ferrite loaded lines for sub-nanosecond pulse sharpening application.

  26.

  Invitro assessment of toxicity.

  27.

  Surface examination of fine metal powders and alloys.

  28.

  Verification of computer code grult.

  29.

  Micro structural characterisation of commercial aluminium lithium alloys.

  30.

  Ultimate load of aluminium alloys.

  31.

  Protease mutants in yeast cloning systems.

  32.

  Semiconductor-semiconductor interfaces.

  33.

  Cytotoxicity of alkylating agents.

  34.

  Catalysis of co-oxidisation reactions on platinum.

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

BP Shares: Kuwait Holding
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will refer the acquisition by the Kuwait Investment Office of a substantial holding in British Petroleum plc to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Kuwait Investment Office holding is being considered under our merger control procedures by the Director General of Fair Trading. He will advise me whether there may be a "merger situation" which qualifies for investigation and, if so, whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. I understand exactly the situation that he describes. Is it not true that the Kuwait Investment Office is the investment arm of the Kuwait Government, that it now holds over 20 per cent. of BP, which is our largest company, and that there is a problem of national interest here? Should there not be some formal undertakings from the Kuwait Government about their intentions in respect of this shareholding?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Fair Trading Act distinguishes three levels of influence on a company which constitute a qualifying merger. It is that point which the director general is at the moment in the process of investigating. These three qualities are the ability materially to influence policy, the ability to control such policy or the acquisition of a controlling interest. It would be as well to await the report of the director general who will then advise me. I can then see what steps should be taken. I am aware of the interest in the matter and of its implications. I assure all in your Lordships' House that we shall be following this through very closely indeed.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in addition to the reference to the Office of Fair Trading, will the Secretary of State keep in mind his reserve powers in the exercising of the golden share in this case? Will he consider that separately from any report he receives from the OFT?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, but the golden share is in respect of a company in the North
204
Sea; namely, Britoil, and not in respect of this one which is some thousands of miles away.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may we take it that if, during the course of the inquiries that have been undertaken, anything comes to the noble Lord's attention that leads him to think that the national interest may be affected, he will immediately inform the House?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (which is the end result of the director general's report) finds that a merger might be expected to operate against the public interest—for this purpose a substantial shareholding can qualify as a merger—my power is to remedy or prevent any adverse effects specified in the report. If a merger is in contemplation I can prevent it. If it has already taken place I can require disposal of all or part of the existing shareholding in the target company.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, will the Secretary of State's department be considering how far rulings in respect of the Rome Treaty clauses, particularly those dealing with competition law, will be taken into account?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am absolutely satisfied that the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading will be considering whether this is a merger situation. If he finds that it is and that it qualifies for investigation, and at that time I so agree, I am certain that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be looking at all aspects of the problem.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, how does a minority holding become a monopoly? It sounds off-hand like a contradiction in terms.
Lord Young of Graffham: It surely does, my Lords, but, as I told your Lordships a moment ago, under the Fair Trading Act there are three levels of influence in a company which constitute a qualifying merger. Those levels of influence are the ability materially to affect policy, to control policy or to acquire a controlling interest. That is the law.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government have any power, or indeed any influence, to prevent the holding of the Kuwait Investment Office from increasing from what it is at present, which is approximately 20 per cent. according to the latest information, to 29·9 per cent.?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believed that the latest holding was just over 18 per cent. I have not been following it closely. I also noticed that the chairman of the company seemed to consider that to be acceptable. I believe that we should wait to see exactly what the director general advises me before taking any further steps.

Uranium Oxide: Imports from Namibia
2.43 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any uranium oxide has been imported into the United Kingdom directly or indirectly from Namibia during the last five years.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, over the calendar years 1983 and 1984 the CEGB, on behalf of the British Civil Uranium Procurement Directorate (which is responsible for meeting the uranium requirements of the UK's civil nuclear programme) imported some 1,300 tonnes of uranium from the Rossing mine in Namibia. This contract ended in 1984, and since that time the CEGB has not imported any uranium of Namibian origin.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it the case that the contract about which the noble Viscount has spoken was in direct breach of United Nations decree? Is it not further the case that since 1984 a previous contract has been activated and 1,100 tonnes of uranium oxide have been imported from the Rossing mine in Namibia?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no; that is not the case.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, given the fact that we are domestically in need of uranium, does it matter that it was mined in Namibia, Canada, Australia or South Africa, or, to quote a crack from the late George Robey, "Woolwich, Norwich and all them other places on the Southern Railway"?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I travel on the southern railway, and I have not noticed any uranium mines. The CEGB is currently receiving uranium from both the United States and Canada, and, in addition, it has recently entered into a contract to take supplies from Australia from 1989.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in those circumstances, and bearing in mind that there are adequate supplies of uranium from Australia and Canada—both civil and weapons grade—can the noble Viscount assure the House that we shall not import further supplies from Namibia in defiance of the United Nations ban on such imported uranium?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can confirm that the contract ended in 1984. Since that time, the CEGB has not imported any uranium of Namibian origin and does not propose to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I asked whether the noble Viscount could give an assurance that we would not do so in the future. Can he give that assurance?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have just said so.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Viscount has not answered my first supplementary question. Is it the case that the contract which he admits was carried out was in direct breach of the United Nations decree? Further, is it not the case that British Nuclear Fuels Limited has a thriving business in the import and export of uranium, much of which comes from Namibia through third world countries? Is the noble Viscount aware of that? When he states that the CEGB will not import any further uranium from Namibia, does that cover every form of import of uranium into this country, either directly or indirectly from Namibia?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, British Nuclear Fuels Limited processes uranium on behalf of overseas customers for subsequent re-export. The origin of that ore is a matter for BNFL's customers.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, if European countries do not buy from Namibia, does the noble Viscount consider that there is a danger that Namibia may look for customers in countries to which we would rather the uranium did not go?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that is a strong possibility.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Viscount has still not answered my supplementary question. Does he admit that it was in direct breach of the United Nations decree that uranium from Namibia was imported into this country? If it is still being imported, that is still in direct breach of the United Nations decree. Is the noble Viscount's answer yes or no?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, always seems to know the answers to the Questions he tables. However, usually they are not the right answers, as on this occasion.

Fraud in the European Community
2.47 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what initiative they propose to take in the EC Council of Ministers to secure Council action in respect of the large-scale frauds set out in the latest annual report of the European Court of Auditors.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government welcome the fact that the Court of Auditors has devoted a chapter of its annual report to the question of fraud. The court's report will be discussed by the Economic and Finance Council later this year, on the basis of a procedure which the United Kingdom was instrumental in setting up. The Government will aim to ensure that the Council recognises the importance of the fight against fraud.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that partially reassuring reply. Is it not the case that the report referred to in the Question gives evidence of about £82 million-worth of fraud in the year 1986, and that a subsequent Commission investigation into the matter, which was published in October of last year, reveals that there is approximately £2,000 million-worth of fraud within the CAP? If that were not the case, that amount would go far towards reducing the deficit in the EC finances. Will Her Majesty's Government take the initiative at the Council to ensure that these matters are fully investigated within the member states, many of which have so far resisted investigations by the Commission?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the detected fraud—that is fraud which has been found out—runs at a far lower level than the noble Lord suggests. Over the past five years the average has been approximately £14 million although it was about £20 million in 1986, which is important and should be dealt with. Suspected levels of fraud which have not been detected have yet to be proved.
I wish to assure all noble Lords that we take the matter seriously. It is as a result of procedures suggested by the United Kingdom that we shall be discussing the item later on this year and every year. It is important that procedures are established and followed through by all countries within Europe to ensure that fraud is kept to the minimum possible.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the figures I gave are set out in a report published by the EC Commission last year and referred to specifically in The Times of 15th October? Moreover, is he also aware that the Commission itself does not accept the noble Lord's view that the estimate is an under estimate? Will the noble Lord give the House the assurance that as and when the item goes on the next Council agenda, he will specifically notify the House and will undertake to report to the House on the progress thereafter?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have little doubt that the report in The Times was correct. It reported that the European Court of Auditors suspected that fraud could amount to £2 billion a year; but suspicion of fraud is not the same as proving fraud. I have read many reports of the suspected size of the black economy in this country and reports vary enormously. However, until it can be proved, there can only be suspicion. We must not listen to reports about suspicion but take steps to ensure that whatever happens we keep the amount of fraud to the minimum. If the noble Lord cares to ask a Question later on this year, I shall be happy to answer in full detail what happens at the Economic and Finance Council.

Surrey Bus Services: Competition
2.51 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements they are making in the privatisation of bus services in the county of Surrey to ensure that there is a sufficient element of competition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Transport Act 1985 gives the National Bus Company a main privatisation objective of promoting sustained and fair competition. With this in mind the London Country company was split into four separate companies in preparation for sale. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State looks forward to receiving from NBC proposals for the sale of the London Country (South-West) company, which serves much of Surrey.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that partially reassuring Answer. While I realise that most of the privatisation has gone well in Surrey, is he aware that there are two major anxieties in the county about the disposal of London Country (South-West) which is a very big block? First, it is intended to sell it all in one, and that might diminish competition; secondly, it is proposed to sell the garage property separately from the buses, and that might handicap competition. Can my noble friend reassure me that these two anxieties may not be fulfilled?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to my noble friend's first point about breaking up the company into smaller units. As I said in my original Answer, the company is itself the result of a division into four parts of the London Country company. The NBC and our advisers have made it clear that further division would lead to weak companies which would harm competition. On my noble friend's second point about splitting the company between the property and the bus operation, we believe that NBC has advertised the sale of the company on that basis, and it believes that that reduces the risk of asset stripping by a possible property developer who might want to buy the bus company just to close it. It makes it possible for people committed to buses to buy the bus company.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State commented that a report on the monitoring of the 1985 Act, commissioned by the AMA and the PTA group through the Oxford Universities Study Group, was a very balanced report? Does that report not show that very few new competitors came in under deregulation, particularly on the unprofitable routes? Is not the general conclusion of that report that far from increasing competition in some areas there was no increase in competition whatever?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I would not want to comment on that report apropos of this particular Question which deals with the county of Surrey. However, the county of Surrey saved £1 million of its budget on subsidised services for last year. There has been plenty of innovation in the

209
county. Minibuses operate in seven towns, and there is competition between three or four different companies. Therefore, in the county of Surrey it seems to have been a reasonable success.
Lord Glenamara: Is the noble Lord aware that what my noble friend has said does not apply in many areas? Is he aware that in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1,000 buses a day now enter the fairly small city centre; and that is competition pushed to the point of chaos?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to ask me a Question about Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I shall do my best to answer it.

Business
2.55 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like, as usual, to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes, and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, to six minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Cultural Diplomacy
2.56 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to call attention to the case for Her Majesty's Government to increase the available resources for cultural diplomacy in line with the importance which it has as a central element of Britain's diplomatic effort; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to say how glad I am in some ways that so many noble Lords wish to participate in this debate but how sorry I am that they will have less time than they would like in which to speak. I should like to say in particular how pleased I am that the Motion tabled in my name has forced the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, to break his unaccustomed silence, and how much many of us look forward to hearing his maiden speech.
I start from a very simple proposition which is that the projection of British culture and British values is, in itself, intrinsically important and if that is so, it is in our interests and the interests of the rest of the world that the fruits of that culture and the nature of those values be as widely disseminated as possible.
I hope that is not a declaration of cultural imperialism; it is merely a declaration of confidence in the values that lie behind our political institutions, our academic life—now, I regret to say, under threat—and the vitality of our artistic life. It also
210
recognises the supreme importance to us and to millions of others of the English language.
I do not propose in the course of my remarks to become engaged or entangled in the semantic arguments set forth in the Foreign Office's rather arid and inadequate response to the very important and substantial report of the Select Committee. The FCO claim to find it difficult, in a horrible form of words—I do not know when they started learning American English—"to separate out" cultural from conventional diplomacy. The distinction is to me, in the words of Sir Anthony Parsons, "blazingly obvious"; and is, moreover, institutionalised in the existence of the British Council and by the existence of external services, to give two "blazingly obvious" examples. It is also recognised by other countries. France spends more than three times, and Germany more than twice as much as we do on cultural diplomacy. I shall try now to get the financial question out of the way as quickly and as briefly as I can.
The external services of the BBC are an essential weapon in our armoury and the Government are to be congratulated on spending money to increase the audibility of our broadcasts by installing new and more powerful transmitters. Over the next three years external services will receive an increase of from 4.1 to 5 per cent. However, there will also be an increase in running costs. The effect of that increase will mean a cut in programme money of 2 per cent. per annum. Therefore, by the third year there may in fact have to be cuts in the number of programmes broadcast. The British Council has at its disposal in total more money than it had before but this is because of aid funds, agency work and earnings. The principal government grant, known as mixed money, which is crucial to its operation and about which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, will be speaking, has decreased by no less than 23 per cent. in the past 10 years. This is a very savage cut. As our earlier debate indicated, overseas students diminished from 88,000 in 1979 to 56,000 in the past year.
What has happened has been a real cut in the sharp end of our programme for projecting British values and British culture. There have been cuts in the programmes broadcast; there have been cuts in mixed money; there have been cuts in the number of students being educated at our institutions of higher education.
In contrast to our behaviour in every area mentioned, other countries, whether they be analogue countries like France and Germany or super-powers like the United States and the USSR, have moved in precisely the opposite direction. They have increased their budgets devoted to cultural diplomacy; they have increased the hours which they have broadcast overseas and they have increased the number of students who have come to their institutions of higher education.
The Foreign Office, while admitting that this is the case, observes rather quaintly that,
"the French, the Germans and the Japanese have particular reasons for wanting specially to devote resources to cultural diplomacy that we do not share".

211
The Foreign Office does not explain what these particular reasons are or why we peculiarly do not share them. I hope that the Minister will explain what those reasons are and the eccentricity of our posture. What we have had is not merely an absolute decline in the resources devoted to cultural diplomacy but, perhaps more important, a relative decline compared to other countries which is far more substantial.
Perhaps I may now turn to the English language. I do not propose to dwell upon its beauties, its literature or any of those matters, but simply to appeal to the materialist instincts of the present Government. I refer briefly to the book trade, on which I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, will be speaking later. In 1985, total British book sales were £1·8 billion, and 37·5 per cent. of that was exported. That excludes earnings from reprints, translations and subsidiary rights. Those figures come from the Select Committee.
This very influential and highly profitable position flows simply from the primacy of the English language. But the primacy of the English language depends on the English language being taught overseas to people who do not know it. Believe it or not, the Americans claim to speak English. There is a battle going on about the teaching of English English and American English. Noble Lords who watched the programmes of Mr. Gorbachev's visit to Washington may have noticed that every single one of his spokesmen spoke in American English; not one of them spoke in English English.
If you are taught English English you are likely to buy books and other goods from this country; if you are taught American English you are likely to buy books and other goods from the United States of America. It is therefore an important commercial consideration and one which should not be forgotten. On this whole matter the Publishers' Association reported that the,
"US Information Agency is providing greater support to American English language training than the combined efforts of ODA and the British Council".
The report continues:
"Without teacher training support … key markets will slide inevitably towards the United States".
Thus cultural diplomacy seems to me to be important intrinsically and commercially because people and countries are more likely to be influenced by people whom they understand, with whom they are friendly and whom they respect rather than by people whom they do not understand, do not like and do not respect. I also believe that cultural diplomacy should be active in regard to our friends as well as our potential opponents. I believe, with Dr. Johnson:
"A man, Sir, should keep his friendship in constant repair".
Hence, I deeply deplored and deplore cuts in the BBC's external broadcasting to France, Italy, Spain and, indeed, the Caribbean, where at present there is no British Council representative and where the BBC broadcasts 15 minutes of news each day out of its own resources. It seems to me to be a very false economy.
If I may put the other side of the picture, it must be a source of great satisfaction to us that as from 11th
212
January Radio Renascenca in Portugal, the biggest private radio company in Portugal, will broadcast 30 minutes of news a day provided by the BBC via satellite. That seems to me to be a very important and useful development.
I should like now to give a couple of examples of the way in which external broadcasting can and cannot work. Shortly before the Falklands conflict the BBC's broadcasts to Spain were cut. As far as I remember, the saving was £230,000—rather less than the cost of a single Exocet missile. After the Falklands conflict an analysis was undertaken of the coverage in the media in Paris, Rome and Madrid of the conflict. It was found that in Paris and in Rome the coverage was very even-handed and British sources were used as much as or more than Argentine sources. On the other hand, in Spain the coverage was almost 100 per cent. from Argentine sources. Without our broadcasts we were in no position whatever to counter that kind of propaganda.
The second example is from Eastern Europe. I have known some countries of Eastern Europe for many years, and hardly a senior official or a Minister will deny that he gets his news quite regularly from the BBC's World Service or language broadcasts. I remember in Moscow, a few years after Suez, having a drink with the then American ambassador. He took me out to the veranda at the back of his embassy and he said, "If you listen now you will hear everyone in this street tuning in to the BBC". Indeed, if you had very sharp ears and a strong imagination you could hear an occasional peep.
When I asked him why it had this extraordinary authority he said that one of the reasons was the way in which the BBC reported Suez. The people said, "If the British broadcast and report bad news about their own country as objectively as that we must be forced to believe the news they report about our country and about other countries". The credibility of the BBC is based on its objectivity and its independence. It is for that reason that the "Real Lives" fiasco was so much more serious in some ways for the external services than for the domestic ones.
I have not much time left, but I should like to emphasise that radio broadcasting is extremely cheap. If the £2 million which I believe has been spent on the Spycatcher affair in law courts in countries all over the world, making us look ridiculous, had been given to the BBC or to the British Council it would have been money much better spent for this country, for its influence and for its reputation.
At the end we come back to resources. In the Foreign Office reply, the fact of the matter is that the resources spent on cultural diplomacy are based on the constraints which apply to all government programmes at the present time. Those constraints were instituted when the present Government said that the economy was extremely weak. They never stop telling us now that it is extremely strong. In that case, one might hope that they would consider relaxing those constraints to a small extent so that we can compete on something more like level terms in propagating the values of this country, in describing how they work in our institutional affairs, and in welcoming more students here, because I believe that

213
in all those respects the interests of this country and the interests of the world are well served. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my few words this afternoon with two observations of a personal character. First, I should like to express my appreciation of the warmth of the welcome your Lordships have extended to me since I was translated to this House two months ago. I had heard of the friendliness of this House; I have now experienced it for myself. I should also like to express my appreciation to the staff of this House for their concerned help which has enabled me not only to stand upon my own feet but also to avoid unnecessarily treading on the feet of other people.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on his choice of subject for debate today. Coming, as he does, from a family which has made such a notable political and literary contribution to the life of this country it could hardly be a more suitable choice. I thank him for his gracious reference to myself, and I hope that he will permit me to say in my maiden speech that I give thanks for the friendship and inspiration of Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, whose use of the English language, with its precision and inventiveness, made me certainly feel fully for the first time what an extraordinary cultural instrument we have at our disposal.
The phrase "cultural diplomacy" has a rather forbidding ring. To pile one abstraction on another is not immediately appealing to a people whose collective mind, as Bacon said, likes to work on stuff. We have all been greatly helped in our understanding of the complexities of the idea and the different roles played by cultural diplomacy, cultural relations, the Central Office of Information, and by the Select Committee report. These have been analysed and we should certainly reflect upon them. But if I tried to take that course in the short time available to me I should certainly flounder and fail.
Therefore I wish, if I may, to look solely at the idea behind the phrase. In my opinion it is simply this: the increase of British influence in the wider world. This increase is not pursued principally for commercial or economic reasons, but because we believe the long, continuous, extraordinarily rich and varied experience of this nation constitutes a unique contribution to the welfare of mankind, and we are therefore under a duty to make it as widely available as possible.
If I were asked what had been this country's three greatest contributions to world civilisation I should reply unhesitatingly: the common law, parliamentary government, English language and literature, and at the heart of all three lies the idea of liberty. I do not believe that we can export our institutions indiscriminately, but by informing people of how they work and flourish, by imparting insights about them, we can enhance the chances for freedom elsewhere.
We have many means at our disposal, but I would single out two as especially valuable: the British Council and the external services of the BBC. The
214
quality of the Council is not in question; its quantity is. The council undoubtedly needs a bigger budget. It deserves it. It has earned it. Much of its energies have gone into English language teaching. The benefits of the universality of that language are truly incalculable. I often reflect on the extraordinary disposition of Divine Providence that a language spoken originally by a few thousand savages trapped on a fog-encrusted island on the edge of the North Sea should, in the fullness of time, and in the era of communications, become the common language for the entire world.
The other pole is the external services of the BBC. They constitute for millions of people suffering from tyrannous and oppressive regimes something much more than a cultural extra. They are those people's lifeline to truth. What has built up this priceless asset? Trust, and the twin foundations of that trust have been accuracy of information and perceived independence of status.
One can argue about the figures in the report. I shall leave it to my noble friend to reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. But I think that the indictment is general rather than particular. We have failed to expand those services to meet a vastly increased world demand. In the words of the Prayer Book—if the right reverend Prelates will allow me to say so—we have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and we should do a great deal more.
Cultural diplomacy creates a context in which British interests may be more effectively advanced. But I put the aim rather higher. As Coleridge, supported by John Henry Newman, said, culture is nothing less than:
"the harmonious development of those qualities that characterise our humanity".
That is what cultural diplomacy ultimately promotes.
Culture may seem a frail boat to embark on the tempestuous waters of great power and international diplomacy. What has that quiet, nuanced voice to say in the world of telegrams and anger?—I think rather more than one might suppose. European civilisation rests implicitly on the idea of man which refuses to reduce him to a function of sociology or economics, and which historically presages for him a destiny beyond the categories of time and space. Culture is thus charged with aims beyond its abilities to establish.
Let me say this in conclusion: worldly powers, dynasties, empires rise and fall, culture and learning abide. They are the achievements by which future ages looking back assess the value of previous generations. Power in the 19th century sense has passed from us, never to return. But it has been replaced by something perhaps even more important—influence. Through the dissemination of our culture that influence can be exercised for the good. Our heritage should not be a fortress for the few, it should be an open city for the many.
I believe that our debate this afternoon has been a small but extremely important contribution towards achieving that end. It has been a very great privilege for me to make my first speech in this House as part of the debate.
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, on his really excellent maiden speech, and I hope that we shall have the opportunity of hearing him again on many future occasions in this House.
I should declare an interest. I am chairman of the General Advisory council of the BBC. I should also own up about my past. I was a member of the CPRS team which undertook the review of overseas representation. After the report was published there was a debate about it in this House. I listened in the gallery. Well over 30 noble Lords spoke and only four spoke in favour of the report. I did not return to this House until I was introduced last April. The debate put me off a little. Few sections of the report escaped criticism and those concerning cultural work attracted quite a lot of criticism. However, many of the report's recommendations have subsequently been implemented, including those concerning cultural work.
I should like to begin with the external services of the BBC. They are a valuable part of our cultural effort overseas, if only because the BBC is able to reach millions of people in a way that is not possible for other types of cultural work. The United Kingdom remains in the top league of external broadcasters. It cannot compete with the superpowers and China in terms of the number of hours broadcast—and I think it would be wrong to try—although of course it is right to compete with them in terms of quality. As the World Service already broadcasts 24 hours a day, the only scope for increasing the hours broadcast is in the vernacular services. The range of foreign languages covered is extensive. There is in my view very little case for expansion, although clearly the distribution of expenditure requires review from time to time.
I am still a little unconvinced that broadcasting in French to the French is anything more than a hangover from World War II. The French do not broadcast to us in English and I suspect that we would think it rather odd if they did. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I consider that broadcasting in the vernacular to Western European countries should have low priority.
The preconditions of the success of the BBC's external broadcasting are, first, that its programmes can be found on the dial and listeners are not frustrated by difficulty in finding programmes; and secondly, that they can be properly heard. I should like to concentrate on the question of audibility. For many years successive governments failed to deal with the problem of decreasing audibility resulting from obsolescent equipment and the introduction of much more powerful transmitters by other countries, which blotted out the BBC's signal in some parts of the world. In its report the CPRS suggested that there should be a major capital programme to rectify this. Since then the Government have seen the illogicality of making excellent high quality programmes which cannot be properly heard.
It is particularly unfortunate if they cannot be heard in countries without access to unbiased news
216
and information where the BBC should be targeting its efforts. I should like, however, to join the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in congratulating the Government for making some progress in this respect. The new station in Hong Kong will vastly improve audibility in China. The new transmitter in the Seychelles will improve reception in East Africa and Southern Africa. Nevertheless there is still much more to be done.
In India, with huge potential audiences, the signal from Masirah is very weak. As a result the BBC is not competitive there. In South America reception is generally poor and particularly bad in Argentina and Chile. In Central America there are some difficulties in hearing the World Service. For North Africa a medium-wave transmitter situated in Gibraltar is needed. Eastern Europe needs a new medium-wave or long-wave station to improve reception there. In the eastern part of the Soviet Union reception is very poor indeed. Surely it is absurd that Eastern Europe and Soviet Asia should be so badly served and a great pity that parts of Africa and Latin America also have poor reception. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to continue the commitment to capital improvements that they have recently made.
I am sure the whole House will agree that radio broadcasts that cannot be heard fit into a modern day version of Alice in Wonderland. The BBC has successfully maintained its reputation for high quality which has been built up since the Second World War. It is regarded as highly professional, objective, impartial and more truthful than many of its rivals. But a good reputation is not of much value in the many high priority areas where audibility is a problem.
I should like to make one other point about the BBC external services. I hope that the Government will support the case for expanding into television in English. The BBC's proposals are modest: just a half-hour daily news programme, making use of its existing network of correspondents around the world, the monitoring service and its specialist journalists in London. The growth of satellites opens up new possibilities and to ignore the opportunities opened up by new technology and the growth of television set ownership would be shortsighted. I therefore ask the Government whether they will find the money for this exciting new project.
I should like now to turn briefly to the British Council. The CPRS report put forward two options. The first involved the abolition of the council; the second involved retaining it and incorporating within it one or two small agencies involved in educational work abroad. The report also recommended a more targeted approach to its work. I had serious misgivings at the time about the first option. I now think it was wrong. It is far better to concentrate educational and cultural work abroad in one organisation rather than try to divide it up among many. The second option, however, I believe was right. Many of its recommendations have been implemented by the council. It is now, I believe, a more cost-effective organisation and its work in the fields of educational aid and interchange and cultural activities should be supported by the Government

217
without the imposition of further cuts in expenditure. They have gone far enough.
In considering the council's work many people have seen it primarily as a cultural agency, but of course its main work is concerned with educational aid. But this debate is not about aid; it is about cultural work. I have carefully avoided reference to the term "cultural diplomacy". I think it would be wrong to argue that cultural interchange should be pursued in the interests of economic, political or trading objectives. The relationship is too tenuous. However, I believe that cultural interchange has great intrinsic value and should be pursued in its own right. I hope that the Government will be able to do more to demonstrate the civilised values involved in the exchange of cultural work and will support it with the resources needed in the future.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, on his maiden speech, and I am only sorry that he was subjected to a time limit.
Cultural diplomacy is recognised as an integral and important part of our diplomatic effort. The argument now centres on whether we should make a larger financial commitment to it. For simplicity's sake I should like to draw a line, a blurred line I agree, between what I call orthodox diplomacy and cultural diplomacy, which is narrowly defined and commonly used to cover the promotion of the arts overseas, the teaching of the English language and the education of foreign students in the United Kingdom. The first, orthodox diplomacy, is inescapable and compulsory; the second, cultural diplomacy, is to a certain degree optional.
I should like to make two points. There is a need to maintain at an adequate level the means of conducting our orthodox diplomacy. There is also a need to point out with reference to cultural diplomacy the factors which determine the regard in which this country is held by foreigners and how the contribution made by the arts, and so on, is considerable but is also very vulnerable.
First, orthodox diplomacy has inescapable tasks and responsibilities for the advancement and defence of our national interest. It is the means by which we take initiatives and respond to the initiatives of others, many of which are hostile to us. If we are to hold our own, the Foreign Office and its overseas missions must be adequately funded for the purpose. They are not so funded at the moment. If the advocates of increased spending on cultural diplomacy—and I emphasise very strongly that I am one of them—are content to see increased expenditure cut significantly into the core tasks of our orthodox diplomacy, they must accept the heavy responsibility and be certain that they have their priorities right. In other words, if a new budget for cultural diplomacy is to be established it must maintain an adequate Vote for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its overseas missions. I hope the Minister can give an assurance on that.
218
The second point I wish to make concerns the particular purpose of cultural diplomacy as it is commonly defined. Tallyrand is said to have instructed French ambassadors departing from Paris to their foreign posts by saying, "Make them love France". That puts, in the most economical phrase, one of the main purposes of cultural diplomacy. The admirable work of the British Council is designed to do just that. So are our inadequate schemes to attract overseas students, which cry out for more support and are surely the most cost-effective and long-lasting way of making friends. There are of course other activities with the same ends. They have the importance of forging bonds with other countries. That importance is undoubted and justifies, as I say, additional expenditure with the proviso that I have already made.
We must consider the foreign perception of this country. It is no doubt beneficially influenced by many of our cultural activities, but these are not sufficient or even decisive in establishing how we are generally viewed by others. Some of their benefits are fragile and vulnerable. The good work done by them can be temporary and often permanently eroded and, at worst, swept away by current unfavourable factors and events. For example, splashed across the newspapers and television screens of friends and foes is the behaviour of our football fans, our crime statistics, regional and racial conflicts and the shame of our inner cities. Some people find it hard to believe that we are not judged only by past achievements, but in fact we are judged by what we are now.
It is not what we think of foreigners but what foreigners think of us which is important. Ugly factors widely and rapidly spread by the modern communications revolution powerfully fix the attitudes of foreigners towards us and settle for the mass of their people how we are regarded. Surely, what influences foreigners most is success. Perhaps I may give one or two examples. I can recall the remarks made to me by an unsentimental Swiss businessman after the Falklands War. He said, "We thought you were finished. We now know how wrong we were". To take a different example, the quality of industrial products of Japan and their world-wide success has revolutionised the attitude of people in this country and every continent, especially the young, towards the Japanese people who faced the world in 1945 with a deeply tarnished image. Your Lordships can think of further examples.
If we in the United Kingdom want to win friends and influence people we must be visibly successful in what we do and how we conduct ourselves. If we are to be well regarded by other countries and draw substantial benefit in this regard, we should try to excel in what we do not only in the limited cultural field but in every area of human endeavour. It is only if we make a substantial contribution to peace, improve the quality of our life, successfully work our democratic institutions, change for the better our social attitudes towards each other and develop our industry that we will command the admiration of the world and re-establish our international standing. In this way, we will do much more than can be achieved by any expanded expenditure on the machinery of cultural diplomacy.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I regret that the time restriction on speeches prevents me from adequately congratulating my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley on his splendid speech. I found it a delight and a speech of real quality, as I know everyone who knows him would expect.
I venture into this short debate because I was a member of the foreign affairs committee in the other place which produced the report on cultural diplomacy. It regretfully had to be produced in a hurry as the general election was looming and Parliament was about to be dissolved. It is therefore an abbreviated report, as indeed are the Government's written observations on it.
One thing we encountered in the course of our inquiry was the difficulty of defining clearly what is meant by cultural diplomacy. The words, as my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley said, have a forbidding ring. The FCO described cultural diplomacy as a "Humpty-Dumpty term". In other words, it can mean more or less what one wants it to mean. The British Council, that estimable independent body, saw it as the specific use of cultural relations for national, including political and commercial, benefit. That appears to me to he a realistic view which also seems to be shared by the FCO, which does not see any fundamental differences between the objectives of cultural diplomacy and those of the rest of our diplomacy; namely, the active promotion of British interests.
The Motion calls for an increase in the available resources for cultural diplomacy. I should like in the time available to refer to that. I agree with the Government's observations that there is real difficulty in trying to separate cultural functions of diplomacy into watertight compartments and establishing a separate cultural diplomacy budget. When one talks about the provision of extra resources, what it really means is that these extra resources should be given to the main government cultural agencies, each of which, with the exception of the COI, asked for more money.
In the short time left to me I will confine my observations, as was anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, solely to the British Council. The British Council funding of approximately £240 million per year is a growing one. There has been an increase in real terms of nearly 30 per cent. in the past 10 years. The council's difficulty is that while British government agency expenditure and council earnings have increased, the principal government grant which has been referred to and which is called mixed money has declined as a proportion of the total financial programme from 47 per cent. to about 29 per cent. The effect of this decline is that the council's capacity to conduct a wide range of cultural relations work is weakening.
"Mixed Money" is the main source of funds for the council's general cultural relations work. In other words, it is the only resource which is not tied to particular activities and programmes. It is almost exclusively from this money that the libraries overseas, work in the arts, work in the developed
220
world and the eastern bloc and much of the work in science and technology are funded.
In the context of public expenditure demands, the British Council seeks modest help. In his evidence before the committee, Sir David Orr, Chairman of the British Council, said this:
"…the sums of money which we are talking about, which would make the difference between our organisation going out and finding important new opportunities, are really, in almost anybody's terms, trivial. If we had an addition straight away to our mixed money budget of something in the region of £5 million—preferably £10 million—it would make an enormous difference to what we do."
He later added that this small figure was
"just the difference between going forward and trying desperately to hang on."
The Select Committee recommended that in cultural diplomacy more money be devoted particularly to the arts. I understand completely—and indeed sympathise with—the Government's reply that decisions on the allocation of resources have to be taken within the framework of the Government's overall policy; that public expenditure should not rise as a proportion of GNP; and that private enterprise should play a greater part in the promotion of the arts both at home and abroad.
I must confess, however, that I am far from happy about the Government's observations in paragraph 15 of their reply about arts expenditure, which they argue,
"has not done as badly as is sometimes supposed".
Then, by way of explanation, they state:
"The Council's success over the past dozen years in making English language teaching pay for itself has considerably relieved the strain on the 'mixed money' budget on which arts promotion essentially depends."
With respect to my noble friend the Minister, I do not think that that is a fair observation. Whoever drafted that part must have known that money earned from English language teaching can only be spent in the country in which it is earned, and that countries in which such teaching is profitable are generally not those in which the council perceives a particular need for expenditure on arts promotion. In particular those countries are not eastern European or in the Soviet Union.
The council's concern about the effect of the decline in its "mixed money" resources is genuine and valid. Its claim for an increase in this component of its budget is modest and I sincerely hope it can be favourably considered.
3.44 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I should like to join in the words of congratulation to my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley for a notable maiden speech. In a Session that has allowed your Lordships to hear some memorable debuts, his was remarkable both for its perception of the place of cultural diplomacy in our affairs and also for its elegance and eloquence. But it is nothing more than we should expect from a man who has sat on a sofa with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and the Archbishop of that city being interrogated by Mr. Terry Wogan—and bested all three of them.

221
Much has already been said of the work of the British Council which is the principal arm of the nation's cultural diplomacy. I should like both to endorse and support its work and also pay tribute to its staff, especially overseas. In this, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has suggested, I have an interest to declare for, as a publisher principally in the English language, my company has benefited greatly from the support given by the council to British books. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the success or failure of British book exports depends in no small measure on the success or failure of the council and other organisations inside and outside government, such as the English Speaking Union and the external services of the BBC.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has pointed out, book exports are now worth more across the balance of payments than other industries, such as the motor-car industry or the pharmaceutical industry. It is the English language that is our most priceless cultural asset. However, the very success of the language brings us problems encountered by no other country in the world, for English is not only the "world language" in the spread of its comprehension and the number of people who can speak it, but it is also the language of our principal cultural and commercial competitor, the United States. And while, as one who is one-eighth regular Hoosier, in that my great-grandmother was born and raised in Indiana, I defer to no one in my support and admiration for our American cousins and allies, it has to be said that the world-wide impact of American culture in its broadest sense is a problem.
The efforts put by the American Government into cultural diplomacy, considerable though they are, amounting to some 850 million dollars per year, are as little compared to the effect of Hollywood, American television and the other outward manifestations of American culture, whether soft drinks or jazz, hamburgers or rock, baseball or even game shows.
Your Lordships may not consider that such things are part of cultural diplomacy, but even on more strictly defined lines the American effort is only bettered by two countries—both of them partners in the Community. In 1983, the last year for which I have directly comparable figures, spending by the United States on purely cultural activities, excluding such things as broadcasting, technical co-operation and overseas schools, was £173·7 million. France and Germany were more lavish with £258 million and £253 million respectively. In the same year Britain spent £71 million.
Another area where Britain seems to be falling behind is in the number of overseas students coming to this country. This has already been alluded to by a number of noble Lords. In 1986, the United States welcomed 340,000 students, compared to 60,000 who came here. Your Lordships may ask: To what end? Surely the lessons of the Rhodes scholars do not have to be taught to us again. It is, I think, not without significance that among those who have benefited from student programmes in the United States are the heads of state or government of three Middle
222
Eastern countries, six South American countries, seven African countries, 10 in Asia and the Pacific and eight European countries, including in 1963 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister!
The representation by the council overseas has always had gratifying results for the publishing industry. No one company can possibly afford representation in 80 countries—my own has to make do with a presence in a mere 24—and the promotion of English language training inevitably leads to better use of the English language and thus, for example, to the better sales of English engineering books and, we believe, perhaps a little simplistically, to the better sales of British bridges, aircraft, etc.
The British Council needs more resources. Of course it does—so do hundreds if not thousands of other agencies. But if the council had more firepower then we in the British book business could profit from that in an immediate way. It is not as though we are not happy to do our bit. Macmillan has been foremost among British publishers in reforming British Book News, the principal organ by which the world is told about the British industry. It is a cliché that trade follows the word, but it is nonetheless a truism.
It is no coincidence that the third largest spender on English language training is now the Soviet Union. I know of schools in India where almost all the English language instruction is done from Soviet textbooks—instruction into English, but into what else besides?
There is a higher degree of urgency about cultural diplomacy in Washington, Moscow, Paris or Bonn than in London. For example, I was appalled to learn that among the trade representatives on the Publishers' Advisory Council of the British Council no one knew that my honourable friend the Member for Enfield, North in another place speaks for cultural diplomacy in the Foreign Office. I am certain that our opposite numbers in Paris and Bonn, with their total budget of £739 million and £568 million, compared, as noble Lords have pointed out, to our expenditure of £216 million, are far more aware.
Other noble Lords have spoken of the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of another place upon this topic. I refer your Lordships to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Limerick in a letter to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. He said:
"It is, in the view of the British Invisible Exports Council, the work which the [British] Council undertakes in creating conditions which favour the sale of British goods and services abroad that gives rise to the main financial benefit.
It is our belief that the Government contribution through various channels, including the British Council, comes back many times over, and in the purely financial sense amply justifies the investment which is currently being made and would support the case for an extension of our cultural diplomacy on a broader front."
Speaking from the sharp end of the publishing salient on that front, may I, like Tiny Tim, say to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, "and so say all of us!"
3.51 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, for introducing the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, deserves the thanks of all of us who feel that cultural diplomacy in Britain has suffered at the hands of

223
successive governments—intellectually by semantic confusion and materially by benign neglect.
The projection of Britain's culture, her arts, civic ethics and lifestyle can of course be correlated with all kinds of practical objectives of our diplomatic effort, our economic endeavours, exports and tourism. But essentially the continuing and systematic presentation of our cultural life can, and must be, a free-standing operation, detached from short-term policies of the government of the day.
For instance, in France the cult of French civilisation, French language, literature and their worldwide dissemination is universally endorsed, backed by a large budget and dignified by senior representation in the Cabinet. After all, Andre Malraux sat at the right of General de Gaulle as First Minister of State, and under President Mitterrand both Socialist and Conservative Cabinets paid equal heed to the role of culture in the nation's life and image abroad.
In our more pragmatic country, much depends on the personality of the incumbent Minister of the Arts. It is a real pleasure to welcome today's maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, who has without doubt been one of the most inspiring and enterprising holders of the cultural portfolio.
The External Services of the BBC are the unique voice of Britain to the world. With a regular audience of 120 million people, broadcasting over 734 hours per week in 37 languages, they can point to an awe-inspiring achievement. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out, the Government have acknowledged that fact by making annual additions of 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. to their budget for three years.
However, when one delves more deeply into the substance of those figures, they are ungenerous. The increase is largely taken up by the establishment and maintenance of badly needed new transmitters. Therefore, the money available for staff and programmes shows a reduction of 2 per cent., and possibly more. That is a reduction at a time when there is an overwhelming case for widening our operations. Why? I speak candidly from this side of the House because, travelling around, one notes that Britain is seen to be in the ascendant. Her economic recovery, credibility, posture and stability of government have created an ambiance of admiration mingled with curiosity about the present message and future of Britain.
The greatest asset of the BBC World Service is of course its recognition factor. The voice of Britain is known to be distinct from the "Voice of America" in the world-encircling transmissions of our English lingua franca, and yet in recent years we have cut vital services while others have added to their transmissions. As the House heard today, we discontinued our Spanish service on the very day that the task force set sail for the Falkland Islands. We have toned down, or wholly muted, our voice in Western Europe.
I say, in all humility, that I disagree strongly with the noble Baroness who would like to curtail, if not abandon, our broadcasting services to Western
224
Europe. Why should we do that? They are our greatest friends and our closest allies. At first hand, I can say that both opinion-formers and the man in the street in Germany, in France and in the Low Countries eagerly seek the opinion and the voice of Britain. We should today, more than ever, concentrate on our services to Western Europe. The same also applies to our vernacular services.
In the Pacific basin, an area of staggering growth, we do not use our opportunities and are niggling and cheeseparing in the face of great challenges. The Government are still pondering the BBC's request for a mere £200,000 to pay for a daily half-hour transmission in Korean. A Korean service would not only reach South Korea but also be intelligible in the North and in parts of China. This is an important moment for South Korea, where the advocates of greater democracy need encouragement and guidance from abroad.
Are we, who claim to be intent on helping the peace process in the Middle East, doing enough broadcasting in that area? I do not wish to reopen old wounds, but I mention the Hebrew service, which was discontinued long ago on political grounds which I think are no longer valid.
Looking ahead, by far the most interesting and useful issue that is currently being debated, is the BBC's External Services project for satellite television. I agree with the noble Baroness: if the British people have invested so many millions of pounds over this half century in making London and the initials "BBC" code words for objectivity, integrity and skill in news broadcasting, current affairs and cultural programmes, we should take advantage of the audio-visual revolution which has meant that there are more than 700 million television sets in the world.
Of course a case can be made that the private sector has an imporant role to play, but the BBC ensures a fully international news service. The ITN bulletin is being carried by one satellite channel in Europe and distributed to cable networks only in 15 countries. It does not appear anywhere in Europe on national broadcasting stations. On the other hand, the BBC has firm contractual offers from 10 national networks around the world and there are 20 more willing to sign. The BBC's estimate for a full service is about £7.8 million a year, plus £1.4 million for the initial capital cost. A basic one-programme-a-day service could in fact be started at a cost of £3 million a year only.
I strongly urge Her Majesty's Government to accede to that request and allow the BBC's External Services to enter this important arena, not only alongside the United States and the Soviet Union but especially alongside our European neighbours. In France RFI is negotiating with the French Government for an international news programme by satellite at a cost of more than £10 million a year, and those transmissions will be in English as well as French. The Germans are also exploring the idea and can be counted upon to come up with an ambitious plan.
If the BBC's External Services are one of the pillars of our cultural policy, it is because of their integrity

225
and continuity of standards; their skilled staff, who are less well paid, and their imaginative programmes, which are less generously funded than those of any of our Western rivals.
Of course, there is, as there always should be, scope for improvement. I think that, in broadcasting to Europe, apart from conveying an image of ourselves which is both truthful and admirable, we should seek more opportunities for cultural exchange and interpenetration. By that, I mean we should not only convey what we are about but also how we perceive them, our neighbours. The foreign audiences like to see themselves reflected in the mirror of the outside world's judgment. For instance, German public broadcasting and television have excellent programmes in which the German public see themselves regularly through the eyes of others. European audiences have become far less mono- and more multi-cultural in both taste and interest.
Since we seem to be approaching, or at least cautiously groping towards, a new era of relaxation of international tension, not only between the superpowers but also between the two halves of Europe, a determined cultural policy, a skilful cultural diplomacy, is an excellent conduit for reconciliation and peace. It heals wounds and builds bridges. Indeed, it must be our ardent hope that in the last decade of this century we shall feel ourselves agreeing more and more with that fine recent entry in the Penguin Dictionary of Quotations, "If I hear the word 'gun', I reach for my culture".
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, it is indeed difficult to remain within the time limit of seven minutes, since we all have so much to say. However I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter for having given us the opportunity to discuss cultural relations. I am also grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the British Council and especially to their chairman, Sir David Orr, and their past and present directors-general, Sir John Burgh and Dick Francis. As a trustee for the rebuilding of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, I should also like to say what an effective chairman of that trust Sir David is.
I have been associated with the British Council in various ways. I was in close, almost daily, touch with them in Paris after the Second World War when I was in our Embassy there for over five years. On my return to this country I also sat on the council's drama advisory committee. Later, going round the world lecturing on British science and industry, I used to find their representatives in many different capitals most helpful in arranging appropriate meetings at universities and in our embassies.
It is difficult to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the promotion of British culture, but in my mind it builds a positive image for Britain. Its marketing can often bring financial rewards, especially with regard to television and film sales and of course, as we have heard, books, as my noble friend Lord Stockton has said.
Whether the council's funding of the arts is for the
226
New Shakespeare Company's tour of France and Germany or to pay the air fares for members of arts organisations such as the British Theatre Association, in which I declare an interest as president, the British Council must continue to be funded realistically so that it can invest—and I emphasise the word "invest"—in Britain's culture abroad. This kind of investment, which should include funding for visits to other countries to discuss new initiatives and thus earn money through activity, creates considerable goodwill. This must certainly be reflected in our general overall international dealings.
However, I have to accept that, if the Government and the Treasury are determined not to increase the funding of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—and today's White Paper maintains, I see, tight controls on public spending—it would be hard to make out a case for spending less in other Foreign and Commonwealth Office sectors such as protecting British subjects abroad, or for spending less on promoting British exports or on defending commercial, political and strategic interests. I have to accept the logic of that argument, although not very happily.
In the main, however, setting aside the problems of funding—and of course every department of government has a struggle with the Treasury to get increased funds—I think that we in Britain, with perhaps limited resources in comparison with some other countries, manage our cultural affairs most effectively and that the efforts of our Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council, with its unique expertise, compare very favourably with, for example, those of the Quai d'Orsay and the Alliance Francaise throughout the world.
There are also our other instruments such as the BBC's External Services, which have been praised so much by my noble friend Lord St. John in his admirable maiden speech, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I believe that these external services and the Central Office of Information also do an excellent job and compare more than favourably with the United States Information Service and the Voice of America.
I read with great interest the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place. It recommended that the Government should make more money available for a cultural diplomacy budget. As we know, the principal government grant amounts to £78 million, the Overseas Development Administration aid programmes to £134 million; and earnings—that is to say, largely teaching fees, etc.—to about £64 million. If I have added that up correctly, it comes to some £276 million.
I am glad that the ODA makes the contribution it does. But I must admit that I was recently somewhat distressed by the delay in the ODA agreeing to a relatively modest funding of a very important project in the People's Republic of China, although in the end it did agree to contribute. So far as China is concerned, I have been following Sino-British relations closely in recent years and I should also like to pay tribute to the work of the Great Britain-China Centre. I am gratified to learn that the centre's grant-in-aid has been raised to £120,000 and that this

227
ensures that the centre does not face imminent closure. Since China has by far the largest population of any country with which we have cultural relations, I hope we give that country high priority as regards funding.
I know it can be argued that the British Council's overall budget has not been severely affected by cuts because of forced withdrawals from, for example, Iran and Argentina and because of increases in earnings and in schemes which it administers on behalf of the Government. However, I understand that the size of the overall budget disguises a reduction in the independent cultural work for which the British Council is responsible.
All the same, I do not think that we should be too critical of overall government funding. As I have said, I believe that our cultural policy worldwide is quite as effective as, if not more effective than, that of any other leading industrial nation.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it appears that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, is not in his place, so I shall move along quickly—
4.9 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I apologise for not rising quite as quickly as I should have done. My excuse for speaking at all in this debate, which is overcrowded, is that not so long ago I was invited by Sir Charles Troughton, who was then chairman of the British Council, to enquire over a period of about 18 months into the administration and affairs of the British Council, with a view to increasing its efficiency, decreasing the cost of administration and generally perhaps to get more value for money. In those 18 months I was able to get a very close insight into the working of the British Council. I say straight away that I came away thoroughly convinced of the value of what it was doing not only for Britain but for many other countries overseas as well. That is a point that we should be proud of. We should not look askance at the money we spend on the well-being of other countries.
The diplomatic service is naturally concerned with our material interests, and it is a pity, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, said, that the words "cultural diplomacy" are used all the time, as opposed to "cultural relations". They are quite different. It is cultural relations that we are concerned with, and the exchange of ideas and intellectual pursuits that enhance the quality of life.
The British Council makes quite clear what its objectives are. It has five main objectives: the interchange of people, which I believe to be extremely important; the establishment of overseas libraries where books, newspapers and general information are available; promotion of the English language, which has already been referred to and at which it is supremely efficient; the promotion of the arts, which again is very important; and the implementation of various educational projects. All those things have to come out of the mixed money. That is where I emphasise the importance placed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, in his speech on the fact that it is the mixed money that is being cut. Therefore
228
the money which the British Council needs in order to exercise the five main objectives which it has set down is getting cut and cut.
I wish to keep my speech brief, but it is worth referring once more to the response of the Foreign Office to the House of Commons Select Committee's inquiry. It is worth quoting the start of that response, which is very short. It says:
"It is right that we should share a culture which enriches the human spirit, enhances international understanding, and expands the horizons of men and women throughout the world … It promotes values, particularly dear to us and well defined in our culture, of which wide acceptance would make the international community an easier place to live in".
That is absolutely splendid. If the response had stoppped there, the British Council would have marched down Whitehall to the Treasury, confident that it would get more funds.
Unfortunately, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ruined the whole thing by not stopping there. The response continues:
"We do not however accept that there is any fundamental difference between the objective of cultural diplomacy and those of the rest of our diplomacy."
That seems to be a complete non sequitur to what has just been said. What a pity that the whole effect was spoilt by that final sentence.
As I have said, the principal government grant is now being reduced. I find that most disappointing in view of the great importance of increasing the representation of the British Council and its activities in China and the Soviet Union in particular. The opportunity of increasing our influence there seems to me to be extremely important. I just cannot understand the logic of making absolutely minimal increases in the money available for those two countries.
Very recently there was a debate in this House on overseas students. I shall not repeat what we said on that occasion but there is no doubt that the selection of students is important in order to ensure that the right people come here. The British Council, again, performs a valuable function in this field. There is no doubt whatever, to my mind, that more resources for our cultural relations or, if one prefers, diplomacy, could make all the advantages that I have talked about even clearer. I strongly support the Motion.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I immediately apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, but I think he will accept from me that time is so often against us however we use it. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is not in her place because it was the report to which she referred many years ago and which your Lordships debated that first drew me into looking at and discussing overseas representation.
I, like the noble Baroness, have also modified my views as to the worthwhileness or otherwise of that report. This afternoon I wish to refer to two narrow points. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister of State for the support that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave to the British Council through our ambassador in Prague, Mr. Steven Barrett, and the cultural attache, Mr. Jim Potts, to

229
enable the Prague Chamber Ballet under the direction of Mr. Pavel Smok to bring three dancers and four musicians to the Sadler's Wells Royal Ballet only last week. The sum that was made available was only £5,000, but it was not to be begrudged.
That event was very much appreciated by the director of the Sadler's Wells Ballet, by some 1,500 people in the audience and by His Excellency the Czech Ambassador and Mrs. Fidler who attended the evening, which was sponsored by Sainsbury's. That was a small amount of money but it demonstrates the immense value that can be placed on amounts of this kind in this area dedicated to the furtherance of our relationships. Your Lordships will probably recall that I had some dealings in another sphere in Eastern Europe in matters of trade, which brings me to my second point.
The British Council is an agent for the Foreign Office and ODA funding. For every pound it receives, it generates probably three times that amount. Of the 80-odd places in which it is represented across the world, I had the pleasure of visiting some 24 over three years quite recently. I know from first hand the immense value of the work that the British Council does in furthering relationships through the cultural aspects of the work—if I may put it that way—which are not duplicated by sporting activities which tend to have, by the very nature of the activity, something of a more competitive and adversarial spirit. It is those two things which so frequently have to be balanced.
I know that when I was travelling to support our trade activities the cultural activity that the British Council engaged in, whether it was the teaching of the English language either by means of a library or through the interchange of students, orchestras, ballet companies and whatever, had an immense effect on the ability with which business people could reach their opposite numbers.
All I have to say in conclusion is that I accept the pleas that have been made by noble Lords who spoke earlier with regard to the funding. I appreciate the constraints under which my noble friend has to work, but I hope that his heart may have been turned, his head infused but his hands made freer to make a more generous contribution to the work of the British Council.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, one aspect of British culture which we have not been very good at exporting is the tradition of ordered debate. It is practised in this country in four notable chambers: the Cambridge Union, the Oxford Union, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Our maiden speaker this afternoon has distinguished himself unusually by attaining high office in all of the first three of those. No doubt this afternoon is the prelude to another successful debating career among your Lordships.
He will find, I fear, that on many issues we tend inevitably to go round arguments with which we have become familiar. That is true, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and others who have spoken, of the subject on which we are concentrating this afternoon.
230
The subject is now called—rather unfortunately, I believe—cultural diplomacy. It used to be called, when I was involved in those matters many years ago, the projection of Britain abroad, which I think is a much more accurate account of what we try to do. The subject, in its various ways—its impact on our relations with other countries and its impact on our economy in one way or another—comes before us again and again. Again and again we find that it is not so much the actual amounts which the Government are prepared to spend which are from this or that point of view insufficient or meagre, but that it is almost impossible to enter into the frame of mind which is brought to those financial decisions.
I said in a debate a little while ago in your Lordships' House on our support for the natural sciences that I thought that the people who ran the Treasury were puffed-up bank clerks pretending to be mandarins. I believe that that caused a little offence and I propose this afternoon to make an apology—I mean of course an apology to the bank clerks, who do a perfectly useful and necessary job and who do not expect to be on the Honours List.
Whatever may be said by the Minister, we know that his hands and the hands of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are tied by the Treasury. The splendid report for which we thank my noble friend Lord Thomas and his colleagues in another place, makes it clear that they too were aware of the question of the Treasury. They begin, as noble Lords may remember, with a quotation in which the Treasury expressed on the occasion of the creation of the Foreign Office news department—not an enormous cultural instrument—the view that there may be "a general desire to spread British culture throughout the world", and on that desire it looks with great distrust and apprehension. That was in 1919, and they have not altered since.
We may ask why. The conventional argument—I think that my noble friend Lord Bessborough may have been in sympathy with it—which we hear in other respects, is that the first duty of the government of this country is to encourage the economy in order that the prosperity which it generates will enable us to do things which we would otherwise be unable to do. I have no objection to the priority which the Treasury gives to the improvement, enlargement and growth of our economy. That seems to me to be very much its business. What worries me is that it seems to have no idea as to how that is to be promoted in some important respects.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred—we have spoken on the matter several times in your Lordships' House in the past few years—to the question of overseas students. Quite apart from the advantage to our relations with other countries, it is clear that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out yet again this afternoon (and anyone who has had relations with universities which have large numbers of foreign students will know) it is at that determining age that there is decided the language those students will use, the books they will read, the country to which they will turn for purchases, whether of capital goods or for holiday expenditure, and so on. A massive goodwill comes to

231
us. In addition—we have had some of the figures from the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, concerning books—that brings us not merely massive goodwill but also tangible economic benefits. That thought seems to be too much for the minds in the Treasury to comprehend. It is perfectly obvious to the ordinary citizen. I hope that it is obvious to the Minister who is going to speak for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Until we get a greater appreciation of the way in which modern economies and peoples react upon each other and the role which the projection of Britain abroad has in bending those movements to our advantage—intellectual as well as material—we shall not get very far by merely trying to play around with relatively small elements in what is, by national standards, a very small budget.
It seems extraordinary that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out, there should be some idea that there are special reasons why all the other countries make such commitments which do not apply to us. I concede those reasons in the case in Germany, which wishes to make its cultural life obliterate the memories of a recent and painful past. I also concede them in the case of Japan, which is finding its way into a different relationship with the external world. However, when we consider the French figures and realise that we have been competing with France not only materially but also intellectually and scientifically for—as I think that report points out—three centuries, I ask the Minister to at least explain why what seems profitable and worth doing in France seems to the Treasury to be an expenditure of public money which must be constrained.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, perhaps the valuable report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of another place represents a watershed in the movement of public opinion in this country generally towards appreciating the importance of the work for the promotion of Britain abroad. For about 50 years there was a strong undertow of prejudice against support from the public purse for anything as intangible as that sort of work. At times that undertow assumed proportions of such violence that it was even a threat to the established and very important work which had been going on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has reminded us—as have other noble Lords—of the discredited report of the think tank of some years ago which animated such a strong reaction in your Lordships' House. That in turn helped to ensure that the report, instead of being a dagger in the guts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council, was perhaps instrumental in the demise of the think tank itself. I gather that the noble Baroness is to some extent a reformed character. However, I am not sure that she is entirely reformed.
As regards the question of resources, that is a well-worn subject which has come up again and again. However, the recommendations of the Select Committee are very forthright. It is a pity that the intervention of the general election—if that was the
232
reason—has made it difficult for the other place to debate the report in the way it deserves to be debated. There is, I think, no difference of view on all sides of your Lordships' House in supporting the Select Committee's recommendation that there should be an increase in resources for diplomatic cultural work. However, I should like to endorse my noble friend Lord Greenhill's caveat that we are interested in a larger cake, not the same cake divided up into a larger sum for the British Council and a smaller sum for orthodox diplomatic work.
One can pick and choose at fancy any number of different aspects of the British Council's work that deserve admiration and support. I should like to mention, in particular, as have other noble Lords, the area of assisted visits to and from this country by persons of high calibre. A notable example which may give special pleasure to your Lordships was the visit of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to India a year or so ago—I believe under the sponsorship of the British Council—when he was invited to sit on the Bench in the Supreme Court of India beside the Chief Justice.
Among others, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, have referred to the importance of overseas students in this country. It is a pretty well-worn subject. I accept that the general policy of selective, targeted assistance for bringing students here is the right one but I remain very uneasy about the effect of the present level of university fees for overseas students. I do not believe that we have the right mix between the policy of targeting and the reasonable demands of the universities for their overseas students, and I hope that this point will receive reconsideration.
There is a certain paradox in the steady increase in the amount of resources devoted to advertising by industry and commerce in the private sector and the reduction of resources in real terms devoted to the work of promoting Britain abroad. It was once said in the United States:
"The man who on his trade relies
Must either bust or advertise".
There is no easy parallel between the advertisement of commodities and diplomatic cultural work. The main point is that now that we are richer, surely we should devote more to gaining friends and influencing people abroad.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I think the time has come when the Government should consider whether it is still appropriate to continue to squeeze relentlessly the British Council's direct aid budget. Undoubtedly the British Council has managed to develop very successfully in recent years its self-financing activities—principally English language teaching, the importance of which the noble Lord. Lord Bonham-Carter, correctly emphasised. Also, it has developed the involvement of private sponsors to such an extent that the council can claim to have had a hand in 600 tours and exhibitions at a cost of only £4 million. Nevertheless, such services as the welfare of overseas students in this country and the provision of a layer, albeit a thin layer, of British cultural facilities and

233
representation throughout the world are admirable and worthwhile services and they cannot properly be carried out if the budget is to fall year by year.
Moreover, the British Council cannot avoid reflecting an image of Britain, and it is surely somewhat incongruous if the image of a reviving Britain has to be projected by a British Council still suffering under a regime of financial retrenchment.
There is of course no limit to the amount that could be spent on flooding the world with British cultural representation. Indeed, wherever one looks there are compelling reasons for developing links of understanding with the new generations. There is the need to hold together our alliance with the United States, which is itself subject to the trauma of declining economic power and to the uncertainty of major demographic changes; the need to understand oriental Japan as it takes over the United States economic primacy; the need to forge ahead urgently with the task of creating a more united Europe against forces of great suspicion and ignorance; and there is the opportunity even to take advantage, for so long as it may last, of the era of glasnost and the return of the unjammed broadcast to the Soviet Union.
In the development of all these and other relations, culture has a vital long-term role to play. Indeed, in affluent countries culture in any case has become more important following in the wake of increased leisure. That is an additional reason for us not to cut hack our cultural activities in Western Europe.
Nothing could be more in this country's long-term interest than playing the part of a considerate host to those overseas students who will be tomorrow's national decision-takers. Nor do we have to pay dearly for the privilege. Against current government expenditure of almost £80 million on awards and scholarships, overseas students are estimated to spend upwards of £1 billion a year on tuition fees and goods and services. The Foreign Office makes the point that overseas student numbers are rising again and that overseas students at British universities now represent almost 12 per cent. Nevertheless, there must at the very least be a case for boosting the scholarship and award schemes as well as for amalgamating some of them as the British Council has proposed.
The Eastern Europe correspondent of the New York Times, Malcolm Browne, is quoted in the evidence to the House of Commons committee as saying:
"The BBC is for the free mind what Oxfam is for the hungry".
The BBC External Service is a contribution which Britain can be proud of making in the service of Western civilisation and the propagation of its values. It has been quite remarkably successful in combining the need to broadcast in the national interest, as it is required to do by statute, with the ability to maintain respect for its editorial independence. It is a much-admired product of the British body politic. It is also an announcement that we wish to continue to play a part in international affairs, and that we are still ourselves an outward-looking country.
The Government have provided the funds to deal
234
with the main funding problem, audibility improvement, where the £100 million programme is two-thirds completed. However, I think that there is a good case for it to receive additional funds to add to the hours broadcast in the vernacular languages, which are listened to far more densely than are those in English; to make some addition to those language broadcasts; in some cases to restore languages that have been cut; and also, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made plain is so necessary, in order to prevent the erosion of the remainder of the budget in real terms.
Let me conclude by saying that I think that in no other field are there such important tasks which can be accomplished with so little additional money. We expect the Government to continue to be financially prudent, but I hope that they will give favourable consideration to the various pleas which have been made or repeated here this afternoon.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, I also
congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, on a notable maiden speech. If I may say with respect, it was a splendid example of the use of the English language at its best.
I believe that a great deal of the difficulty in persuading a British Government to spend more money on cultural diplomacy stems from the fact that this is not a phrase with which we as a people live happily. Matthew Arnold defined culture as:
"acquainting ourselves with the best that has been known and said in the world and thus with the history of the human spirit".
According to the Oxford Dictionary, diplomacy is:
"skill in managing, international relations".
The British should not, surely, have any difficulty in marrying the two. The problem however is that in the days of Empire we had worldwide power and we took British influence for granted. During the devolution of Empire it has been difficult to adjust to a new situation where we have to sell ourselves if we are to survive as a great trading nation. I think that the Government by and large have become more conscious of the part that cultural diplomacy has to play in this, although some of us who have served Britain abroad may feel that they have been somewhat slow in accepting the obvious.
We have a wonderful ready-made base in the English language, which we have no need to promote. Everyone wants to learn English, not only in the Commonwealth covering a quarter of the world's population, but throughout the world. From that base we have various weapons with which to press our cultural offensive, for example, overseas aid, the British Council and the BBC Overseas Service. All of these are now recognised by the Government as being important, but I doubt very much whether that is a view accepted generally by the British people. For a country which has benefited so much from world trade, we remain remarkably insular.
Perhaps, therefore, I might suggest that the Government have a part to play in changing attitudes towards the importance of cultural diplomacy for Britain. More money is all important and overdue, but the Government might find it easier to provide

235
more funds in this field if they went out of their way to engender more public support for the policy itself.
In spite of our recent debate on the subject and the comments made by other noble Lords, I should like to finish with a special plea for more help in bringing overseas students to Britain. I have been enormously impressed in many travels throughout the Commonwealth by the basic respect and friendship for Britain of those in responsible positions who enjoyed undergraduate or post-graduate education in this country. This was partly a concomitant of Empire and partly the result of enlightened policies. But the process is no longer inevitable. If we fail to continue to attract the leaders of the future, Britain will have lost an immense advantage in international politics.
I give one example from my personal experience. After the war I played in an Oxford rugby side consisting of seven members from the United Kingdom and eight from the Commonwealth. The Daily Sketch (a paper which your Lordships will remember) dubbed us rather unkindly, "The Home and Colonial"—where my mother used to do her shopping. But the point is that those eight from the Commonwealth went back to become, among other things, a business tycoon, the top mining engineer in his country, a vice-chancellor, a headmaster and a Member of Parliament. They have all been friends of Britain for life.
I shall not go into the detail of what is required. The Overseas Students Trust produced an admirable report on this a year ago. I hope that the Government will heed its recommendations. We have something very special to offer in this field—that is, the best system of higher education in the world. It is most important that the Government should not only fund more scholarships, but should also fund effective schemes for finding high quality students from overseas to take up those scholarships. If we can continue to attract able young men and women from all over the world, the long-term advantage to this country will be incalculable.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, like other noble Lords I join in welcoming the debate and have particular pleasure in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. The last time I had the pleasure of congratulating him in public was 30 years ago next month when he defeated me soundly in a parliamentary by-election in the West Country. I also should like to say how much I appreciated the elegant maiden speech made by my noble friend Lord St. John. He put more elegantly than any of us his definition of cultural diplomacy or cultural relations. I use the shorthand of, first, winning friends; secondly, influencing people; and, thirdly, boosting this country's interests. This evening I should like to take one small part of our cultural operations and talk about it for a few moments.
As a Foreign Office Minister, doing a similar job to my noble friend on the Front Bench this evening, between 1970 and 1974 under my noble friends Lord Home and Lord Rippon, who is sitting behind me, I
236
was responsible for the cultural programme of the Foreign Office, particularly for the various organisations which operated across the world scene. Those organisations included the Great Britain/USSR Association, the Great Britain/East European Association, the British Atlantic Committee and many other such bodies—all of which have done and are doing a marvellous job. I set up the Great Britain China Centre which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bessborough. That followed a visit I paid to Peking in 1972 negotiating the exchange of ambassadors and which was followed by a major cultural exchange, which many noble Lords might remember, the magnificent exhibition of Chinese artefacts in the Royal Academy in 1973. Although that was an exhibition of Chinese art, it was initiated by Britain and had a fundamental effect on the improvement in relations between this country and China over subsequent years which culminated in the so far happy agreement over the future of Hong Kong.
The bodies that I have mentioned—including the Franco-British Council, a body of which I am vice president, and which was also set up by my noble friend Lord Rippon and myself when we were in the Office—are all well supported at present and have been in the past by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In passing, I might say that the Franco-British Council could do with a little more money, but that is not a matter into which I shall go in any depth this evening.
We have heard today of a wide range of other important work in the cultural field: the British Council, the BBC external services, the COI and the news department, which is so often forgotten and which does such a fine job on behalf of our cultural image.
But why do we not improve in one field which I shall mention now? I should like to appeal for more "leaning out" by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and building up more co-operation with the many self-financing charitable bodies which operate at present. Their dynamism, expertise and administration are greatly admired not only here but abroad, and they cost the Treasury nothing. For example, the Thomson Foundation has an income of £200,000 per year. It helps to train the media throughout the third world. Only recently it was asked, by the Chinese to double the training programme of news agency men. Then there is English International, run from an elegant house in Piccadilly. It employs 700 Britons, earns £6 million a year, has no endowment, is non-profit making, has 65 affiliated schools teaching English throughout the world and is training teachers. It is of outstanding value to this country, and that should be well known and understood.
There is no better way than keeping friendships in good repair, in reinforcing success at minimum cost, and in using the gifts provided by our history and language, as expressed so well by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley and by the noble Lord, Lord Moore. Finally, and this is an important point, it creates jobs. I should like to appeal to my noble friend on the Front Bench to try to obtain a modest provision in reinforcing success on those outside

237
bodies. Great results could be achieved for minimal cost.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, I am not alone in being extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for tabling this somewhat clumsily-worded Motion, if I may say that without offence. As clumsiness seems to be the flavour of the month in Alliance circles, I suppose that we should not be too surprised.
Many noble Lords have drawn attention to the critical importance of the value of the English language. I am of the opinion that, without doubt, it is our most important export. There is a dramatic historical illustration of that fact. When the United States of America—to use Foreign Office language—severed diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom at the end of the 18th century, it had extremely important constitutional decisions to take. Not the least of those was the decision as to which language should be the official language of the United States of America. As we know, it decided upon the English language. However, as an interesting footnote to history, it was decided by only one vote. The competing language was German. That illustrates clearly, using little imagination, the kind of impact that that decision would have had on the future of the world had the vote been lost and America had decided to speak German instead of English.
The accolade of greatest single contributor to the expansion of knowledge of the English language undoubtedly goes to the external services of the BBC, not least for the radio programme, "English by Radio" and the important television programme, "Follow Me". The impact of the television programme, as I have discovered during visits to China, is considerable. It is broadcast nationally at prime time—6.30 to 7 p.m. in Peking—and there is not a hotel porter, waiter or cook who does not try to gather round a television set to watch. The following that programme has in China is quite astonishing.
I have spoken about this subject to ministers of the People's Republic of China. They are more than aware of the impact that English has had as the second language in the sub-continent of India and of the subsequent influence on the unification of India. Noble Lords will be aware that the history of China is nothing other than a history of attempts to unify the country. With an impossible ideographic form of written language, and many different languages, ministers are busily encouraging the learning of English.
In November 1983, I had the effrontery to suggest to an old friend who was a retired American diplomatist that the following Sunday would be a critically important day in Anglo-American relations. When he asked why, I told him that on the following Sunday, and on every Sunday for the rest of the season from 6 p.m. to 7.15 p.m., British television would be broadcasting highlights from the National Football League of America for the first time. He rather pooh-poohed the suggestion; but when one considers the encouragement of affection for and knowledge of things American, and the
238
massive following of the game in this country, I think your Lordships will take my point. If today one looks at copies of The Times and the Telegraph one will see comprehensive articles on American football. I think that noble Lords may need to look for a long time before seeing similar articles about cricket in a Chicago newspaper. The influence of sport should never be underestimated.
It brings me to an important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, in relation to the natural extension of the BBC external services into television programme making. I believe that that is extremely important and deserves the encouragement of Her Majesty's Government. I understand that the final proposal on the subject was put to the Government last August. I should like to use this opportunity to ask my noble friend whether there has been any response to the proposal placed by the BBC upon the desk of the FCO. If my noble friend cannot tell me now, I should be grateful if he will let me know in the future.
I should now like to deal with the point about the financing of the external services of the BBC and other information services. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and the Foreign Office's response to the excellent Select Committee report in the House of Commons, made perfectly clear the fact that there is, without question, a conflict of interest in making the financing of the external services part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Vote. There are many reasons for that. However, one of the major reasons—which is understandable but, in my view, unforgivable—is that the diplomatist has an interest in working quietly, carefully and silently, while the broadcasters' interest is directly different; they want to shout everything from the mountain tops. That is the way they work. The fact is that the endeavour of the BBC and the British Council is not of their making but of a separate institution's making. When it comes to cutting down, the Foreign Office will look to them first rather than to its own establishment.
Although I do not expect an answer from my noble friend tonight, I should like to suggest that the information services' part of the Foreign Office's Vote should be handled separately by the Cabinet Office in negotiations with the Treasury, but administered by the Foreign Office because close relations with the Foreign Office and the external services is of undoubted value.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for choosing this interesting subject for our first debate today and for his impressive opening speech. The noble Lord explained why he believes in cultural diplomacy and why he thinks the Government should show more support for it. There are other modified views on the subject. One of those was ably deployed by my noble friend, Lady Blackstone. We must take account of her comments because we know that she has made a close study of this aspect of diplomatic affairs.
I was particularly pleased to hear the thoughtful

239
speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley. We know of his interest in these matters and hope to hear a good deal from him in the future. The noble Lord said that cultural diplomacy had "a forbidding ring". There are indeed people who look slightly puzzled when it is mentioned. They ask "What is it? Is it important and what does it cost?" The taxpayer has a right to ask and he is entitled to a reply. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter and other noble Lords have sought to give a reply in this debate and we hope that the Minister will give an authoritative view when he winds up the debate.
The British Council has naturally been near the centre of this discussion and in their evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place, also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir (who was a member of the Committee) and others, they defined it as:
"The specific use of cultural relations for national including political and commercial benefit".
There is, however, a great deal more to it than that because a better understanding between nations of their respective cultures, traditions and way of life creates better relations, and better relations make for peace. It allays suspicion, one of the root causes of international dissension.
The arguments for effective cultural diplomacy have been fully and ably advanced by the noble Lord, and others, and I do not propose to rehearse them now in view of the few minutes at my disposal. However, if people understand our background and values they are more likely to trust us right across the board. Our profound respect for Soviet literature and art, for example, is an important bridge, and their reciprocation is equally significant. That is true of our relationship with all countries but the Russian scene is particularly important at the present time. Mr. Gorbachev's glasnost policy justifies a far greater initiative and a much better response by way of increased funding.
Again, like most noble Lords, I think the British Council deserves great credit for the work that it does. Its network of services throughout the world with representatives in 81 countries is the product of years of dedicated organisation and hard work. Given the range of activity, I do not believe its workforce of 4,230 is a large one; and if we look at this figure in relation to numbers employed in other organisations, then no one can argue that it is unreasonable. However, a reduction of grant by the Government of nearly a quarter—23 per cent. in eight years—is really indefensible if, that is, you believe that the British Council is really necessary. Either it should be supported with adequate funds or done away with entirely. If the Government are deliberately winding down the British Council, as indeed seems to be the case from an examination of the figures, then the Government should come out and say so plainly so that everyone knows where he stands.
What is not acceptable is that the Government should treat a British institution with a worldwide reputation for integrity and honesty of presentation in so niggardly a fashion. Furthermore, it is time the Government made a clear and unambiguous
240
declaration on the status of cultural relations within British foreign policy. If that were done, everyone concerned would have a better concept of where they stood.
As most noble Lords have said in this debate, other countries take a very different view and operate more enlightened policies. As we have heard, the figures submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee show a very marked disparity with expenditure in Britain standing at £216 million per annum and in France and Germany at £739 million and £568 million respectively. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's response—and as one who had the privilege of being a Minister there some years ago I dislike saying this—to this disparity was quite inadequate. The British Council's warning in paragraph 19 of their third paper to the Foreign Affairs Committee must be heeded if Britain is to continue to operate significantly in this sphere. It said:
"The sums involved are tiny; the benefit to Britain would be out of all proportion to the cost."
If that is true—and that is the central theme of this debate—then the Government must face up to it and tell Parliament and the British Council what their future policies are to be. The Government's treatment of the British Council, and indeed of the BBC's External Service—the best and most objective radio service in the world—has left us with a sense of decline, decay and depression. The Foreign Office response to the Foreign Affairs Committee report seems to have been composed on a hot, lazy afternoon between Westland and Spycatcher. It is not good enough.
I should like to conclude with the question of money. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in his speech was quite right to discuss the principle of priorities. Of course, every government must decide its priorities. At the end of the day it will be judged by its priorities. We are told that the Chancellor is fortunate to have large sums of money at his disposal; £10 billion and £11 billion are predicted and we shall know very shortly what the precise sum is.
We know too that there are other demands upon the Government which are of the first importance. However, I think this debate has shown that this House believes that a modest investment in cultural relations and diplomacy will pay high dividends in sustaining the good name of Britain throughout the world. I have seldom heard a debate in this House where there was such a unanimity of opinion. Noble Lords with great experience on all sides have made a sincere appeal to the Government for a relatively small increase in funds. The British Council and the BBC's External Service are asking for comparatively small sums of money for which they have made a very good case. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will be able to give us a constructive reaction when he replies to this debate.
5.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has raised a most important issue, and today's debate and your Lordships' contributions, often based on wide experience of the subject, have been very valuable indeed. We have all

241
enjoyed the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley, whose interest in and experience of his subject is widely acclaimed. I too hope we shall hear more from him in due course.
I must say that, tempered by the limits of what is possible—I underline that word—I agree with a great deal of what has been said this afternoon. Our commitment to cultural diplomacy in all its aspects was made clear in the Government's reply to the report on that subject by the FAC of another place, where it stressed that:
"The promotion of British interests overseas is an integrated effort and the role of cultural diplomacy, including the arts, is no less important than any other in it".
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and I are therefore at one in accepting the remarks with which he began his speech this afternoon. I must say that I find nothing arid in the declaration which our response included.
I think that leaves no room for doubt about the importance that we attach to the issue. We do not hold cultural diplomacy to be somehow different from the rest of diplomacy, or to be aimed at some other objective. All our diplomacy is aimed at the vigorous promotion of British interests: and cultural diplomacy is very much a part of that. I am sure your Lordships will find nothing eccentric about my stating our diplomatic objectives in terms of the national interest, nor indeed about declaring cultural diplomacy to be a part of that integrated effort. Certainly the French to whom the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred, who some acclaim to be masters of cultural diplomacy, would find it a very curious notion that one might proclaim otherwise.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Stockton asked what reasons the French, the Germans and the Japanese have for spending money on cultural diplomacy that we do not find ourselves able to provide. It is always easy to oversimplify in comparisons with other countries on spending on a range of issues. In the case of the French, for example, one potent reason, I believe, is their great concern to protect their language from the encroachment of English, which as my noble friend Lord St. John said today is so much the language of diplomacy and has become so in recent years.
Nor do we believe that a valid distinction can be made between cultural diplomacy and other forms of diplomacy in terms of long-term and short-term objectives or activities. Each is a mixture of both. Just as our diplomatic missions' long-term cultivation of contacts in particular countries is vital to our future relationships, so can a particular cultural event or a British Council visitorship have an immediate impact in its own as well as in a wider area. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lucas referred to a visit from the opera in Prague.
If cultural diplomacy's activities often have long-term objectives so do those of all diplomacy and all are inter-active. Cultural diplomacy has cultural goals, too; the exchange of academic and cultural experience with other nations enriches us. As the reply of the Government to the Select Committee
242
states:
"It is right that we should share a culture which enriches the human spirit, enhances international understanding and expands the horizons of men and women throughout the world".
At the same time it is important that British excellence in the arts, so regularly attested to by awards in international competition, should be more widely known. All our cultural achievements serve to enhance Britain's standing in a world whose recognition and respect we cannot take for granted.
Above all, our cultural diplomacy helps others to understand us and by making ourselves better understood we create much surer ground for attaining our objectives generally. Others are more likely to comprehend and even share our point of view, or be disposed to turn to us or choose what we have to offer if they know our language, our literature, our artistic heritage and have come to admire them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, might have suggested before her apparent recent conversion, it is not a question of which particular contract in Japan or which particular amendment to a European Community regulation, or something like that, which has been secured by exercises of our cultural diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy is deeper and more wide-ranging than that. For example, it has to do with countering the prejudice against us of those who misunderstand us—among other things, for our alleged insularity.
I cannot but help recall General De Gaulle's justification for vetoing Britain's application to join the EC. He said:
"How can a country with two religions and 300 cheeses possibly agree on fundamentals with one that has 300 religious denominations and only two kinds of cheese?".
That is why one of the principal activities of our cultural diplomacy lies in bringing people to this country—students, teachers, administrators, journalists, opinion-formers—as well as those whose opinions are being formed. All in all, the interchange of people to and from Britain accounts for almost two-thirds of total British Council expenditure, including the major programmes that it administers for the ODA and the FCO. In addition, it encompasses one-fifth of FCO expenditure through the Central Office of Information.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote, and my noble friend Lord Stockton indicated, a very important part of this effort is devoted to overseas students, though perhaps none of those noble Lords, or perhaps others, think the effort has been sufficient.
There are now over 60,000 students from overseas in higher education in Britain. About one-fifth of them enjoy some form of Government help under a variety of schemes, including joint funding with the private sector. If we include the ODA's non-university training programmes. some £90 million a year of public funds are involved.
In the Foreign and Commonwealth Office we have our own scholarship schemes worldwide and we contribute to other schemes for countries that do not fit in to the aid programme. We support, for example, the Commonwealth scholarships and fellowships

243
plan for the developed countries of the Commonwealth, and the Marshall scholarships, which bring top-quality students to Britain from the United States. We have recently embarked on a series of jointly-funded schemes in tripartite partnership with major industrial and commercial firms and the receiving educational institutions, and also with the churches. These began in 1985 with Tate & Lyle and at present total 10, with companies like ICI and GEC, the newly privatised British Gas and British Telecom, and leading city firms such as Bowring and Clifford Chance.
As your Lordships know, in 1979 the Government decided that an indiscriminate fee subsidy for all overseas students, costing more than £100 million, was not a legitimate burden to continue to impose on the British taxpayer. But that decision notwithstanding, and despite the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that the present financial mix is wrong, the number of overseas students in our universities today is actually higher than it was in 1979, thanks to the scholarship programmes which I have mentioned and also to the promotional and marketing work that has been undertaken overseas by the British Council in partnership with the universities. This work has recently been extended with Foreign Office encouragement and participation, into the non-university post-school field, where there is still room to bring overseas registrations up to higher levels.
One of our prime concerns is that overseas students should return to their home countries with the best possible memories of their time in Britain. We have been particularly conscious of the students's welfare needs, and have recently set up, with the British Council and the Victoria League, a new charitable company called Hosting for Overseas Students (or simply HOST). Its achievements in placing students with British families at Christmas, has been most remarkable. I think your Lordships might agree that priorities for cultural diplomacy can be pithily summarised in the slogan "Get them here, and if you can't get them here, teach them English"—very much the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
As with scholarship programmes and the interchange of people generally, the British Council's activities in English language teaching, to which my noble friend Lord Stockton referred, have seen considerable expansion over the past eight or nine years. About 10 per cent. or 11 per cent. of the British Council's expenditure goes on language teaching. Numbers have shown a steady increase over recent years. There are some 56,000 students learning English at council centres all round the world at this moment. There is a growing demand for teaching for more specialised uses of English. British Council teachers have taught on site for Singapore International Airlines, for the Qatar Petroleum Company and for the Institute of Health Sciences in Oman. Computer-assisted language learning is now used in 36 of the council's centres. I am glad to say that to an increasing degree over recent years, the council's direct English language teaching overseas has been paying for itself.
My noble friends Lord Stockton and Lord Beloff
244
referred to books. Book exports are worth at least £500 million a year and I hope that my noble friend Lord Stockton will acknowledge the British Council's role in stimulating sales overseas. Between them they organised Britain's contribution to about 25 international book fairs. The British Council itself runs 120 libraries and information centres around the world with 400,000 mostly fee-paying members. These make 7 million loans of British books, periodicals and audio-visual materials annually.
While the British Council is one of the principal instruments of our cultural diplomacy, others are, of course, the BBC external services and the COI. The external services of the BBC, to which many of your Lordships devoted time this afternoon, are very active in English language teaching programmes through their English by radio and television programmes. In terms of the number of pupils, they might be described as having the largest English language teaching class in the world. A glance at the programme schedule of the BBC external services is enough to show that their role in the promotion of British culture abroad goes much wider than English language teaching. Funding of the external services for broadcasting has increased despite what has been said, by over 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the increased funding since 1979 has been largely swallowed up in the capital expenditure programme to improve audibility. Whatever claims the noble Lord makes, in fact output has increased from 711 hours a week in 1979 to over 750 hours a week today, the highest level of output since the early 1950's. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, there is no point broadcasting if you cannot be heard. I consider it absolutely essential and an important priority to continue to invest in audibility programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, referred to Korea and there are BBC proposals for those new services. I am afraid that the Foreign Office did not agree with what was proposed. Of course, for programmes such as that, suggestions will be carefully reviewed in the light of priorities and finite resources, and the resources are always finite. Nevertheless, the FCO have agreed to new world service alternatives for the Caribbean and southern Africa.
Distance learning potential of external broadcasting has long been recognised, and improving understanding and spreading English overseas by the external services is an important objective. To that the BBC are indeed turning their hand. My noble friend Lord Morris mentioned the world television news service. We are aware of the potential opportunities offered by satellite television broadcasting and British enterprises are already actively involved. They involve complex assessments of complex issues, and the BBC proposals raise them. The examination is not yet complete but it is being given considerable attention and priority.
As for the audibility programme, I have to say that we embarked on that programme in 1981. So far we have spent over £80 million on it. The programme is on schedule. There are many discernible

245
improvements such as the Hong Kong relay station referred to earlier this afternoon. We have committed over £30 million to further improvements, some of which are intended to help to improve audibility in the Soviet Union. I too am glad that the jamming about which we have heard so much has now been lifted.
As for Europe, I have to say that the BBC's 648 service—to which the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, did not refer—combining French, German and world services, is intended to tone up the effectiveness of our external services in Western Europe.
I turn now—and I am galloping through a lot of material—to COI films and publications because they of course are an important element as well. The role of the British private sector in teaching English to foreign students in schools both here and overseas is important too, and there has been a tremendous increase. We believe that the private sector is an important part of our English language training resource, and that it and the council should work closely together.
It is important to emphasise again that in all these areas of the interchange of people—and notably through student scholarships and English language training—the British Council's activity has increased substantially in recent years. I too pay tribute not only to its work but also to its staff.
Accounts that have been given of the council's funding suggesting that it has lost out badly in the recent past, as said by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir, seem to have ignored these two major areas of its work. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that in fact the council's overall programme spend (its turnover as it were) has increased by some 26 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Its own earnings have increased in that period through English language teaching, through its paid educational services, and through agency work undertaken on behalf of other organisations.
The council's receipts from aid administration nowadays cover a greater proportion of the associated overhead costs. At the same time its direct grant from government has declined, it is true. That is because it has been required, like all government departments, to find efficiency savings as well. Whether or not he is right to claim that the time is now ripe for a change, I must say to my noble friend Lord Reay that no aspect of cultural diplomacy has been exempt from the overall effort to deploy resources more effectively. But greater earnings as well as increased operational efficiency prompted by financial stringency and, less happily, a number of closures have considerably relieved the strain on the rest of their budget.
My noble friend Lord Fanshawe made a number of important remarks about the work of the Thomson Foundation. I very much agree with all that he said, and indeed with the various associations to which he also drew attention. It is not hard to think of ways of spending more money on cultural diplomacy. As my noble friend Lord Bessborough said, the question is: at the expense of what? There are those who will say that extra money should be found from within the
246
existing diplomatic effort, but I am not sure that we should necessarily agree that that would be right if we were to spend less on protecting British subjects overseas, less on promoting exports, and that kind of thing.
I have to cut my remarks short, but let me say that cultural diplomacy is an important part of our effort in pursuit of British interests overseas, but it is an integrated effort. We must bear in mind that the medium can only promote or conceal the substance of the message to a limited extent. Even the most persuasive spokesmen must in the end have a product that justifies its marketing. Britain's standing in the world has improved considerably in recent years. Any traveller abroad will tell you that.
Our cultural diplomacy, both governmental and non-governmental, has played an important part in bringing about this change, but at its root is the fact that the Government have succeeded in transforming our economic base into the healthy state we enjoy today. Only a few years ago people talked of the "British disease". They now quote Britain as a model and inspiration for the resolution of economic ills. So the message really is a good one, and this Government are committed to getting it across in the widest and most effective possible way. Hence the importance that the Government as well as your Lordships attach to cultural diplomacy.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long, but I should like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, on his maiden speech, which was as enjoyable and eloquent as I had foreseen. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for the part he played in this debate and for the authority that he brought to it.
I must also thank the Minister for his response. I am delighted that we are at one in agreeing on the importance of cultural diplomacy. I am delighted that we are in agreement on the importance of the English language. I am delighted that we are agreed on the importance of external services. I am only disappointed that the appetite for all these services cannot be better satisfied.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, I regret having to interrupt the noble Lord but I am bound by the regulations. The allotted time given to this debate has now elapsed. I have to ask the noble Lord whether he wishes to withdraw the Motion.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Homelessness
5.27 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to the number of homeless people; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to commence by expressing pleasure and gratitude at being lucky in our ballot. It gives me the opportunity to debate in your Lordships' Chamber an issue that deals with probably the most underprivileged section of our community. I am also delighted at the response to the Motion. It has attracted a number of distinguished Peers and Peeresses who have put down their names to speak to show their concern at this human problem.
It is of course a fact of life that within our communities there are powerful sectors and there are weak sectors. Obviously the powerful sectors are articulate and speak very well on their own behalf. I am of course talking in the main about people such as the City of London and the financial institutions, the CBI, and to a lesser extent these days organised labour as represented by the trade union movement. But this debate is about that section of the people who have no public platform within the legislative procedure. I think it is of great benefit to them if we can show them that your Lordships' House cares on this type of issue and is prepared to debate the problem in order to try to do something for them.
Over the past two or three years in your Lordships' House there have been extensive and quite numerous debates on the problem of housing in general. I think it commenced about two years ago when the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm—who I am delighted to see present and down to speak—moved a debate, on behalf of the Cross-Benches, on the Duke of Edinburgh's report on housing.
The last major debate on the subject related to Faith in the City, the report of the commission of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some noble Lords who spoke in those debates are down to speak again today. It is a sad fact of life that some of the the things that will be said today were said in both those debates and have also been said previously at Question Time by noble Lords on all sides of the House. Therefore we have to backtrack a little and recall what has been said. However, I do not want to blind your Lordships with a battery of statistics. I have no doubt that noble Lords who follow me will produce their own when presenting their cases.
Only a few days ago the Prime Minister was congratulated on being the longest serving Prime Minister this century. It would be churlish to say that that was not a tremendous achievement. There is no doubt that during her period of office some sections of the community have done very well. In the extension of home ownership through the right to buy, some people have benefited considerably. Howeyer, whatever criterion is used to assess the plight' of the homeless in this country, their position has become worse during that time. When something is tragically wrong, the leader of the legislative body in this country, the Prime Minister, who wears the laurel wreath for achievement, must also accept the
248
crown of thorns in relation to a problem which should have been tackled on a forceful and urgent basis.
Let us look at some of the figures. In 1979, 56,750 households were registered as homeless. For 1987 this figure is between 110,000 and 120,000. That is a tremendous increase by any standard. It is feared that the percentage increase which has occurred each year, almost regularly, will further increase unless something drastic is done. There are a variety of reasons for what has happened. Some of the reasons given are disputes between families and the breakdown of relationships. One of the most significant factors is the persistent increase in the number of people registered as homeless who have defaulted on mortgage repayments. In an effort to house themselves and their families they have taken a gamble and have overstretched their limited resources. Some have become victims of unemployment for which nobody can be blamed. The end result is that they lapse on their mortgage repayments. They are then evicted and have to seek other accommodation.
More than 100 authorities in England make use of bed and breakfast hotels to house homeless families. This occurs because insufficient new lettings are available to allow local authorities to house all the families for whom they are statutorily obliged to provide accommodation. In a period of rising demand from homeless families the number of new lettings available has fallen by 10 per cent. since 1979. This is mainly due to the effect of the right to buy provisions and cuts in the housing investment programme.
Your Lordships will recall that two weeks ago I questioned a Minister about homelessness. He gave figures of the increased amounts which he deemed were being made available to deal with the problem. At the same time as that announcement was being made, the housing investment programme was once again being cut. That has occurred even with the type of problem that I am highlighting today. The effect of the policy has been to reduce the chances of families on the waiting list being rehoused. Lettings from waiting lists in London have fallen by 54 per cent. since 1979, and 25 per cent of all new lettings by local authorities in England now go to homeless families.
In some parts of London, bed and breakfast hotels and other forms of temporary accommodation are used for those on the waiting lists. Some authorities are unable to predict when or if households in temporary accommodation will move into permanent housing. One, Camden, estimated that a family in bed and breakfast accommodation who require a four bedroomed home would have to wait four years. The use of bed and breakfast accommodation is escalating alarmingly. In 1984 there were 3,270 families in bed and breakfast accommodation in England. By the end of September 1987 there were 11,240, 8,600 of them being in London.
The standards of bed and breakfast hotels range from reasonable to the appalling. There are numerous examples of overcrowding and families living in one room. A recent report by the Thomas

249
Coram Foundation for Children found that children in bed and breakfast accommodation were often not receiving adequate health care or education. It is estimated by one London borough that the average cost of bed and breakfast accommodation is £13,500 per annum per family. The cost of the exercise is astronomical.
When this issue is raised with the Prime Minister in another place and with Ministers in this House, they always fall back on one or two standard reasons. They refer to empty properties, and local authorities always bear the brunt of this criticism. I am not putting this forward as an excuse but only 2·3 per cent. of local authority total stock is empty. Housing associations have 3·8 per cent. of their stock empty. The private sector has 4·2 per cent. of its stock empty. The Government, who would do well to put their own house in order, have as much as 6·9 per cent. empty. It is a little naughty when the burglar starts castigating the policeman as the wrongdoer. The Government would do well to set the example and put their own house in order.
Over the years I have pursued a campaign on homelessness. In the 1970s I sponsored a Bill in another place about houses in multiple occupation. It is eight years since I introduced that Bill. Since then other Members in another place have followed that through and have tried to put some rationale into a policy of protection for people who have by force of circumstances to live in hostels. There has been little progress in that direction. Those involved on the social side say that the risk of death and of maiming through fire in smaller hostels in multiple occupation in this country is as high as it ever was—as bad as at the time of the appalling fire in Kilburn when 11 ladies lost their lives.
We have a situation where the financial pundits in the press and in the media are saying what a tremendous job the Chancellor has done and commenting on the funds that he now has available. Every one of the debates that I mentioned which have taken place in your Lordships' House arrived at the same conclusion; that there was a need for an extensive and massive injection of government money into the housing programmes in this country in order to deal with the situation. Unless that happens, the figures that I have quoted and the deterioration that I have highlighted will continue to be with us.
I was going to refer to this situation regarding homeless families as a scab on our society. But it is not a scab, because a healing takes place under a scab. When the scab falls off, very often healthy tissue is left. I class this as a running sore or an ulcer that is getting worse.
We spend less per capita of our population on housing from central government than any other government in Europe. I think it is time the Government listened to people who from a nonpolitical point of view are deeply concerned with this problem and who keep trying to better the situation for these homeless people.
I hope that your Lordships' debate today will impress upon the Government the need for urgency felt by people of all political persuasions who are
250
grappling with the housing problem. I think it is not too much to ask for a bigger housing investment programme with money targeted towards a crash programme to relieve the stress areas of homelessness. I hope the Minister in his reply will be able to give some encouragement to what I believe is a reasonable request. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing this debate on such a currently worrying subject. It is very good to follow a fellow Yorkshireman in any case, although our views on everything are not always exactly the same.
There is no doubt about the genuine effort made by numbers of voluntary bodies and by some professional practitioners to help people arrange their lives. Yet the United Kingdom is suffering notably from the effect of broken homes, and this is instantly reflected in the total of those who are homeless. With the United Kingdom divorce rate. the second highest in Europe, it is no surprise to find more illegitimate children . and separate establishments. More young people want to leave home at an earlier age, wanting to set up their own establishments away from the family. Quite often they have rather fancy ideas about the accommodation to which they should be entitled.
My own view is that television and advertising programmes do a lot to raise hopes and little to achieve them. Young viewers may realise that while "Dynasty" accommodation is way beyond them, "Coronation Street" shows some fairly tempting pads. This is no criticism but it points to an attendant risk. Our state of greater mobility means that many more people are ready to leave home to follow their job. In a new district they sometimes go to live with friends, but that arrangement very quickly is apt to wear thin, break down, and they then become homeless.
Much the most difficult clients to house among the homeless are families, as we know, with dependent children, pregnant girls and women, and older people, especially if they are mentally handicapped. I recognise these exactly from billeting in the government evacuation scheme.
London has the highest number of those accepted as homeless. Once someone has been recognised as homeless, legislation provides a basic safety net. About one-third of those accepted for housing are found permanent housing straight away in a council house or through a housing association or in a private sector dwelling. Of the rest, some are sent to temporary accommodation and, as the noble Lord mentioned, others to bed and breakfast accommodation in hotels.
Despite my great sympathy for the situation I was very encouraged the other day when I visited the Bayswater centre for mothers and young children from these families. They were coping remarkably well despite their circumstances. I admired the organisers and the way the mothers managed to turn out their children well, notwithstanding their

251
cramped quarters. It was awfully good to see how cheerfully the offspring made use of excellent toys and play equipment, much of which had been given by wellwishers.
I had a very pleasant reason for visiting the centre as the bearer of a cheque given by Thames Television Help Trust. I made a similar visit for the same reason to the Thomas Coram Foundation, where they are hurriedly establishing much more capacious day centres which they hope will include cooking for some ethnic minorities.
It may sound naive, but much is being done to try to prevent homelessness, partly by influencing underlying causes. The Department of the Environment pays for advice for young people about leaving home in an attempt to get them to think realistically. The Government also help to fund the Citizens' Advice Bureaux as they also give advice about mortgage arrears. The Housing Corporation has some very clever plans both in attracting private money into the scheme with grants and in creating more rented accommodation. New forms of home ownership include shared ownership, part buying and part renting, to allow people with low incomes a better chance of ownership. Some families already accepted as homeless have found this to be an attractive option. The Housing Corporation is taking great trouble to chase up empty dwellings on council estates.
With our shortage in precious land supply, many planning schemes are opposed by the conservancy people and others, so surely the quickest and most realistic way to help the homeless must be through existing housing stock. Those of us who long to see a chance for everyone who needs a home have to see that homelessness in the big cities is unlikely to end. This affects not only the young and the broken homes but also the dossers and the tramps. Those are the next generation of those we saw in the 'twenties and 'thirties. It is surprising that the psychologists have not succeeded in doing more to help this inadequacy.
I must end by saying that it is a problem that deserves our combined effort in every practical way, and in this I so much agree with the noble Lord.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, perhaps I may start by very briefly thanking everyone for all the kindnesses shown to me on taking my seat in this noble House. I can only say that I shall do my best to live up to the honour bestowed upon me. May I also congratulate the noble Baroness? I totally agreed with a lot of her speech, especially when she finished up with her compliments to the Housing Corporation.
It was nearly 11 years ago, on 11th February 1977 precisely, when I proposed in the other place that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill be read a second time. Despite the support of the Government of the day and senior civil servants, and, in particular, the former honourable Member for Fulham, Mr. Nick Raynsford (to whom I should like to pay tribute) I cannot claim to have enjoyed the experience of promoting private legislation very much.
252
One minute I was being accused of giving too much ground by the various charitable bodies involved with housing (of which there are many) and the next I was being called various rude names by the chairman and officers of local government housing committees up and down the country. I was often accused of introducing "a charter for scroungers". But it surely was right to give statutory protection to young mothers and the vulnerable elderly, and to move the responsibility for housing them away from the social services, who had no property, to the housing authorities who did.
Despite no fewer than 60 amendments—and I expect that some of your Lordships will remember the occasion—introduced into this House on the very last day of the summer Session, and piloted through the House by my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the Bill finally made it to the statute book and has survived despite several reviews. It has now been consolidated as Part III of the Housing Act 1985.
I was well aware that local authorities were desperately short of housing stock, particularly in the South, and it had been my intention when promoting the Bill to include four clauses dealing with the removal of certain lettings from the protection of permanent security of tenure. But this proved to be too controversial and had to be dropped. I therefore offer my support to that particular part of the new Housing Bill which was recently introduced into the other place.
It was however one of the reasons why I knew that we could not extend the Bill to cover the single homeless, despite its obvious desirability. The local authorities would have revolted and I would have lost the Bill. But what I never imagined was that 10; years later we would have seen the number of the homeless practically double. What a blot on our social record!
Today in my former constituency, the Isle of Wight, the two borough councils have a total of 24 families in bed and breakfast and no fewer than 104 in temporary accommodation, principally wartime prefabs. We still have those. I am told that some in bed and breakfast could be there as long as a year and those in the prefabs much longer. I think that one gentleman has been there 15 years and does not want to move. What is even more worrying is that the trend of acceptances of people being homeless is still upwards. It is not only a human tragedy, but is a terrible waste of public money. The growth industry of today is the one bedroom doss house, the proprietors of which are making good fortunes out of the DHSS. When in force, the Housing Bill may bring more properties on the market to let; but what rents will be demanded? Many people in the housing field are already predicting rises of over 50 per cent. or even worse.
In the current financial year, my two authorities may complete a maximum of 31 housing units and there is no provision whatsoever for any new build in 1988–89. Starts in the public sector in Great Britain are now down to 31,900. I think I am right in saying that this is the lowest since just after the first World War, and that includes Scotland. Homeless acceptances continue to rise. We had 73,600 in 1982 and 104,960 in 1986, and the noble Lord mentioned

253
that the figure has gone up since then. In fact, in the third quarter of 1987 there were 28,700 acceptances. Where are we to look for some relief?—certainly not, it seems, at present to the forthcoming Housing Bill unless there is an unexpected conversion.
I am a founder member of our local housing association which I helped to form in 1973. We now have something like 350 properties. I did that with others at a time when house prices were going through the roof. Many people at that time and since have given literally hundreds of hours to the movement without financial remuneration because they wanted to help their local communities, young and old alike, the disabled and the small offenders from broken family backgrounds. There is even one which has my name on it in Bedford and I am very proud of it. Now it seems that it is to these same housing associations that the Government are likely to look to take over from the local authorities, who in turn, it seems, are to be left with nothing to offer those made homeless priority cases, but houses on run-down estates.
I am asking the Government: please listen to the housing associations and act now before it is too late. Give to them the special type of tenancy agreement which meets their particular needs, and please, too, be more generous with your HAG funding to those housing associations. If not, we shall have a disaster on the rent front.
The urgent need at this time is to identify the areas of greatest stress, and many of these, I have to say, are in the South and West of England. Let us then provide the funds and build the houses and cure this curse once and for all. At the moment, a whole generation are losing an opportunity of being able to acquire a home of their own. My own son aged 31, earning £8,500 a year, bicycles every day to work in Sloane Square and has two children. He has not a hope in blazes of ever buying a house, not even in my own constituency. He has been priced right out of the market and there are many more like him. Frankly, the property pages of Country Life must really seem obscene to them. If they too are not to join the ranks of the homeless, there needs to be some radical rethinking so far as concerns the Government's housing policy. If that cannot be achieved in the other place, I hope and pray that noble Lords will not shrink from the task when it comes to our turn.
5.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have followed a maiden speech and it gives me great pleasure to express the appreciation which I know will be felt by all your Lordships for the careful and informed speech which we have just heard. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, is an experienced politician who, as he told us, represented the Isle of Wight, where I think he still lives. It is a part of the country which is seldom mentioned in this House and I hope that it will be mentioned again, because personal experience often enlivens these debates. I hope—and I am sure that I speak for all of us—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will the right reverend Prelate allow me to intervene? Would he mind sitting down? May I tell him that if he was here more often, he would hear me sounding off about the Isle of Wight on many occasions.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am very sorry. It was a point worth trying to make. But what I want to say—and I am sure that I speak for all of us—is that we look forward very much to the further speeches and contributions that the noble Lord will be making in this House in due course.
It is easy to describe the growing number of homeless families, especially in London and the South—and they are the officially recognised ones—and beyond them, the much larger number of single homeless who are not yet officially recognised. The statistics are there for all of us who care to read and we were given some of them by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, in his opening speech.
It is quite easy to indicate some of the complex and varied reasons for the growth in the number of homeless, such as the breakdown of more marriages, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox; the concentration of jobs in the South; the collapse of the private rented sector; the increased emphasis on community care; the baby boom from 1957 to 1964; the reduction of capital for housebuilding over the past few years and so on. Councils are not allowed to spend quite a lot of the money which they already have.
It is far less easy to understand how a prosperous and highly developed society such as ours can have got into such a miserable tangle of misjudgment, argument and inefficiency, so that numerous families, children and single people are subjected to enormous discomfort and hardship while the rest of us prosper. This, I submit, has now become a crisis—and I use the word advisedly; it is not any longer just a problem, certainly not in London—and indeed something of a moral scandal, which all of us must want to address and address quickly, before the toll of expensive and unnecessary suffering mounts any higher. I believe that I say that for those of all political beliefs and for those who have none.
In a speech which is limited to seven minutes I can make only two main points.
Noble Lords: Six!
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, it has gone down to six minutes. Well, I had first to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. The immediate crisis of homelessness for families and children is centred on the South and London and is symbolised by the growing number in bed and breakfast accommodation. What is needed here is an immediate injection of funds sufficient to bring back into use property which is in disrepair, short-life housing and flats over shops. Local authorities and housing associations know how to do that, given the right financial help and perhaps some technical and administrative support. Schemes could be submitted and a special section of the DoE set up to give them

255
rapid clearance. I should like to see the first line of the job description for all who work there being, "Get moving".
Just over a year ago I wrote to the Minister of Housing, Mr. John Patten, about this problem. I eventually had a courteous reply, much of which concentrated on the need to decontrol rents and promote more mixed funding for rented accommodation. I do not quarrel with either aim as such. After all, we said as much in the Edinburgh housing inquiry. Those are long-term changes which will have only a gradual effect. They will not provide much, if any, low-cost rented housing even then. Without other measures, they will do nothing to relieve the crisis in London caused by the high cost of land. Everyone is agreed on that.
My first and main point is that we must distinguish between the immediate and crying need for which short-term decisive action is now needed and the longer-term changes needed to increase the total stock of rented accommodation but, more especially, low-cost rented housing, for all those who need it.
My second point is that we must recognise how huge the demand already is, not only among homeless families but among the homeless of all ages. Yesterday, my wife and I had the privilege of seeing some of the work done by one of the interval projects of the Rainer Foundation in South London. The foundation offers financial and emotional support to young people who are setting up home for the first time. I wish there was time to tell your Lordships something about the sensitive caring which is being offered. The one thing that stands out in my mind about that visit is that most of those young people could not go back home even if they wanted to do so. Nowadays, there is seldom an extended family. However, it is government policy still further to reduce grants to young people in the near future. The funding of workers in voluntary groups such as this is under constant threat because of other cuts. Do we want more people on the streets, more crime, more people in prison, more people using drugs, more demands on the health service, more prostitution and all the rest?
Money spent on overcoming homelessness and providing adequate accommodation at a rent which people can afford will save money in other ways. Why do we find that so hard to understand? Why do we still make it so difficult for those who are trying to help in an area of such pressing need?
6.3 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the
causes of homelessness are legion. Anyone who visits places where the homeless, especially the single homeless, to whom the right reverend Prelate has referred, gather, realises that all human life is there. One important factor has been the alarming increase over the past three or four years in the amount of homelessness caused by the closure of our large mental hospitals. The closure of such places as Claybury and Friern and the acceptance of patients into the community is obviously welcome and desirable. But caring will only work if there are
256
enough carers and support services. Far too often, people are being discharged from mental hospitals into emergency accommodation with little or no support.
I shall relate one instance of many given to me by the housing adviser to the West London Methodist Mission, which was presided over and directed with such dignity and compassion for so many years by my noble friend Lord Soper. The adviser said:
"A man of 52, known to us for two years, a patient in a Hertfordshire psychiatric hospital for 21 years and diagnosed as a chronic paranoid schizophrenic, was discharged in August 1983 to a large hostel in Central London. During the last 18 months he has drifted from one DHSS reception centre to another. His poor mental state and past history of living in institutions do not equip him for independent living or to cope with the procedures of claiming supplementary benefit. Thus he is reduced to living on hand-outs and begging. This man requires a far more supportive sheltered environment in order for him to find any level of stability".
He continues:
"There is a dramatic increase in the number of people we see who have a history of mental illness".
The classic pattern for both men and women seems to be that although some may be discharged to organisations such as Carr Gomm or the Richmond Fellowship, many are discharged on medication to hostels or reception centres. Many of the hostels are well meaning, but they are large and impersonal. Few have staff who are trained to deal with social and medical problems. Many of the ex-patients are required to look after their own medication when previously that was the hospital's reponsibility. For one reason or another, they cease to take their medication; they lose their accommodation; and they find themselves on the streets. These are not isolated cases.
Dr. Malcolm Weller, who is the consultant psychiatrist at the Friern Hospital, published in The Lancet the results of research he carried out in 1985 and 1986 into "Open Christmas" provided by Crisis at Christmas with which the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, from whom we shall hear, is closely connected, and to whom, with her late husband, society owes a great debt for its initiation. Dr. Weller found that in a sample of the people he studied in the Christmas provision for the single homeless, 34 per cent. were actively psychotic, 36 per cent. had had previous in-patient psychiatric treatment, while about a quarter of those he interviewed were probably schizophrenic. That compares with one in 3,000 in the population generally. The findings tally with research by other groups such as the No-Fixed Address research group in East London and with the experience of' people in mental hospitals and in the voluntary organisations such as the Whitechapel Mission and the West London Mission who are trying to cope with the situation.
However fine, in theory, the closure of the big, old mental hospitals may be, it has degenerated into doing the right thing for the wrong reason: to save money. We can see the practical consequences of that in Whitechapel and the Commercial Road any night of the week. What has already been said, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, in an admirable maiden speech, and by others, has set out the methods that are needed in the housing field if we

257
are to start to cope with the core of the problem. I shall make three brief points about that class of person.
First, we need a major health promotion campaign directed at the homeless, designed to improve their health and to make them aware of their rights to health care as well as to social benefits and to housing provision.
Secondly, as will be said time and time again, I am sure, during the debate, local authorities and health authorities urgently need more resources. They need resources to train medical and social staff, notably community psychiatric nurses, a very rare commodity. We need many more. The authorities need money to provide direct access hostels for those who are squatting and living rough. Something like one-third of the single homeless are living in squats and "skippering".
Finally, we need to slow down the process of closing wards and discharging patients from mental hospitals until there has been a thorough appraisal of what has happened to patients who have been discharged, that is to say, putting flesh on the bones of the reports produced by the Audit Commission.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, on two counts I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport: first, for his maiden speech; secondly, I was director of the social services when he worked towards the moving of housing of the homeless from the social services to housing. For that I was deeply grateful. Inevitably, we shall all cover some of the same points.
I should like first of all, as many other noble Lords have done, to take up the really appalling situation with regard to bed-and-breakfast hotels. We are all responsible for this, whatever political party we come from. The problem was there in 1968. I remember holding a public meeting about bed-and-breakfast way back in 1968. It is sad that both at the local level and at government level we have allowed this to escalate year by year so that it is now like Pandora's box, almost out of control and extraordinarily difficult to deal with.
Those in hotels of this kind have been very fully dealt with in a report to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has already referred, by the Thomas Coram Foundation. That foundation has done a very good report, it states that the families in bed-and-breakfast hotels are without ownership. They own very little themselves and are largely disowned by the support organisations other than the few which have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and the right reverend Prelate. On the whole, they are unseen by central government, unwanted by the host boroughs and neglected by the home services.
That leads me to take up a point of management. I shall now only refer to London because the Thomas Coram report was about London. Local authorities in London seek a bed-and-breakfast vacancy in a borough which is not the borough where the family originally lived. They find a place in another borough and therefore the family move from the host
258
borough. It is in this way that the family is lost, it is lost by its own local authority which is responsible for housing it, it is lost by the voluntary organisations which it knew in its own host borough. One must put in a plea to the London boroughs to have a management structure between themselves. I have to say that managerially the London boroughs are not working together. They are not formulating an overall policy for London. I think this is one of the great tragedies.
I am bound to mention the position of children in bed-and-breakfast hotels. The children are showing signs of disturbance, signs of ill-health. Many of them are not attending school and they are not pursued by the schools because the schools do not always have the names of the children who live in that borough since they are not in their own borough. Managerially this is a very serious situation. We are bringing up a number of children in our city who will themselves be homeless and unable to manage their affairs when they grow up.
Perhaps I may take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on mental patients which was very clearly brought out in the Audit Commission's report. Many of the bed and breakfast hotels where there are single women and children have a number of mental patients from hospitals. I have no time to say (nor if I had the time would I tell you, my Lords) what goes on in some of those bed-and-breakfast hotels. None of us knows. If it went on in other places there would be a number of court cases; but the people in bed-and-breakfast hotels will not complain because they are frightened of losing their rooms. This is a really serious situation.
I should like to refer to the number of empty properties in London. That has already been referred to. That amounts to 94,000 empty houses in the private sector and 28,000 in the public sector. Perhaps noble Lords will correct me later if I am wrong; but could we not do as we did during the war and requisition those properties, pay a rent to the people from whom they are requisitioned and give them back at a time when those people need them? It is a scandal that there are so many empty properties which are not in use and which we could use. We did it during the war, and I say that there is a war on with regard to homeless families and that this should be considered.
I then go on, as other noble Lords have done, to costs. The cost of a flat for a homeless husband, wife and two children is £7,601; bed and breakfast costs between £14,000 and £17,000 a year. What are we doing throwing this money away? I come back to the war, during the war we had mobile homes. I would much rather live in a mobile home than in a flat or one room in one of these terrible bed-and-breakfast hotels.
There are many other points to which I could refer, but I shall just touch on a last one and the right reverend Prelate will know I am going to touch on it. That is the sense of responsibility. I have not had the time nor or would I think it wise to give the amount of money which is owing in London boroughs. If everybody paid their rent, if managerially the housing departments saw to it that people paid their

259
rents, there would be much more money to build houses instead of calling for further government resources. We need better management in the housing sector.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, from the speeches of all the noble Lords who have already taken part in this short debate, there is little doubt that in the United Kingdom there is much unnecessary human suffering and misery arising out of the growing number of homeless people. Perhaps I may in this respect compliment the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, on his maiden speech, a very telling and moving speech on this occasion and one which I shall remember. I hope he will feel very much at home in this place and a part of the proceedings.
I wish to speak about homelessness in Northern Ireland. At the outset I should declare that I place housing as one of the three crucial issues confronting the Government, the politicians and the citizens of Northern Ireland. The first issue and the greatest need is community peace and the freedom from terrorism and fear. The second is the chronic unemployment and absence for many of the hope of regular paid work. Those two essential human requirements for civilised living are inextricably linked with the need for adequate housing accommodation for all.
The problem of homelessness among the young and the old is essentially the problem of an inadequate housing stock. In this respect Northern Ireland has a greater problem than any other region of the United Kingdom. The population of Northern Ireland represents 2.8 per cent. of the total United Kingdom population, yet the Province contains only 2 per cent. of the total housing stock. Some 27 per cent. of that housing stock is in need of remedial action, as compared with 20 per cent. of England's stock.
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, as the public body responsible for housing, has made much headway over recent years in improving the Province's housing stock through its new build, its redevelopment, its improvement and its repair programmes. However there are still 24,000 people currently on the housing executive's waiting list. Of these 6,842 are living under shared, crowded accommodation conditions and have a priority rating on the waiting list. While the precise number of homeless people in Northern Ireland is difficult to assess, some 5,500 present themselves annually as registered homeless.
In Northern Ireland there is no specific legislation to deal with homelessness but the Government have announced their intention to enact legislation in regard to this homelessness within the next year. The legislative provisions are those already enacted in Great Britain in the Housing Act 1985 and the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. We have already heard that those two Acts have indeed done little or nothing to lessen the acute homelessness problem throughout Great Britain. Yet we are proposing to enact the very same legislation in Northern Ireland to deal with this terrible problem.
260
The legislation is anticipated to place additional responsibilities on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, yet I understand that there will be no additional resources made available to that housing executive. Indeed recently the Government announced cuts of at least £118 million in the executive's housing programme over the next three years.
I have already mentioned that the legislation is to be similar to that enacted in Great Britain so I do not wish to go into the details of what this means and how people's rights will be affected under the legislation. But it will certainly mean that single people who are homeless will receive limited assistance. Indeed the changes in the board and lodging regulations and in single payments will adversely affect single people. Studies which have already taken place in Northern Ireland show that single people represent the majority of homeless people. Somewhere in the region of 60 per cent. or more of homeless people are single.
The introduction of legislation coincides with the implementation of the community care programme by the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services. The statutory and voluntary agencies involved in housing have already identified growing numbers of ex-psychiatric patients being returned to the community. In addition, there are those with personality and social problems who are in need of the care and attention that has already been mentioned in this debate. We should be aware that the legislation has already been in existence here for a number of years and yet we are imposing it on the situation in Northern Ireland.
There is much that I could deal with in this debate but I see that time is running out. The burden of what I wish to say is that Northern Ireland has a crucial housing problem. There is a growing number of homeless persons in both the urban and the rural areas in the Province. The proposed legislation will neither resolve nor remove the social problems and the human misery of homelessness. What is required is co-ordinated, effective human and financial resources. We have already heard that special projects are necessary. The Government have proposed the ends; they should will the necessary resources to take care of this particular problem.
Let me conclude by requesting the Minister who is to reply to the debate to use his good offices to draw my few remarks about Northern Ireland to the attention of the Northern Ireland Office. I hope that that office will rise to the occasion and remedy the situation that I see in Northern Ireland.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, the House will be particularly grateful for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, on two counts and perhaps on many more. Those two counts are the historic setting in which he put the case to which we are directing our attention now and the sense of crisis which infused what he had to say. I shall begin with the latter point. I regard the situation as unnecessarily deplorable and as one that demands a radical approach if any permanent solution is to be attained.

261
I think it is necessary to remind ourselves at the outset that there is a difference between (shall we say?) houselessness and homelessness. Homelessness is the personal result of houselessness but it has a much deeper significance than can be answered by the provision of housing stock. I suggest that it is necessary in a very short speech to say something about the underlying principle upon which a successful approach to this problem should be made. After all, bed and breakfast accommodation is a form of homelessness and a very terrible form of it. The large numbers of single unemployed or single homeless which are not quantified are in my estimation, from the experience which comes my way, increasing hand over fist.
What is even more significant is that there is a higher rate of delinquency among the single homeless, as I have every reason to know from the hostels in which I have been engaged where we have tried to do something for youngsters who have nowhere to put their heads down at night. The problem, as I see it, is one of principle. I happen to believe that the question of food, clothing and shelter is imperative. It springs from the concept I have of the Christian faith and in some measure is already represented in some aspects, particularly food. No one would tolerate in a so-called enlightened community a starvation process which would be terminal unless succour were offered. No one would suggest that the concern for clothing is a matter which can be left to market forces. In that case why should we not agree that the third of this trilogy is as imperative for those who are concerned with the wellbeing of the community as it is natural to the wellbeing of those who may suffer from these deficiencies. As I say, that deficiency has a terminal effect but not nearly so quickly as the denial of food or clothing.
I tried out this theory a few hours ago on Tower Hill. We had a fairly damp time but I was gratified to discover that a crowd which does not always agree with me by any means was almost unanimous in recognising the obligation to provide the opportunity at least of shelter just as much as the obligation to provide food and clothing. That is the beginning of the answer: we have an obligation at least to offer to everybody, whether or not they can pay for it, the opportunity of having somewhere to lay their head and a roof over them when they go to bed. In my judgment it is not a matter of choosing, as the present Government do, between those who are entitled to be housed if they are in families and those who are not entitled to be housed if they happen to be single.
I wish to make one or two suggestions very quickly which I think are necessary in the light of this overall sense of compulsion. The first, with which I heartily agree, is that we are in a crisis in which requisition if it is necessary is perfectly justified. Indeed it may be the only way in which we can reclaim for occupation the kind of premises which have been lying rotting for so long and which must be an insult to those who pass them by and know that they must sleep out or, if they can sleep at all, in doorways.
Secondly, I am quite sure that there is a paramount need for the provision of rented accommodation. That is the only possible way that many of the
262
youngsters today can meet the demands that would be required. They certainly cannot pay rents that will increase. They certainly are in no position to acquire properties and become property owners.
I put forward those two propositions which, in my judgment, demand immediate concern and for which I suggest there is an altogether antecedent problem which has already been faced in the questions and issues of war. This is warfare. Even in my old age I feel militant about it. I know, from the experience of being a social worker for so long, that houselessness and homelessness are perhaps the most terrible inflictions that can be imposed on people. Their effects are increasingly disastrous.
We have the money and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to dispose of it. I suppose that the answer will be to give power to the people. I want power for the people who do not have any power. The power to live somewhere is absolutely their right. If there are those who say that we cannot afford it, then I conclude by saying, not with any trepidation, that I am in favour of finding that money by a wholesale reduction in the money spent on the killing processes of war. That is part of our bounden duty and service, not only as Christians—as I try to be—but above all as members of the kind of society that calls itself caring. I want to care for those who cannot care for themselves.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I emphasise at the outset that the problem which we have been discussing is not confined to the United Kingdom. We know that there are large numbers of single homeless people in France, where emergency provision was made for them during the cold winter last year. We read that the Pope recently gave a dinner in Rome for the homeless. In the United States I understand that in New York and other large cities the problem is perhaps even as grave as it is in Britain. I mention that because I recommend that the Government study the situation in those countries, as well as such remedies as may have been found.
It was John Masefield who said:
"He who gives a child a home builds palaces in Kingdom come".
What a lovely thought that is! Perhaps for the word "child" we may substitute the word "person".
As I see it, the real tragedy as regards the single homeless is that most of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has mentioned, have no right to housing under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke with her usual wide knowledge of conditions in bed-and-breakfast hotels. However, it is not only bed and breakfast hotels which are used to accommodate the homeless. There are also night shelters and hostels. In most of those, as in the bed-and-breakfast hotels, we find lack of privacy, cramped and sometimes unsanitary conditions and lack of proper decoration, although conditions may vary.
I am sure that all those who have had more experience than I in this field will agree that the community spirit in those institutions is tremendously strong. I remember, Christmas before last, walking along under the arches in Charing

263
Cross. I saw the usual distressing collection of people sleeping in cardboard boxes. Not a single one of those people complained to me about conditions. They all said, "Happy Christmas" with a cheerful smile. That is a wonderful thing.
Perhaps I may share one or two personal experiences with your Lordships to bring the problem rather closer than might otherwise be possible. I remember walking past Westminster Underground station a year or so ago. I saw a homeless woman in black rags. She was dishevelled and distressed. Her body, so far as one could see, was covered in dirt. One was immediately reminded of someone out of a Dickens novel. A bit further on near the same station I met a man who was unable to talk. He was sitting in a corner shivering.
Perhaps the most revealing experience was near my own Underground station of Gloucester Road. I saw a man lying on the forecourt of the station, coughing his lungs out. No one stopped. As in the parable of the Good Samaritan, everyone passed by on the other side. The point is that the man was taken to a hospital and treated. Four or five days later, I saw the same man back on the streets again. I am sure that that situation is paralleled in many cases.
I shall not detain your Lordships' House for very long. However, I wish to refer to what I believe is a marvellous organisation which has not been mentioned by any noble Lord so far. The organisation is called CHAR. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, nodding her head. CHAR is the campaign for the homeless and roofless. It has made four recommendations for emergency accommodation. The first recommendation is that accommodation should be provided with single rooms rather than dormitories. There should be a maximum of 30 bed spaces in each hostel.
The hostels should be open to residents at all times. What is more distressing than seeing those people turned out from their accommodation in the middle of the day to fend for themselves in cold and unpleasant conditions? The next recommendation is that there should be adequate staffing with good working conditions for staff in order to maintain morale. That is hard to achieve in those situations. There should also be links with a range of other accommodation and services. Finally, there should be no limit to the length of stay. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some assurance that those recommendations will be studied.
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I should like to draw out what I think is an implication contained in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, which has been either implied or stated by earlier speakers. However, I mention it at the beginning of my speech because I may find myself being cut short later on. If there is one single step which can make a difference, it will be to introduce legislation to place a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide housing for the single homeless. There are also other important reforms which have been touched on in this debate.
264
There are various views concerning the Government. Some people say that they are successful and others that they are unsucccessful. However, I do not believe that there can be any doubt that they are the most self-satisfied government within living memory. I do not apply that phrase to any of the members of the Government who are surviving on the Front Bench today. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is not a self-satisfied man at all and I think he will find it even more difficult, therefore, to cope with the arguments rather than simply say, "We have done wonders". However, he will make his own speech when he gets to it.
I cannot keep altogether silent in a debate on homelessness which has been started so well by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], has been called by me on other occasions a humanitarian mole. I think that that phrase is more apposite than ever today. She took us back to 1968. In 1968, I left the government of the day for educational reasons. At that time I was obsessed with the helplessness of young people. I took the initiative in starting New Horizon for young people, which continues to prosper. I am no longer running that organisation but for many years I was the chairman. I believe that it now looks after about 3,000 people.
A great change has come about in the composition of young people since we began that organisation 20 years ago. Those were the days of full employment. That went on for some little while and gradually we came to the opposite situation, which has obtained now for a number of years. However, this is not a debate on unemployment. If one is talking about homelessness one cannot divorce oneself from the fact that this Government have presided over enormous unemployment, and that is the background to this whole discussion.
At any rate, in those days there was full employment and the people who came to us were people with problems—what we would call personality problems. We did not get a great many people who were what would be called normal. Now, however, ordinary young people are in a position in which they have to go there or to similar places because otherwise there is ho hope left for them in life. I am glad to think that we see a lot more women than we used to, and more black people—women and black people whom I hope can be called normal. Our clientele are thoroughly normal today and come as a result of unemployment and the total absence of adequate accommodation.
I am assured from my conversations with them that the vast majority of those young people are totally insecure in their accommodation. I am informed that they have probably bedded down in at least 12 different places during the past year. That is their life. That is what we are doing for them. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, sees the full moral implications, as do other speakers. We shall be lucky if those young people do not turn into hooligans or criminals.
What about the conditions that produce hooliganism and crime? We ought as a community to be thoroughly ashamed. One ought to be careful

265
about imputing blame to anyone where the guilt is fairly widespread. The present Government have been in power for eight years and claim a phenomenal degree of success. So noble Lords heard earlier today when we were told that this country is now the wonder of the world. The theory of the Government is that if they make the rich richer the benefits spill over to the poor. Well, they are not spilling over to the homeless, and I think it is a terrible story that the Minister has to defend tonight.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, anyone who has been a public representative at council or parliamentary level or in some other capacity will know that the problems of housing and homelessness are the most intractable and the most frequent that have to be dealt with.
I shall not rehearse the details so ably presented by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick and others during the debate. There is widespread agreement that we are faced with a mounting toll of human misery. At the same time a proportion of people in our society is paid to move out of satisfactory accommodation and to occupy desperately needed accommodation in other parts of the country. These are the students in higher education.
The students come mainly from middle and upper class backgrounds. I am sure your Lordships will be aware of the anxiety of the universities that so few students from working-class backgrounds attend higher education. While there are over 100,000 families who are homeless, society is actually encouraging the luxury of paying higher education students to move out of satisfactory accommodation. I do not find that a very easy argument to present, because most of the people to whom I address it are successful products of this system. But the fact remains that this is one of the worst causes of our housing problems.
Universities and polytechnics, even though they control 190,000 bed spaces themselves, cannot provide accommodation for more than half of their registered students. The 1985–86 figures for England and Wales show that only 6 per cent. of university students and 25 per cent. of polytechnic students studied from the parental or marital home. That leaves approximately half a million extra people unnecessarily competing with the homeless in the decreasing private sector of rented housing. Having taken up this housing the students then leave it vacant for perhaps 20 weeks of the year.
Students are not only competing, but, in some areas, have an unfair advantage because their institutions frequently own property in the town or have made special leasing arrangements with local landlords. Very often, I am afraid, students will accept substandard accommodation which ought to be repaired and is unfit for families. So there is very real pressure from this source.
It is a fact that hundreds of thousands of units of accommodation would be released if students were not automatically given the option of studying away from home. This would ease the housing crisis immediately without any large-scale building works.
266
Temporary accommodation would be available on campuses for homeless people who, very often for the first time in their lives, would be able to experience the enrichment of living in decent surroundings. Such surroundings, as my noble friend Lord Murray pointed out, have important mental and physical effects on health. It would make much more efficient use of our resources if we were to look at this situation very seriously. It would also solve the problems of many students who say that a great deal of their time is taken up with housing, as is a great deal of the institutions' time.
It is now nearly 30 years since the Anderson Report on student grants appeared. The report did not envisage the growth that has occurred in student numbers and the problems of housing and homelessness. Our new priorities should be to expand educational facilities and to provide homes for people. We should not be concentrating on providing students with second homes. We must loosen the tradition of going away to study. There is no objective evidence to show that academic results are better if students move away from home rather than stay at home. The arguments always put forward are that it is a maturing process, growing up, and so on. But students who put this point to me always rebut any suggestion about the benefits of the possible reintroduction of National Service. It is time that we asked students to think seriously about helping us with this housing problem.
To take my own city of Bristol, only 2 per cent. of Bristol University students and 15 per cent. of first year Bristol polytechnic students live in the marital or parental home. In Bristol, there are some 700 people officially homeless, and the 1986 council survey showed that there were 6,400 homeless single people living in unsatisfactory and unfit acommodation. If Glasgow, with over 50 per cent. of students living at home, and Strathclyde (over 70 per cent.) can do it, why cannot we in England? Nobody has ever said to me that the Scottish higher education system is in any way inferior to ours. Who are we asking to make this purely subjective sacrifice? We are asking the young people in society, the ablest and most gifted who are getting a free public education to prepare them for a qualification which will earn them a living for life. If the students and the authorities were asked to reassess the situation, we would solve the problem of homelessness in three years and release thousands of millions of pounds' worth of resources for other purposes.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, time is very short so I shall omit the courtesies and not repeat any of the figures that have been given today. They are well known. They are horrific. They have been known for so long that I am surprised that such a debate is necessary. The Government should have taken crisis action quite a long time ago. I also believe that in addition to the horrific figures that we have been given, there are a great number of people for whom the Government do not acknowledge that they have any responsibility—the people one finds sleeping in cardboard boxes when one goes home on the Underground, those sleeping in the backs of cars, and

267
those sleeping near the brickworks, where at least it is warm.
I have been interested and involved in housing all my active life and know the problems of the homeless. I know, and the Government must know, that ever since the beginning of this century, and probably for a long time before—I guess it will continue at least until the end of the century—at least a fifth of the population could not afford to pay even fair rents. We experienced that in the trust that I was concerned with for some 35 years. We tried to build houses so that people on lower incomes could pay a rent. It was absolutely impossible and never worked. This has to be faced and we have to realise that subsidised housing must be provided probably for ever.
I am one of those who believe that the responsibility must be on the shoulders of local government, but it must be given the resources to do it. It has quite a lot of money of its own which it is not allowed to use to repair those houses that are standing empty and are dilapidated. If this is not acceptable to the Government, I suggest that special grants should be made available to housing associations so that they may do the work. What is more, more money for the housing associations should be made available for the private sector where houses are in an even worse condition in many cases than in the public sector.
Money must be made available, if it is not already, for the voluntary bodies to run day centres to help the bed-and-breakfast people who have nothing to do and nowhere to go during the daytime. That is a very important provision. There is no doubt whatever that the first and immediate thought must be given to housing for rent.
I have a proposition which, rather like that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, I ask your Lordships to consider. We are told that bed-and-breakfast accommodation is costing many young people £65 a week. That is nearly £3,400 per annum. I believe that university-type hostels with self-contained units for two people could be built for approximately £20,000, perhaps less. Even if it costs more, my argument does not fall to the ground. If the cost were £20,000, at 10 per cent. £2,000 per year could be funded from the private sector, from institutions, and so on. That would save £4,800 per unit. This is something that must be looked at and a start made on providing this sort of accommodation. It would not just be accommodation, but real homes for a great many people.
I believe that the money could be raised from institutional sources and that a national housing loan would be well taken by people. It would have no effect on the PSBR. If money is raised by the Government through the banks, that becomes inflationary and affects the PSBR. There is no reason whatsoever why the money should not be raised from the public in the ordinary way, just as vast sums were raised for the privatisation programme.
I say again that we are in a crisis situation. Quite frankly, only crisis steps can put this right and not only help the thousands of people who have no houses but stop the continuing misery.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Dean for giving us this further opportunity to discuss the problem of homelessness. I congratulate him on his opening remarks. I join in the tribute paid by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and others, to CHAR and the voluntary organisations Shelter and SHAC which have waged a ceaseless campaign for 15 years or so, trying to improve the conditions of homeless households and single people.
It is a depressing thought that in spite of all the campaigning and the publicity on press and television, the problems of the homeless are worse than they were when we first started. In fact a recent Shelter report commenting on the statistics for the first half of last year, 1987, stated that homelessness is now at the highest level ever recorded. The use of emergency accommodation is now higher than ever before; bed and breakfast accommodation is being used more and more as emergency accommodation. Indeed, the most rapid increase in the use of bed and breakfast has taken place not in inner London where one might expect and where everybody thinks it has taken place, but in the Home Counties; in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey and Sussex. The problem is spreading nationwide and is not now just confined to the inner cities about which we know so much.
The increase in the Home Counties in 1986–87 was double the increase in inner London. That is nothing to be proud of, but it is fact. All the statistics that we can mention—we have mentioned many in this debate and others—are only the tip of the iceberg, as has already been said. The statistics only take account of those people who satisfy the criteria of the Homeless Persons Act 1978. Many hundreds of thousands are homeless. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, mentioned them and we could go into much greater detail. Many thousands are not registered, but they are just as homeless and are living in probably more squalid conditions, if possible, than some of the others. We ought to hear that in mind.
There are many facets. For example, the statistics do not take account of the official waiting list. The official waiting list of local authorities now stands at nearly 1½ million people. Many of those are living in conditions that, if the definition of homelessness were more definite, we would include in the homeless category. We know that about 11,000 people are accommodated at present in bed and breakfast, 5,000 in hostels—and hostel accommodation is rapidly dwindling—and another 7,000 in short-life accommodation. Between 1,000 and 3,000 at any one time are living in cardboard boxes, as has already been mentioned. We know that roughly 12,500 people are squatting in London.
The problems are immense. It has been said that we ought not to have another debate, but that the Government should have listened and done something about it. Governments of all descriptions have done very little about the problem since 1970. Children in bed and breakfast accommodation were mentioned. We know that in London at present 15,000 children are so accommodated. Most of those

269
children will spend most of their pre-school life in bed and breakfast accommodation in places such as Camden and other inner London areas. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, this is causing great concern to health authorities and social services departments in those areas where the problem exists.
Some of the causes of homelessness have been mentioned. I do not want to go over those, except to say something about what the Government are allegedly doing about the problem. The Government believe that their Housing Bill, now before Parliament, will create a resurgence in private renting. But once again virtually all commentators have pointed out that the proposed decontrol of rent and removal of security of tenure are unlikely to lead to an increase in the supply of privately rented dwellings. The fact is that two-thirds of new lettings are already outside rent control and have been for a number of years, yet the privately rented sector continues to decline by about 70,000 a year.
Further, landlords have had the option of creating assured tenancies or shorthold tenancies since 1980 on a market rent basis and only 700 assured tenancies have been created since then.
The Association of Municipal Authorities, and many other organisations such as the House Builders' Federation, have pointed out that the economics of private market rent do not add up. Market rents in London would be between £150 and £300 per week and at least £75 outside London. The average family cannot afford such rents. The only people who can afford them are those who can also afford to buy. That is what is happening.
Housing benefit is not available to bridge the gap for those on low incomes. In fact 100 per cent. housing benefit is guaranteed only to those people who are on supplementary benefits. Housing benefit is being withdrawn from people in work at the rate of 85p in the pound. In other words, for every £1 earned over the housing benefit, 85p will be taken from the wage packet. Probably nobody in work could afford market rents, certainly not in London or its environs. Tenants' choice will do very little, as I could explain if there were more time.
In spite of all that has been said, the existing government proposals will do little, if anything; in fact, they will worsen the situation of homelessness. I suggest that we bend our minds towards trying to introduce as many changes in the housing legislation before us as a first constructive attempt to do something about the problems of homelessness.
7 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I also wish to support strongly but briefly the quest of my noble friend Lord Dean for real action to achieve a result in the present homeless situation. Over the past two years the volume of homelessness in the Home Counties has increased by over 80 per cent. It is now far worse than in 1968 and it is continually worsening.
For many years I represented a London constituency in another place, as did my noble friend Lord Stallard. Judging by the letters that I received,
270
and from approaches made to me during constituency surgery, throughout that time I learnt that housing was far the most important hardship suffered by people, particularly in the London area. Out of all the subjects affecting people at that time, four out of five people appealed to me about housing. Whatever one may think about the causes, it is not the fault of the young children living a miserable bed and breakfast existence that they have been reduced to that level.
I believe that the remedy for the present housing and homeless situation in this country is perfectly plain. It is greatly to increase the number of homes to let at reasonable rents. Of course it is sensible to encourage housing associations and other collective landlords of low-rented houses, provided that we also vigorously expand the stock of council houses and flats. It is the reduction in that stock which has produced the present situation. Of course it is sensible for actual council tenants to buy their homes if they wish; but it should have been on the condition that when they were sold they were sold back to the council. The reasonable wish of people to live in their own homes, without reducing the stock of council houses, could then have been met. The present Government's failure to make such conditions strengthens the suspicion of some people that their housing policy is really an electioneering policy and not a housing policy at all.
Certainly home ownership should be encouraged; but the homes that are to be owned should come mainly from the private sector and new private building and not necessarily from the council stock. It is not necessary that houses should be taken from council stock in order that people should own their own houses; we need both sectors. The present Government's attack on council housing, which appears to me to spring almost solely from the Prime Minister's feud with local government in all forms and particularly with council housing, is the main factor which has led to the present situation of homelessness. As that statement is the truth, I think that noble Lords should say so bluntly in this House.
Present housing policies are not saving money, as many noble Lords have pointed out today. The most ludicrous feature of the situation is that the cost of the dreadful bed-and-breakfast homes has risen to a level at which the Prime Minister is not able to satisfy her other heartfelt passion for saving public money. I believe that at a time when we are told almost daily to expect a huge budget surplus with large presents of money going to those with already the largest incomes, the present state of homelessness in this country, particularly in the South-East of England, is not only a national disaster but is becoming a national scandal.
7.4 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I agree with all noble Lords that this is a grave matter. All noble Lords have taken on board the fact that we in this House are deeply concerned about the present state of homelessness and the housing shortage. It brings tragedy to so many people. But why are people homeless? It is fundamentally a social problem. We

271
must realise that one in four married couples divorce, therefore two homes are needed instead of one; that one in five births are to unmarried mothers and they need a home. We know that unemployed people come South to try to find homes, but there is none to rent. We know also that young people are taking it upon themselves to leave their homes for whatever reason—perhaps unhappiness—and to come South, and that they need a home too. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, people discharged from mental hospitals form a large proportion of those who have no homes not through any fault of their own but because there are no homes available. I have mentioned those few categories (not in any specific order) because they all contribute to the lack of housing and to the homeless.
On 1st April last year there were 102,000 council dwellings standing empty. I should like to support my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I believe that if the local authorities are not using those dwellings, there should be a form of requisitioning. A quarter of those dwellings were empty for more than a year. In London 27,000 properties were vacant, 9,800 of which were vacant for more than a year. That is bad management and bad control; and it is not using the resources which they should have. Those people who have homes should be paying rents to the authorities throughout the country. Throughout the country £212 million is owed in rent. One thinks what could be done if one had that amount of money to spend on those who need houses and homes.
It has become clear to all noble Lords tonight that more must be done. I have been advised by those to whom I have been talking that it is the housing corporations which should be better funded by government, and through them the housing associations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. They help people of all kinds and in all situations, both in renting and buying accommodation.
I hope that I am not taking up time in the wrong way; but I should like to pay a deserved tribute to those who, in a voluntary capacity, help not only the single homeless but the homeless throughout the country. There are large numbers of agencies and associations not only in London but throughout the country which help such people completely voluntarily. They occasionally receive a local authority grant, but they are nearly always staffed by volunteers. I should like to pay tribute to those people who give up their time in order to help others less fortunate than themselves.
I should like to use the minute that I have left to tell noble Lords what it is that we do at Crisis at Christmas. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who is now our chairman. I was chairman for a long time and I think I have now been demoted to president. Crisis at Christmas epitomises all that we want to do for those who are without a home, without roots, without housing and very often without roofs.
This happens at Christmas time for seven days and seven nights. I should like to pay my personal tribute to Members of your Lordships' House who sing on
272
the station platforms and who come and wash up for us at the open Christmas. One or two have even walked from Canterbury to London in aid of, and raising money for, Crisis at Christmas. We have an open Christmas for upwards of 500 people for seven days and seven nights at Christmas time, very often in a disused warehouse. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, also visits us.
At this point I should like to mention Mr. Terry Waite, who last year helped us every day by washing up and by being kind to people. I can see that the Opposition Chief Whip is having a good look at his watch, so I should just like to thank everybody for all the help that they have given to Crisis at Christmas.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, as has been said earlier, homelessness is increasing tremendously, quite rapidly. We ought to do something to reduce it and abolish it, but we do not seem to be doing anything. Homelessness has doubled in the past eight years. Worse than that, we are aware of the increasing homelessness and yet it has increased by 14 per cent. over the past two years. Therefore, the condemnation of us for allowing this to happen is considerable.
Moreover, as has been said before, the figures that we have for homelessness relate to people who have been accepted by the local authorities. There are nearly as many who have applied—which means that they consider themselves to be homeless and have not been accepted. Therefore, we have to keep that figure at the back of our minds because the local authorities only cater for the priority areas—those who by law they have to look after; for example, people with children, those who are over pensionable age or who are judged to be vulnerable. That is what the Act tells them they must do. The rest are not looked after at all.
As the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said, one of the biggest problems is the increase in single homelessness. Nobody seems to be taking that on board because, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said, it is attendant with many problems; namely, crime, drugs and other aspects which are attendant on these single people who are homeless. Therefore, it probably costs society a lot more than people seem to realise.
Even the people who are accepted as homeless are put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, as has been mentioned. That is very unsatisfactory, particularly for children. It is also associated with a great deal of ill-health. What is worse, they have difficulty in receiving primary care because they are not registered with doctors. There are plans to pay doctors directly to look after those people rather than have them registered. I believe that will help to deal with the problem. However, it is a serious problem.
In the next few minutes I should like to talk about government proposals. They will probably make the position worse rather than better. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. The Government have set as their goal stopping the decline in private rental housing. I am not saying that is a bad objective, but even if they succeed it will not help the problem of homelessness because success can only be achieved by

273
providing houses at market rents; and market rents are not within the capacity of people on a low or average income. Therefore, they also need to be provided with some accommodation other than that.
There are proposals on housing associations; but they are really proposals to privatise them, reduce their subsidy and make them increase their rent. That too will make the situation more difficult. Therefore, the proposals coming before us, far from reducing homelessness, may well increase it. I merely ask noble Lords to remember that mortgage arrears and subsequent repossession is one of the largest causes of homelessness. I ask noble Lords to try to remember that fact.
There are many people who are suffering quite unnecessarily because, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, pointed out, the cost of keeping people in bed and breakfast can provide good homes. In fact, it has been estimated that the cost of keeping two people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation would amortise provisions for building three houses. In any case, as we all know, the local authorities have £8,000 million in capital receipts which they wish to use but which they are not allowed to use.
Again, as I said on a previous occasion, I do not defend the fact that there are houses which are not let when they should be in occupation, but many are not let because they need to be repaired. If there is this restriction on funds and on capital expenditure the councils cannot even repair the houses. Therefore, I really and truly say to the Minister that, whatever may have been his brief today, I want him to take back to his right honourable friend that we can and should tackle homelessness urgently. There have been several proposals made here earlier this evening which could be carried out now; for example, requisitioning empty properties. In any case, there is need for a very large housebuilding programme and the money is available to do it.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, some 30 years ago there was in circulation a bitter jest which, I believe, was of American origin and ran as follows: "Do not believe all this you hear about a housing shortage; it is just a rumour put about by people who have nowhere to live". That rumour has become louder and more insistent. It is fearful that the problem of homelessness is twice as great as it was only a few years ago. One of the results of that is the putting of people into bed-and-breakfast accommodation which, by common consent, is wildly expensive, often squalid, damaging to family life, to the upbringing of children and the opportunity for children to benefit from the education which a benevolent government may provide for them.
What is the remedy for this? The suggestion is that there are too many divorces. However, we cannot solve the housing problem by prohibiting people from getting divorced. We have to deal with the problem as it is, regrettable as that may be. The real reason is that there is not enough accommodation available at reasonable rents. The noble Lord, Lord
274
Seebohm, made it clear that if one wants to provide housing, for most people it has to be subsidised. Of course people who buy their houses have had subsidised housing via income tax for a long time and this must be generally accepted.
I believe that we ought to have in the Department of the Environment, as a result of special legislation, somebody who has the power to encourage and to help local authorities to get on with building, to allow them to use the money which they have for housing, to co-ordinate the work of local authorities with the work of housing associations and, adding to that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull suggested, if need be, the power of requisition. I remember what a headache requisitioning was to the authorities at the time. It is a measure of how far we have gone back that we are having to consider using that rather desperate remedy. I certainly would not say no if it were necessary in order to deal with the problem.
I believe that is how the Government need to look at the problem. As everyone has said, there is a crisis; there is almost a war situation requiring special legislation and special powers. These remedies can perfectly well be implemented. It is quite true that they will cost money. We are always told that a problem cannot be solved by throwing money at it. It is also painfully true that a problem that needs money cannot be solved without spending money on it. The Government really must understand that.
I believe that if the Government gave themselves the legislative power to bring together the work of the local authorities and the housing associations, introduced requisitioning and provided or made possible the use of the necessary funds, we could solve this problem. It is horrifying but it is not as great a problem as some of the problems with which we have had to deal in the past. It is a problem that we could deal with if we had the mind and the will.
7.21 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, we all seem to agree that homelessness is the most evil thing for all members of our society. The very thought of my not having a roof over my head strikes fear in my heart and I have the security of knowing that the possibility is remote. To 120,000 households, the possibility is a reality. We have heard very clearly tonight of the problems they face and many noble Lords have offered helpful solutions.
As might be expected, I propose to confine myself to the effect that homelessness has on health. Homeless families who do not fit into the priority needs categories laid down by local authorities or for whom local authorities cannot provide suitable accommodation have the alternatives of accepting bed and breakfast in designated hotels, overnight accommodation in hostels, or living rough. Whatever happens they are going to be severely deprived of primary health care and as a result will need to depend upon already overstretched hospital services.
The Victorians recognised that one of the greatest evils in society was poor housing. They recognised also the effect it had upon health. The social reformers of more than 100 years ago did a great deal

275
to eliminate the evil. Today we condemn a small but growing number of members of our society to living in circumstances which not one of us would wish for ourselves. Overcrowded, dilapidated and infested accommodation is not conducive to good health. Those who have to live in these conditions are exposed to stress; and people subjected to stress for long periods are predisposed to suffer physical and mental illness to a much greater extent than other citizens.
A family which has to live, eat, keep clean and sleep in one room must face insurmountable problems. Domestic accidents occur at a much higher rate than is the norm. Children deprived of proper nutrition, because of rudimentary cooking facilities, and sleep, because they cannot settle down at night before their elders, do not grow or achieve like their more advantaged peers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, their emotional development can be severely impaired. Whole families are vulnerable to skin, digestive and respiratory infections. They, of all people, need the services of those who provide primary care. They who need it most have the most difficulty in finding it.
The medical profession as a whole—the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, made this clear—recognises the problems of the homeless. But, as in all walks of life, there are general practitioners who do not care and who will not do anything to help. Others care but cannot help. Thankfully, there are some who are willing to make tremendous sacrifices in order to gain the confidence of, and provide an element of continuity and support to, families and individuals.
The DHSS seems to be remarkably reluctant to encourage and finance general practitioners who are willing to provide primary medical services to the homeless. Most of the schemes I have come across have been funded by private charities or by other government agencies. In the medical press last week there was the case of a Leeds GP who, since 1984, has been treating many of the 1,500 homeless in that city in makeshift surgeries. The doctor was originally funded for his own salary and that of a nurse through an urban development grant. Last year there were insufficient funds for the nurse. This year there will he no provision on a regular basis for the homeless in Leeds unless the DHSS is prepared to provide the funds.
The family practitioner committee is anxious that the scheme should continue but, despite numerous letters, has received no assurance that funding is forthcoming. We who have should not stand by and allow this to happen. I have asked in the past why there seems to be so little co-ordination between government departments. The Black Report, published in 1980, made a number of recommendations which seem to have been ignored. The report acknowledged,
"the multicausal nature of health inequalities within which inequalities in the material conditions of living loom large".
It added:
"Our recommendations reflect the fact that the reduction in health inequalities depends upon contributions from within many policy areas, and necessarily involves a number of Government departments".
276
I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether his department attempts to deal with this dreadful problem in isolation? Or do he and his honourable and right honourable friends in another place from the Departments of Health and Social Security, Employment, Trade and Industry, Education and the Environment, meet and look at the cause and effect of their policies one upon the other? I feel sure that this would not be a crisis if they had done so.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in February 1984 I instigated a debate in the House calling attention to the steady increase in the number of homeless people in this country. I have read the debate again and, being the nineteenth person to speak this evening, I have been able to compare what was said then, nearly four years ago, with what has been said this evening. There is a tragic similarity in all the concern expressed then and now; indeed one finds complete agreement between all the speakers in that debate and those who have spoken today.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Replying to the debate four years ago, the Minister concluded his summing-up by saying:
"I hope I have said enough to make clear the Government's approach to solving the problem of homelessness. … I will do all I can to case this shameful problem which is one of great concern to all of us. … Our job as Government is to ensure that [the local authorities] have the best practical framework within which to operate, and this we will continue to do".—[Official Report, 8/2/84; col. 1186.]
That concern, as we know, has expressed itself in a rise of the registered homeless from 73,600 in 1984 to the 1987 level which has been given today and which is thought to be up to 120,000.
It is therefore clear that the government concern did not translate itself into the correct action to get rid of what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in his very good maiden speech, said was a social blot and that the Government's housing policies are still geared towards giving a wider choice to the well-off and so removing any choice from the less well-off. As numerous speakers have said, there is no secret why there is an increase in the number of homeless people. It is because there is not enough low-rent housing made available to the number of people who want it.
It is for that reason that mothers and children are suffering, described by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in bed and breakfast accommodation—the children suffering from a physical point of view and the mothers so often from a mental point of view. The mothers are not even availing themselves of services such as toy libraries for children.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said it was impossible to understand how, with a prosperous nation such as ours—the Government remind us continually of the success of their economic policy—people who have a right to expect a home are not getting one and how this can continue with the Government expressing the concern I have described.
For one minute I should like to tell your Lordship about the efforts of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless of which I was a council member.

277
Here another worry arises. We have arrived at the end of a year when the whole concern was to focus attention on the needs of the homeless, to raise the awareness of the public, and to fund innovative schemes to help the homeless. From the point of view of awakening public concern the year has been successful. People no longer think of the homeless as a few drunks at Christmas time. They know that it is a national shame. Everybody seems to be aware of this apart from government members who are responsible for doing something about it.
Important schemes such as a day centre for the young homeless in the West End have also been funded. There is no point in hoping that these young people will stop coming into London. They will continue to do so. What we must do is to try to save them from suffering from the related dangers of London. This is a centre which has been funded by the international year which gives advice, counselling, cheap food, a telephone and advice as to how to move on to permanent accommodation. In this way these young people will be saved from the further dangers that they experience when coming to London. In the absence of the GLC, many statutory bodies disclaim responsibility for a day centre of this kind; and the danger in the future is that it will fall between all the different stools.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, as president of the Council for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, has said:
"Unless something is done in the next few years, by the year 2000 we could be facing a new generation of slums with all the human misery and degradation that implies.".
I very much hope that the Minister replying today will tell us something which will alleviate the great anxiety that he, and all of us, have.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as time is constrained, I want to put two direct points to the Minister. First of all, in view of the numerous comments made—by I think almost every noble Lord who has spoken—about the record figures that have now been reached (I will not say achieved) for homelessness, the numbers in temporary accommodation, and the numbers in bed and breakfast, what are the Government going to do? They have made no reference at all to this in their White Paper on housing problems. Hardly a noble Lord who has spoken believes that the Government's Housing Bill will do anything to rectify the problem.
Secondly, in view of the need for investment in housing projects, why will not the Government listen—and we have heard this this afternoon—to the repeated requests for the local authorities to be able to use at least some of the £8 billion which they have in capital receipts? It seems to be nonsense to the ordinary person.
I am going to discard everything else I had planned to say because I just cannot reply to the various points. I shall simply read part of a statement that I received today from the Bayswater Families' Campaign Group, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, referred. It is from families in Bayswater
278
bed-and-breakfast hotels. It deals with all the problems that we want the Minister to deal with and to answer. After explaining who they are, and why they are in this situation, they say:
"Our problem is that we can't find anywhere to live that we can afford. House prices are too high; there aren't enough council fiats; landlords won't accept children even if we could afford the rent …
"All parents worry about their children but imagine how much worse it is living, eating and sleeping all in one small room with the constant worry of illness, accident and fire. Our hotels arc overcrowded, unsafe and overpriced. Isn't it silly that the same money could be invested in permanent homes which everyday families could afford? If we had a secure home we could start to live our lives."
They conclude:
"We though that in International Year of Shelter for the Homeless someone would listen and something would he done. All we need is a home. Is this too much to ask?"
This matter should not be a political issue. But unfortunately it has to be because unless there is political action nothing is going to be done. Really the only people who can institute political action are the Government. I hope that when the Housing Bill comes before us noble Lords will keep this debate in mind, and keep in mind the problems of the homeless even though they concern a minority. The terrible fact is that they are a minority problem, and therefore the great mass of the people do not realise that the problem exists. When that Bill comes before us, let us see how we can relate the problems that noble Lords have mentioned today to amending that Bill so that it does something concrete for the homeless in our society.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has given us to discuss this issue. It is some time since we last debated homelessness in this House, and things have moved on since then—both in the increase in the numbers of homeless people and in the Government's measures for improving the housing situation.
Before I say anything else, I feel that it is a great pleasure to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, on a truly excellent maiden speech, particularly as we are all well aware of his involvement with the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. I feel that it is an honour to be in the same Chamber with a man so intimately acquainted with the subject that we are discussing today.
I am sure that all of us share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, about homelessness. It is not a new phenomenon—34,000 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in 1976 and 53,000 in 1978, the first year of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act which gave authorities the specific duties they now have towards the homeless. The legislation is now consolidated in Part III of the Housing Act 1985 and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, pointed out, we have passed the 100,000 mark; that is to say that 100,000 households have benefited from the Act by being found accommodation and are therefore no longer homeless.
Local authorities' main duty under the Act is to secure accommodation—not necessarily in council property—for unintentionally homeless households

279
in the priority need categories set out in the Act (families with dependent children, pregnant women, the elderly, the disabled, other vulnerable people, and those made homeless by fire or other emergency). Comparable duties relate to those threatened with homelessness. Those outside the priority need categories (broadly, healthy single people of working age and childless couples) receive advice and assistance only. Authorities have a duty to accommodate temporarily in some cases, while intentionally homeless people are trying to find a place for themselves and while they are inquiring into people's circumstances. In carrying out their statutory duty, the homeless authorities are required to have regard to the department's Code of Guidance and in selecting their tenants to give a reasonable preference to homeless people.
Even so, authorities are left with a wide range of discretion. They have to decide whether someone is homeless, falls into a priority need category and is unintentionally homeless, as well as considering the local connection angle. Authorities can vary in the consideration they give to housing conditions and mental stress in assessing homelessness. They can vary in whom they count as vulnerable. They can vary in how they view intentionality.
Some degree of variation is of course to be expected, reflecting local attitudes and local circumstances. But we do wonder whether some authorities go too far, becoming a "soft touch" in areas of housing pressure and thus increasing their own problems; also, incidentally increasing their share of housing resources since the number of homeless acceptances is one factor in our allocations. In areas of housing pressure this also has repercussions on those on the waiting list—increasing their waiting time and in turn encouraging them to seek a council tenancy through the homelessness route. Some unscrambling of this vicious circle would be of benefit to all concerned, not just to reverse the trend of homelessness figures but to give more people more confidence in their future prospects.
The other important area for authorities' decision is how to accommodate homeless households. As your Lordships know, the use of bed and breakfast has increased rapidly in recent years. The figure for England at the end of September was 11,240 households, 8,510 of them in London; both figures are more than three times what they were three years ago.
That is rightly an issue of major public concern. We advise authorities in our code of guidance to use bed and breakfast only as a very last resort. It is certainly unsuitable for families for any length of time. It is also very expensive, as many noble Lords have pointed out; and authorities' expenditure on bed and breakfast facilities falls on the general rate fund with no assistance from subsidy. Why then do some authorities, like Camden, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets, use bed and breakfast accommodation so extensively, when others like Greenwich in apparently similar circumstances manage to avoid it? We hope that our current research will shed some light on that point. But certainly efficiency and the ability of authorities to organise themselves properly
280
and to consider alternatives in a sufficiently imaginative way plays a very big part.
As I have said, it is for authorities to decide how to accommodate homeless households and there are plenty of alternatives to bed and breakfast as a short-term measure. Those suggested in our code of guidance include hostels, taking short-term leases of empty private sector property, and short-term use of empty council dwellings awaiting major repairs.
Where they nevertheless use bed and breakfast, it is for authorities also to see that conditions are satisfactory, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, pointed out. They have wide powers to do so. They can require the provision of standard amenities, improvements in the building's physical condition and management, and a reduction in overcrowding. Use of these powers has, however, been patchy, and we are therefore considering what advice on best practice we could usefully give to authorities.
Some of the problems of people in bed and breakfast arise from being placed in establishments outside their local authority area of origin, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out. We would normally expect an authority so far as possible to accommodate its homeless within its own boundaries in order to avoid undue disruption of education, employment and other ties. But we accept that this may not always be possible. However, where homeless families have to be placed in another authority's area, it is important that the education, health and social services authorities should be notified. Homeless families have the same right to these services as anyone else and failure to notify can jeopardise this.
The Government's concern at the increased use of bed and breakfast is reflected in the fact that we have made additional resources available specifically to reduce recourse to it. Through Estate Action we have since August 1986 made some £5½ million available to bring 1,200 empty council dwellings on estates back into use; we have launched our mixed funding (public and private sector) initiative to provide through housing associations a better standard of interim accommodation for homeless families (a total of £30 million in all this year including £15 million grant provision); and the ink is barely yet dry on the £25 million extra we have allocated to authorities—more than half of this in London—targeted on reducing bed and breakfast through bringing other empty council dwellings back into use, acquiring empty properties as hostels for the homeless, and assisting housing association projects with the same object. The authorities' benefiting from the £25 million estimate that this will provide nearly 2,800 extra units of accommodation. This is practical evidence of our concern.
More generally, we have increased the provision for capital spending by local authorities on housing in 1988–89. Homelessness continues to be a factor in allocations and authorities are asked to give priority to the homeless and others in special need. Provision for the Housing Corporation has also been increased. The detailed breakdown of the corporation's programme has yet to be agreed, but provision for the mixed funding programme for homeless families will

281
continue as will our support for the corporation's programme of hostels and shared housing for single homeless people among others. Though we have increased the gross public sector capital provision for the past three years, the Government's initiative in bringing in private sector investment to make every pound of public expenditure go further is, as I see it, one of the most important developments in the housing field.
But dealing with homelessness is not just a matter of money. A large part of the problem arises from social factors, as my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and my noble friend Lady Macleod all pointed out, as did other noble Lords. Our divorce rate is one of the highest in Europe with 150,000 divorces in 1986. By 1981 only 37 per cent. of single parents were living with their parents or relatives compared with 56 per cent. in 1973; and young people are generally tending to leave home earlier often with unrealistic expectations about the housing options open to them.
One can reasonably ask how far those trends towards smaller households are going to go and how far society at large can be expected to provide accordingly. We cannot ignore those wider questions.
In any strategy for dealing with homelessness, prevention is an important element. The scope for influencing marital breakdown may be relatively limited but we can and do grant-aid marriage guidance, and see that the housing consequences of any breakdown are minimised. We can ensure that young people have proper information about housing prospects before they decide to leave home; as we have done through our funding of the IYSH Trust's leaflet Moving Out. We can seek to improve arrangements for debt counselling to reduce evictions for mortgage arrears, as we have done, for example. through grant-aiding the housing debt line of the Birmingham Settlement Money Advice Centre. That problem was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and by my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox. Those are all useful initiatives that we have taken, and I am sure that there is scope for some local authorities at least to devote more attention to counselling in order to prevent homelessness.
The other factor in dealing with homelessness is the supply of accommodation. It is not true to say that overall there is a severe housing shortage. There is in fact an aggregate housing surplus. But we recognise that there are problems in some areas, particularly London and the South-East, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, pointed out. In such areas we want to see the best possible use made of existing accommodation. So far as local authorities are concerned we are constantly urging them to bring empty dwellings back into use, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said. There are some 112,000 local authority properties empty at the present time, a quarter of which (28,000) have been empty for more than a year.
The fact of the matter is that the number of empty properties far exceeds the number of households in bed and breakfast. The main answer to the
282
homelessness problem and the use of bed and breakfast by some authorities must surely be that local authorities—particularly—in problem areas-should do more to get empty properties renovated and back into use.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment. I find it difficult to follow this line of argument when the local authorities in question have great difficulty in bringing those properties back into use because they need money to repair them in many cases. Will he deal with that point?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate will wait just a moment or two, I am about to come on to that very point.
Local authorities should be spending more of their receipts from selling council houses on bringing empty properties back into use. It is also a scandal that local authority rent arrears are now running at approximately £200 million, as my noble friend Lady Macleod pointed out. This is lost money that could be used to improve their housing and is another example of poor management. Often councils that plead poverty would have far more resources to play with if they had been better managers of their housing stock.
The noble Lords, Lord Pitt and Lord Underhill, brought up the matter of accumulated receipts. Local authorities can spend, as I am sure both noble Lords are aware, some 20 per cent. of their receipts on those projects which are prescribed; but this restriction does not exist at all when it comes to the matter of capitalised repairs expenditure. So there is additional scope within the current system for authorities to make inroads into any backlog of repairs and thus provide more accommodation.
We do not generally favour compulsion but we cannot entirely rule out legislation. The time may be coming when further measures are necessary and we are faced with using sticks instead of carrots. That is why there are elements of the proposed Empty Property Bill, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, which warrant examination. The suggested approach of requiring local authorities to bring their own properties back into use may indeed be what is needed. Obviously, however, any compulsion forcing private owners to make their empty property available for the homeless would not be acceptable, though it might be to the noble Lord, Lord Soper. Rather we prefer the approach that an increasing number of authorities have adopted taking short term leases of private sector properties that would otherwise have remained vacant.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, brought to your Lordships' attention the closure of mental hospitals. We in the DHSS have encouraged housing and health and social services authorities to work together to provide the co-ordinated packages of care tailored to individual needs. We have urged housing authorities to concentrate their own resources on people with

283
special needs and to make maximum use of the voluntary and private agencies. Those include the Housing Association movement through which we target grant towards housing for mentally ill and handicapped people, elderly people and those with physical disabilities. The noble Lords, Lord Soper, Lord Seebohm, Lord Stallard and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, brought to our attention the plight of the single and the young homeless. We have taken various measures to help single homeless people. Specific allocations have been made to the housing corporation for hostels and other shared accommodation. Some 14,700 places have been approved since April 1981. The facilitating of sub-letting and taking of lodgers by council tenants and the encouragement of owner occupiers and landlords in the private sector to do so by recent booklets should help. We have increased grant aid to voluntary bodies for advising and assisting the homeless to over £600,000 in 1977–88, which includes grants both to CHAR and the IYSH.
By informing young people of housing options before they decide to leave home, single and young people will also stand to benefit directly or indirectly from our proposals in the Housing Bill, like others. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, brought to your Lordships' House the problems of Northern Ireland and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, suggested radical proposals involving higher education. I have done a great deal of briefing over the past few days, but I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, that this radical proposal was not one that I had spotted. However, I shall bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
My Lords, the Government pride themselves on their achievements in increasing owner occupation. This has increased by over 2½ million since 1979 and now accounts for 66 per cent. of all dwellings. We are now aiming at a similar record of achievement in increasing the availability of rented accommodation, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jay, also wishes to see.
Your Lordships will be aware of our White Paper and of the Housing Bill which will be coming before this House in due course. Although our White Paper does not mention homelessness by name, it is quite wrong to suggest that our current Housing Bill is not concerned with homelessness. All its proposals will benefit the homeless and those in poor quality housing. The Bill will revitalise the private rented sector so as to provide more housing at all income levels, will establish Housing Action Trusts to deal with the worst local authority housing, and will give tenants a wider choice of landlord.
Noble Lords opposite keep urging the need for more resources for local authorities. As I have said, we have already made additional resources available in various ways to help with the problem of bed and breakfast, and the overall provision is to be increased again next year. In the areas of housing pressure authorities need to concentrate their resources on the homeless and others in special need and particularly on renovating their existing empty properties—with
284
the aid of their capital receipts—in order to bring them back into use. We want to get away from the situation in which local authorities carry the whole burden of providing homes for people who cannot afford or do not want to buy. We need instead to encourage the greater involvement of other agencies, for example the Nationwide-Anglia Building Society which, through its Quality Street initiative, is making £600 million available over the next five years to provide a wide range of private rented accommodation. Authorities will have an important contribution to make in terms of housing expertise (they are in the best position to know what the local housing needs are) but the strategy will involve tenants, private landlords, housing associations and developers to help meet those needs. The private rented sector has declined by ½ million dwellings in the past 10 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, pointed out. This represents 10 times the increase in homeless acceptances over this period. Revitalising that sector, together with our other proposals, should make a great contribution to reversing the trend in homelessness that is the subject of the noble Lord's Motion.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it remains for me to express my appreciation to the Minister for his very courteous reply to the debate. However, I have to say that if the Minister's reply is the Government's answer to the size of the homeless problem we are facing in this country, it is a complete and utter nonsense. It will cause nothing but despair among the people who have to deal with it. I can give the Minister an undertaking that we shall come back on this matter to make him aware of the deteriorating position that will continue if that is all that the Government are to do.
I should like to thank the noble Lords and the noble Baronesses who have taken part in this debate with a special mention for Lord Ross of Newport. I of course knew him in the other place when we used to debate this type of issue. His speech was of the standard that we would expect and I look forward to hearing him in the near future. Once again I should like to thank all the Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part. It has been a very important debate but I am saddened by the lack of content in the Minister's reply dealing with the subject. My Lords, on that basis I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Salmon Conservation
7.56 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in implementing the provisions of the Salmon Act 1986, whether they are satisfied that the various threats to salmon stocks in the United Kingdom are being contained and whether they consider that the United Kingdom is playing its proper part in international efforts to conserve Atlantic salmon.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am sorry that Lord Trenchard, who took a notable part in our debates on the Salmon Bill, is no longer with us. We greatly miss him. But I am grateful to the noble Lady and the noble Lords who are taking part in this debate, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, is to reply. Since his arrival at the Scottish Office it is clear that we have a Minister who is prepared to do something for salmon conservation. Many of us welcomed his decision to extend by 18 hours the weekly close time for salmon nets in Scotland. That was a necessary decision, for the net owners were taking too much of the runs, especially the summer grilse.
A recent Canadian study concluded that recreational fisheries are the key to the economic future of their Atlantic salmon resource. It showed that anglers account for 93 per cent. of economic activity but take only 29 per cent. of the catch, and that estimated angler expenditures create 2094 person/years of employment compared with 163 by the commercial fisheries. The latest Scottish figures—those for 1986—show that the rods took only 21 per cent. of the total catch compared with 28 per cent. in 1985. Now that salmon farming has increased so dramatically— it already produces six times the world catch of wild salmon and 89 per cent. of the salmon we eat in this country—the taking of nearly 80 per cent. of our wild fish by nets no longer makes sense. The recreational fisheries are more important both in terms of economics and jobs.
As I told a salmon symposium in the United States last October, we in this country catch between a fifth and a quarter of all the Atlantic salmon taken each year in home waters. We have our problems but we also have our successes—the recovery of fisheries in rivers that have been cleaned up; the admirable work of the Anglers' Co-operative Association; greater public awareness of the need to conserve wild salmon; the buy-up of Scottish netting stations by the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust; and the Government's rather more enlightened attitude. The declaration by Mr. Gummer in June 1986 that he did "not see salmon as a food resource in the wild," marked a welcome sea change in the attitude of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. And we have the Salmon Act 1986.
That Act, on which we spent some 29 hours in 1986, received the Royal Assent on 6th November that year, 14 months and two weeks ago. I hope that the Minister will tell us in detail what progress has been made since then throughout Great Britain. I have given him notice of the specific questions I am asking.
First then, illegal fishing, recognised at the outset by the Government as a major problem. It is still a scourge—at sea, along the coasts, in the estuaries and in the rivers. If anything, it is getting worse. Some of it is beyond our control—for example, the illegal fishing off the Irish coast reported in the Dublin press, which is taking enormous numbers of salmon seeking to return to Scotland and Wales. But there is, unhappily, a vast amount in our own waters: 1,569
286
illegal nets were taken out of the Tweed last year. In Wales, the problem is particularly serious on the Wye, the lower Dee and the sea approaches to the Usk. It is notorious and blatant on the Forth—vividly described by Mr. James Mackie in the January number of Trout and Salmon. It is often highly organised and accompanied by violence. Three Welsh Water bailiffs were shot at last year. One gang on the Conway was arrested with over a quarter of a ton of salmon, 13 per cent. of the annual declared rod catch for that river.
The water authorities and a number of us suggested a tagging scheme which I have seen working successfully in Canada. I still think it should be tried here, but the Government thought otherwise and would not even agree to a pilot scheme in Wales. They put their faith in dealer licensing, in the new possession and handling clauses and in increased penalties.
Dealer licensing has been repeatedly recommended for over 50 years. It was in the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill 1938, aborted by the war; was proposed by the Maconochie Committee in 1950, by the Scottish Departmental Committee in 1965 and in England by the Bledisloe Committee in 1961–27 years ago. It has been a long, long road to the statute book but it finally got there in 1986.
When the Act was passed, I assumed that there would be early discussions with all those concerned and that schemes would be introduced around the middle of last year. For more than 12 months nothing seemed to be happening and I wondered why it was all taking so long. But at long last we had two consultation papers issued yesterday, which was timely but welcome. I only saw them at half-past three today, but on a first quick reading they look good to me. Those who have had copies are given two months to comment. Can the Minister tell us when the schemes will actually come into force? And is he confident that they will be really effective?
How are the possession and handling clauses working out? How many convictions have there been? The only one I know of is that which resulted in the owner of the Broughton Crags Hotel at Cockermouth being fined £1,000 and his chef £200. How many prosecutions are pending; and how far have the increased penalties been applied?
The Government's "Don't drink and drive" campaign over the Christmas holiday was, I think effective because people were frightened of having their driving licences withdrawn for 12 months. Can the Government arrange that hotels which are convicted of knowingly receiving illegally caught salmon lose their liquor licences? The fear of doing so might be a powerful deterrent.
Can the Government also encourage the courts to deal more firmly with the poaching gangs, taking account of today's values for wild salmon? The noble Lord, Lord Mason, whom we are glad to have with us tonight, spoke in another place in March 1986 of "disgraceful leniency by magistrates". The courts must recognise that they are often dealing with organised, well-equipped criminals, not just the old romanticised country poacher. The then Lord

287
Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, spoke to magistrates last year about unrealistic penalties and small fines being no real penalty. He said:
"The taking of salmon and trout by illegal methods is another lucrative and profit-related crime. It should be punished accordingly".
Some magistrates need reminding of that.
Perhaps I may quote a case history given to me by Welsh Water involving four persons, whom I will call A, B, C and D: 12th July 1986—A, B and C caught by bailiffs and police near the river with nets and dinghy; 2nd September 1986—A and D caught by bailiffs with salmon, nets and dinghy; 12th February 1987—case of A and D heard at Leominster Magistrate's Court; both fined £325 to be paid at the rate of £3 and £4 a week; 16th April 1987—B and C caught by bailiffs with nets and dinghy; 1st May 1987—first case of A, B and C heard at Leominster Magistrates' Court; all three bound over for two years in the sum of £1,000; appeal lodged; 3rd June 1987—B and C caught by police with nets and dinghy; case pending; 15th August 1987—B and A caught by police with salmon, net and dinghy; case pending; 17th August 1987—appeal from A, B and C at Hereford Crown Court; Sums against A and C reduced to £750 and £350 respectively.
This shows that for the regular poacher court appearances and modest fines are no deterrent. The bailiffs and the police put in long hours of hard work in apprehending illegal fishermen. The courts ought surely to impose penalties that deter, and confiscate boats, nets, vans, gaffs and other equipment. At present, all too often it has to be returned to the malefactors.
Does the Minister think that the police, who are generally very helpful, could do more to help tackle illegal fishing in country areas, especially by gangs who may resort to violence and intimidation? And would the Government be prepared to consider the prohibition of the sale of rod-caught salmon, as in Canada and the United States?
Clause 37 of the Act was designed to prevent illegal fishing for salmon and sea trout in estuaries under the guise of fishing for sea fish. Has it stopped it? If not, what is happening and why is it taking so long? Can the Minister assure us that there will be no deals between sea fishery committees and water authorities to return fixed nets to places where they may intercept salmon and sea trout?
What progress has there been on Section 8 of the Act providing for baits and lures regulations, particularly on the Tweed, and on Section 3(2), especially on smolt screens for fish farms and the definition of netting methods? Once again, why is it all taking so long?
During our debates on the Bill, many noble Lords called for the phasing out of drift netting off the North-East coast. The Government responded by announcing a review to cover all East coast netting from Spurn Head to Rattray Head. May I ask the Minister for an assurance that this review is being vigorously pursued, and express the hope that it will produce substantial changes, for we really ought to come into line with the majority of other NASCO
288
countries—and indeed Scotland—that have banned or are banning drift netting for salmon, and greatly restrict and eventually phase out the frequently excessive coastal and estuarial netting, which may be less difficult now as much of it appears to have become uneconomic. May I ask, too, how effective the limited restrictions on the North-East drift net fishery introduced last year have been? How many salmon did this fishery take last year and how many were caught there in fixed nets?
I had assumed in my innocence that, as drift netting was curtailed more salmon and sea trout would be allowed to escape to run up the rivers. Not so, for the Northumbrian Water Authority, supported it seems by the MAFF, are apparently licensing an increased number of fixed T-nets and giving netsmen the choice of using a drift net or a T-net. Some boast on television that they use a drift net by day and a T-net by night. Not only that, but the authority wants to allow five T-nets inside a conservation box at the mouth of the river Wear and are rumoured to plan to do so next at the mouths of the Tyne and Tees.
T-nets along the coast are interceptory nets catching mixed stocks of salmon and as such are, I think, condemned by all reputable scientific opinion from North America to the Soviet Union. To establish new interceptory fixed nets off northeastern England will surely invite general condemnation in NASCO. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, told the recent inquiry:
"To resort in the latter part of the 1980s to commercial exploitation of wild salmon and sea trout by using fixed engines in coastal waters is completely unsound and could not be justified by any proper principle of conservation and management."
T-nets in the mouths of rivers are not subject to the same objection of principle, but as we have managed at enormous expense to clean up the Wear, Tees and Tyne and to get some salmon running up them again, it seems folly to endanger this fragile recovery of the fisheries by allowing fixed nets in the mouths of these rivers. May I ask how all this accords with the Government's migratory fish conservation policy, and on what grounds the Government made the order allowing these T-nets to be used instead of drift nets?
I welcomed the setting up of the advisory committee under Professor Dunnet. But why was it thought necessary to go to such extraordinary lengths to shroud its proceedings in secrecy? That was a pity, as it undermined public confidence in the committee, and surely unnecessary, as there is nothing inherently secret in salmon conservation. No doubt it makes sense to keep meetings confidential so that everyone can speak freely, but could not a press release be made after each meeting? And could not the chairman sometimes tell the media how things are going? I should like to ask the Minister now how the committee is getting on after a year's deliberations. Has it reported on any of the matters referred to it? If so, what has it recommended? If not, when may we expect some results?
My Question also asked about the containment of the many threats to salmon. Barrages are in fashion and around 30 are being talked about. What is the

289
Government's general attitude to the building of barrages blocking the mouths of rivers containing runs of migratory fish, and, in particular, what do they think about the threat posed by the projected Severn barrage to the important salmon runs in the Severn, Wye and Usk? Do they accept that no expense should be spared in research and in the design and operation of any barrage to minimise losses of migratory fish, and will they make financial provision to make good any losses so that the fisheries do not suffer damage?
If we could manage to build and operate a barrage without damaging the runs of migratory fish, that would be a triumph for British engineering and conservation and would help us to export our barrage technology. For other countries are concerned about salmon conservation. The United States Congress, with the support of every New England congressman, recently vetoed a proposal for a hydro-electric dam on the Merrymack because it might have affected a salmon run which is at present only 100 or 200 fish. Those running up the Bristol Channel are perhaps 150 to 200 times that number.
Acidification is a new but worrying threat. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to reduce SO2 emissions and their substantial contribution to research. What do the Government think can be done to prevent the further loss of spawning streams in the uplands? Should not the planting of conifers on poor soils in the uplands be severely restricted?
There is an increasing conflict of interest between angling and canoeing, despite the judgment in 1972 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in Rawson v. Peters that canoeing disturbs the fish and interferes with the right of fishing. Will the Government give the National Rivers Authority powers to control all forms of recreation on the rivers, so as to reconcile conflicting interests in a sensible way? In this context I was glad to see that the Government's latest paper on the NRA issued last month says that its responsibilities will:
"involve controls over all who use rivers and other natural waters".
May I also ask the Government what they think should be done about the danger of genetic damage to wild salmon stocks from farmed salmon escapes? The Minister will be relieved that I am not asking about the decline in river quality, as a number of us raised this issue in last week's debate on environmental pollution.
Finally, there are the international aspects of salmon conservation. Can the Government coordinate policy more closely with bodies like the Atlantic Salmon Trust, which has widespread international contacts? Canada, the United States and France all have a much closer relationship between officials and non-officials interested in salmon. Can we not have that too?
Then there is the marked falling-off of our spring runs of multi-sea-winter salmon in the past 20 years. Do the Government think that this is mainly, or partly, due to the interceptory fisheries operated by Greenland and the Faroes, two countries with tiny
290
populations—some 50,000 each—taking between them over a quarter of a million large salmon every year, some 22 per cent. of the total world catch in home waters. If so, what can be done about it? NASCO has achieved some limitation of these fisheries through quotas, but that does not seem nearly enough. There is little sign that spring runs are recovering. And can the Government encourage everyone to give salmon statistics in numbers and not tonnes?
I think we should tackle all these problems more vigorously, seek to restore the good salmon runs of the recent past and reverse the decline of the past 20 years. We should work towards a real national policy for salmon conservation. The Salmon Act was a small but useful first step in that direction. That is why I am concerned about the slow progress in fully implementing the Act and why I have put down my Question.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I only wish to amplify one of the points so admirably covered by my noble friend Lord Moran. Your Lordships will remember that those who were interested in measures to conserve the stocks of Atlantic salmon had to wait for many years to persuade governments to legislate. The Act, when it came, was modest but useful, provided that its provisions were actively applied. It is to that point that I should like to address my remarks.
Most of us can welcome the Secretary of State's action in extending the close time for netting. However, other action, especially in the context of penalties for illegal fishing, seems to have been desperately slow. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why the pace of measures has not been quickened. Perhaps my noble friend will assure us that any obstacles to action have now been removed. I shall be especially interested if he can answer the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Moran about the diminution of the spring run although I doubt whether he knows any more than the rest of us do. However, I should like to hear his conclusions on the possibility of diminishing the use of the drift nets.
I hope that my noble friend can reassure all of us that faster progress can be made towards what my noble friend Lord Moran has properly described as a national policy on conservation for the salmon industry.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, on the international aspect of the Question before the House, your Lordships will remember that the North Atlantic Salmon Organisation was established in Edinburgh about three years ago. I thought that NASCO would now have taken sufficient steps to establish a reputation that it is keenly bent on the conservation of salmon stocks and would have been making strong representations to the Government to take more positive action against the many poaching methods that are killing the salmon and causing a

291
noticeable decline in salmon gaining access to their own spawning rivers.
It was upsetting to read that just over a year ago at a major international conference held in France the United Kingdom was chastised over the lack of longterm planning for the preservation of salmon stocks. It was cited at the conference that in America the Atlantic salmon were taken only by rod and line. In Canada, drift netting was banned and inshore netting was banned in some areas. The Soviet Union, also a member of NASCO, does not permit fishing for salmon in the ocean and permits only rod and line taking in the rivers.
The United Kingdom was castigated for taking no major steps forward on salmon conservation. I should like to know what steps NASCO has taken to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the urgency of salmon conservation. Of course the salmon is not a protected species and cannot be, but if greater steps are not taken to lessen or stop the legal and illegal netting of the Atlantic salmon moving up the North-East coast, and the netters operating in the estuaries, salmon stocks will be constantly jeopardised. What is more, the greatest tourist and sports attraction to Scotland will be reduced. Therefore I ask what the Government—as distinct from the private bodies which are becoming involved in salmon conservation and intervening to preserve stocks—are doing about it. The real advances being made are by trusts, charities and private organisations which are making Her Majesty's Government and NASCO look limp and lifeless by comparison.
There is no doubt that the depletion of salmon returning to Scottish rivers is affected by the netting off the North-East, Yorkshire and the Northumbrian coastline. Up to 80,000 salmon per year are taken by nets and if the Government were taking conservation seriously that should cease. Of course I am aware of the livelihood of the legal netters, but I suggest these should be phased out with proper compensation for those who fish and those who are involved with the shore-based operations. That has been successfully achieved in other industries and with a little understanding from the Government it could be accomplished without any hardship.
I am also much against the continuing use of the nylon mono-filament gill net. It is a deadly and cruel piece of equipment. Those nets cause considerable damage to escaping fish which drown as a result of gill injuries, or become diseased and may pollute the rivers. The broken nylon mono-filament gill nets become ghost nets, hanging in the seas and river estuaries, killing fish slowly as they hang by the gills. Those nets do not rot like hemp; they go on killing and injuring fish, seals and seabirds. Gannets and other diving seabirds have no chance of seeing them because they are invisible under water. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the world wildlife organisation are opposed to these nets, as are the Salmon and Trout Association and the Atlantic Salmon Trust. They all agree that they should be banned. So I ask the Government: why not ban the nets? Are these views under serious consideration?
292
Like the noble Lord, Lord Moran, since the Salmon Act was passed I have waited in vain for the Government to act against the salmon poachers. I argued for the salmon tagging scheme, the anti-poaching system which was introduced some years ago in New Brunswick in Canada, quite successfully. But the Government, afraid of the scheme's complexity, considered the dealer licensing scheme instead. Well, where is it? Why has this one serious proposal in the Salmon Act which was designed to deter the poacher not yet been introduced? You see, my Lords, as a rod and line angler, a fly fisher, I want to go to Scotland to fish for salmon. I am not encouraged to do so when poaching is rife and the Government are lifeless in their attitude to it.
No doubt many fly fishers feel as I do: curbing the activities of the mass poacher and the illegal netter would certainly help the sport, increase the catch and give some encouragement to fishermen to sally forth into the far north. But it is an expensive trip: petrol, fuel or train fares, hotels, tackle, gillies. Then it is always possible that you cannot fish. There may be a deluge of rain, fast, high, dirty water or even a drought or no fish on the move. For many reasons, inclement weather can affect the sport and the catch and we can do nothing about that. It is beyond our control. But if poaching were vigorously tackled, and poachers heavily fined, bailiffs given more police support, at least the rod and line and fly fisher would feel somewhat supported. Therefore, he would not feel as bitter with a nil return from his high investment.
As is so often said, as the salmon catch falls in Scotland, so do the visits of the sportsmen. Much then is threatened: the wages of bailiffs and gillies, the jobs in hotels, tackle shops, boatbuilders and hirers, the smoking business, food processing and fishing holiday tours. It is worth many millions of pounds every year, and in particular this trade and money are usually going into the most impoverished parts of Scotland.
All this is at risk, and if it be so, why the vacillation on the dealer licensing scheme? It is a scheme which requires the buyers of salmon to be licensed and to maintain records of purchasers. The offence would be the handling of salmon in circumstances where it would be reasonable to suspect it had been taken illegally. It would undoubtedly restrict the poaching racket by blocking off their outlets. So why is it that the Government have not yet started serious consultations with the interested parties in this scheme? I should therefore like to know what is the timescale they have in mind before this is introduced.
Another serious concern affecting salmon stocks is the unhindered growth in the grey seal population. It is growing at the rate of about 5 per cent. per year, and it is estimated by the net fishing organisations that these grey seals are eating around 4,000 tonnes of salmon per year. That is far more than the annual catch by the netsmen. Grey seals are now a major threat to salmon stocks. Here is another uncontrolled and growing menace. So culling will have to be considered; the balance has become dangerously one-sided. I recognise of course that around the salmon farms some secret culling may be going on, but the

293
situation now deserves fresh examination by the Government with a view to cutting back the growth of this predator.
On the question of giving the salmon a chance, we recognise that one advance has been made in recent months; that is, extending the weekend close netting times and taking the nets off for longer periods at weekends. This will undoubtedly reap some benefits. The Salmon and Trout Association has welcomed this move and hopes that as the benefits accrue a greater extension of close weekend hours will be agreed.
At this stage I should like personally to praise Mr. James Mackie, who has established the River Forth Fishery Conservation Trust. Along with friends he has raised money, bought boats and taken on the poachers. He has shaken the police, the civil servants and the Forth District Salmon Fishery Board out of their apathetic approach. This is a fine example of what conservation stalwarts can do.
I think one must also praise the splendid efforts of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust, a highly respected organisation with a great reputation. It has been involved in some secret negotiations over many months to buy out commercial netting interests, thereby fulfilling one of its main aims in its campaign for the conservation of salmon; that is, the preservation and enhancement of the species.
I note that it has spent up to £2 million over the past two years, buying up the netting rights on 15 Scottish salmon rivers. This will obviously benefit the owners of fishing rights and also the fly fishers' chances of catching more. So more anglers will be interested. However, I hope that charges will not rise accordingly: £1,000 per week for salmon fishing is prohibitive for most fly fishers; indeed, for the majority of those who come from south of the Border. It is no use beating the netters and winning on conservation if the few salmon which the fly fishers will take will be available only for the privileged and the rich, for only those who can afford it, especially in the better salmon pools with large profits accruing to the owners. I hope that does not happen because it will certainly stifle the sport and tourism.
Finally, the factor which may well bedevil the poachers and the illegal netters is the growth of the salmon fish farms. In 1979, these farms produced 300 tonnes; in 1987, 15,000 tonnes. This year the estimate is 25,000 tonnes. There are over 1,000 full-time and part-time employees, so it is certainly a growth industry. It is likely (and as a rod and line angler I hope it happens) that as these fish farms grow in number and the inland farmed salmon multiply, the price of salmon on the market will fall. Sea netting may not then be worth while. More salmon will then get back up the river, the Atlantic wild salmon will be saved and the fly fisher will also benefit.
So with all these multifarious activities, buying out the netters, the growth of salmon farms and more jobs as a result, the increase in the sport of salmon fishing, such is the lure if it is made possible to catch the salmon, and with the inevitable tourist expansion for Scotland, the fly fisher may well come back into
294
his own. Then, to the embarrassment of the Government, it will have been the zest and endeavour of the private organisations that made all this possible.
8.28 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for asking this Question and for opening the subject so wide. However, I do not intend to follow him in all the ramifications into which he took us. First, I do not intend to cross the Border from Scotland into England but will concentrate largely upon the latest government action, which is the extension of the weekly closed time.
It is contentious as to whether there is any very real threat to salmon stocks. I know it is a shibboleth to say that the Atlantic salmon is a threatened species, and so on; but the scientific evidence is not there to support the assertion. There are large runs of smolts coming down out of all Scotland's rivers. Certainly on many rivers in Scotland where I know careful records have been kept over the years there are more fish being caught by rods now than were caught ever before. There are many rivers where there is a very adequate stock of returning salmon.
What are the threats to the Atlantic salmon in Scotland? There are three: the Northumberland drift nets, river pollution and poaching. I do not think that the legitimate netsmen round the coast of Scotland threaten or have threatened the stocks of salmon returning to Scottish rivers. They have coexisted with the rods for 100 or more years. They have fished at more or less the same intensity and they have shared the ups and the downs of the returning salmon stocks with the rodsmen. I do not think that they have ever threatened the existence of the species.
Though threats do not exist universally or with the same intensity in every river, pollution and poaching are probably found to some extent everywhere. One cannot, for instance, claim that the Northumberland drift net fishery affects the west coast of Scotland. Faced with these visible threats what do the Government go and do? They listen to those who have no particular training in fishery management. They do not, I submit, listen to the advice of their own scientists; but they rehearse an old argument which has been put forward over the past quarter of a century to show the wider importance of angling to the economy and they panic into lengthening the weekly close time.
We are told that there is a shortage of spring salmon; but the Government's own official records will show that the spring runs have remained remarkably steady over the years and that in fact the main predator on the spring runs is the rod fisherman. In 1986, a year which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, quoted, the spring catch by the rods in Scotland was 9,485 fish, the spring catch by the estuary nets was 4,453 fish and the spring catch by the fixed engines was 2,795 fish.
If the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, wanted to improve the run of spring salmon what he should have done was to stop the anglers fishing, then

295
there would have been more salmon running up the rivers. Of course the noble Lord is perfectly well aware that in many rivers there is no shortage of stock. There is no shortage of fish running into those rivers. If there were a shortage why would so many rivers be selling their ova? Why would the Tay, the Spey, the Conon, the Dee and other such rivers all be going into the market to sell their salmon ova to the fish farmers? If they were desperately short of stock one would think that they would keep those ova and return them to their rivers so as to get some stock coming back.
Has it occurred to the Government that by restricting the netting to the point at which it will put some honest netsmen out of business they are putting more fish in the way of the poachers because the poacher abhors a vacuum especially if it has a salmon in it? The effect of cutting down the legal netsmen will be to leave more fish available to the illegal ones.
I am not pretending for a moment that there are not problems in the conservation and the management of salmon. I am not pretending that there are not certain rivers which are very badly affected by drift nets, particularly the Tweed affected as it is by the Northumberland drift net fishery. That is an obvious example, but there are many rivers where there is no such threat and where the attack on the innocent legal netsman who has been plying his trade for over a century is quite unwarranted and unjustified.
Therefore I wish to ask the noble Lord in reaching his conclusion that there are "general salmon conservation grounds" precisely what scientific advice he received that made that apparent to him, as I noticed that in another place a similar Question was asked. In another place the right honourable friend of the noble Lord ducked the issue by saying that the scientific evidence was not conclusive and was only one of a number of considerations taken into account by Ministers.
However, I do not believe that there is scientific evidence which shows that general conservation grounds demand the blanket use of lengthening of the legal sea net close time all over Scotland. It is doubly unfortunate that this measure should have been taken on general conservation grounds without any intention to monitor its effects. One may ask how I know that there is no intention to monitor the effects. The answer is that I have a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, dated 23rd December saying that this is so. The noble Lord wrote to me saying:
"My department have no plans to monitor specifically the effect of the new close time although it is expected that the review of east coast salmon netting, provided for in section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986, will take the new arrangements into account."
But how on earth will that show what the effect has been on the west coast, within the Moray Firth, on the north rivers and on the Solway? The Solway will provide the most ghastly mix up because one half of it is English and one half is Scottish and the nets will be subjected to the extra close time on the Scottish side while on the English side they will not. That is a recipe for war. There will be open conflict between the two sides of the Solway.
296
There are also technical difficulties there which will make the monitoring of the enforcement of the close time very difficult because of the very long tide there and the fact that in order to comply with the Act the poor netsmen on the Scottish side of the Solway, not the English side, will have to close down their operations long before those on the other side. They will lose more than 20 per cent. of their fishing time.
Another thing that confuses the whole issue, which is really a scientific mess, is the fact that the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust has bought up some 25 per cent. of the netting power around the coasts. Therefore the netting around the coasts this year will be reduced by 25 per cent. due to the fact that certain nets will no longer be fished. The remainder will be reduced by 20 per cent. and the effect of the 20 per cent. reduction will probably be to put a whole lot of netsmen out of business. That will cause further reductions, yet there is no intention to monitor those effects. It seems to me to be crazy that there is no intention to monitor those effects and no effort has been made to find out what they will be. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, that one of the results of the closing down of all those nets is that the nets that have been closed will no longer pay assessments. The district boards in those areas will no longer get a contribution from legal netsmen on the sea and therefore the money that used to be contributed will have to come out of the angler's pocket, which will make it more expensive for the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, to go fishing in Scotland. He will pay quite a lot extra because it will cost twice as much to operate the bailiff service for him and keep poachers down. If we were doing something about the poachers, I should applaud that. However, we are not. We are doing something about people who have contributed sums of money to the joint policing of rivers over a period of 100 years. We are speaking of people who have never been shown to have harmed the salmon industry as a whole. We are handing the extra fishing on a plate to the illegal fishermen.
It is obviously going to be very difficult for the Minister to go back on the massive decision which he has made, foolish though it is and wise though it would be to go back on it and extend the weekly legal close time. I suggest that he should use the provision in the Salmon Act and allow different things to happen within different district board areas. Perhaps if he monitors those matters, he will find out a thing or two. I do not see why, in a river system where good contributions come in from the netsmen and where the netsmen and the rod fishermen get on well together, fishing time should not be restored to the netsmen.
By all means let us monitor the effect of that and see whether it depresses the number of anglers in those areas and whether the number in other areas increases. I think that there is little evidence that angling success and the numbers of fish running up the river are exactly one and the same thing. In fact there is a good deal of evidence, in two scientific papers that I know of, to show that there is no correlation between the total run on a river and the catch by rod. I ask the Minister to consider the

297
possibility of offering to district boards the option, where there is a consensus, of returning to the old legal close times.
There are many things that need to be done to improve the run of salmon and improve matters for anglers. However, we shall not improve the spring run by curtailing the weekly close time. We shall only do that by increasing the number of salmon reared in the upper waters of the river. Spring fish are not genetically spring fish. They are fish which are reared over a long period in the upper waters of the river. They have been fed slowly when they were young, they have matured slowly and stayed at sea adopting that habit of growth and they have returned as spring salmon. I suspect that the real danger in many rivers where spring runs show a fall comes from agriculture and forestry activities and not from the activities of netsmen or even poachers.
I ask the Minister to reconsider at least partially the terrible attack which he has made on those honest men who have been contributing to the salmon industry—the netsmen of the traditional netting stations round Scotland's coasts. I ask him to look at the considerable problems that will exist in the Solway. I should like to know how he proposes to deal with the split situation in the Solway. I also ask him to look at the possibility of allowing district hoards, where there is a consensus between rod and net interests, to return to the old close time and to allow the net fishermen in the area to continue in business and continue to contribute to the welfare of the river as a whole. After all, that is the goose that lays the golden egg for angler and netsmen alike.
8.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Moran for giving us this opportunity to discuss the working of the one year-old Salmon Act. Before I say anything else, unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I wish to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, on the extension of the weekly close time for nets in Scotland to 60 hours. That brave decision is indeed a step in the right direction and gives the hope that possibly, little by little, the close time may be increased further. I understand that in Norway the nets are restricted to three days a week and this year may be prohibited altogether at certain seasons of the year.
The netsmen are of course not at all happy. They cannot accept that theirs is a dying industry, although it is. The writing is on the wall. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, has said, fish farming in Scotland now produces about 15 times the catch of wild salmon. It has an annual output of over £40 million a year. It employs well over 1,000 people directly, and the ancillary industries—such as the supplying of feed, ice, cages, nets, boats, drugs and transport—has created a large number of jobs, possibly as many as 2,500. Many of those are in remote districts.
298
As output has increased, the value of salmon has decreased and will continue to do so. Therefore, the netsmen face ever-diminishing returns. The Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust has bought out the netting interests in north-east Scotland, on the Spey, the Don and the Dee principally, and would willingly do so on other rivers. That gives the netsmen a chance, before the value of fish falls too much further, to divert into other lines of business. Some, seeing the writing on the wall, have already converted to fish farming.
Perhaps I may add in that context that while the employees of the netting firms are poor people trying to earn a living, the owners—in Scotland, at any rate—are in some cases very rich men. One can only hope that those that have not yet done so will take the opportunity offered by the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust to get out while the going is good and that the Government will give them every possible encouragement to do so.
Where netting rights have been bought out, as they have on the Dee, more salmon were seen last year than for many years. That is what matters to an angler. He will accept going home with fewer fish or even no fish if he knows that he has been fishing over salmon. However, if he does not see a salmon from Monday to Saturday, he is pretty disgruntled and may not come back next year.
For this coming year there has been a great increase in the demand for fishing on the Dee, which had fallen off very greatly in recent years. The tourist board estimates that every angler visitor spends £250 per week in the local community, and that does not take account of the rent that he pays for his fishing. Many anglers are accompanied by their wives and families, who also spend money.
It is also of vital importance for Scottish salmon stocks that the British Government obtain a reduction in the catch quota of the high seas interceptory netting catch, but they are totally unable to do so while allowing interceptory netting to continue round our own shores. The Greenlanders and Faroese quite reasonably say that, unless the Government put the British house in order by reducing or even banning netting outside estuaries, they cannot hope to reduce the quota of high seas interceptory netsmen which has brought Scottish salmon angling so close to disaster.
I should like to ask the Minister three questions. First, will he bear in mind the enormous depredations on salmon by the grey seal, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley? Secondly, bearing in mind the depredations of the poacher, when is it proposed to introduce the dealer licensing scheme? Like the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I have just glanced at the consultation paper published yesterday. It is now quite clear that it will not be introduced in April this year, as we originally hoped.
So far as I can see from a quick glance, which is all that I have had time for, I think that the proposals are broadly on the right lines. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, agrees. I shall leave it to

299
those who are more knowledgeable than I to comment on them, apart from saying that in the present state of the prison service I would hesitate to create more offences carrying a prison sentence. I should prefer to impose stiffer fines and hit malefactors in their pockets, but hard enough really to hurt.
My third question has already been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and relates to the secrecy surrounding the Salmon Advisory Committee's discussions. I heartily endorse what the noble Lord has said on that subject.
Netsmen keep saying that rod and line catches in the spring are many times the net catches, and try to make much of this. That is not difficult for them to do because they start fishing later by law and do not bother to fish their nets at all unless they are going to catch enough fish to make money. There are a number of references in the latest report from the freshwater fisheries laboratory at Pitlochry to the decline in the spring runs.
Finally, there is such a thing as factual evidence as well as scientific evidence.
8.54 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Moran for enabling us to discuss the results of the Salmon Act. First of all, I should declare an interest. Salmon fishing has helped my family's finances through the centuries. It is as a riparian owner and a Tweed commissioner that I should like to make a few points this evening.
The matters to which I shall refer do not, I think, correspond with many of the points raised by the noble Viscount Lord Thurso, who spoke very largely about the north of Scotland. For us, the results so far have not been great. Our spring and summer runs continue to be abysmal. The autumn runs are good, but during much of the spring and summer months the rod fishing comes virtually to a halt.
The poaching problem continues and, as my noble friend has said, the forfeiture of illegal nets found in the river is very common. We shall be greatly helped by the introduction of the dealer licensing system, which will prevent poachers from finding a market. The smaller the chance of poached salmon finding a market the less work there will be for the water bailiffs, who are fully stretched in the autumn months.
There can be no excuse for the violent behaviour of some poachers towards water bailiffs, although we should perhaps try to understand the reasons. In some cases we are dealing with young unemployed and disadvantaged people who have built up resentment towards the owners of property. In their eyes the Salmon Act was designed to protect the property of the landowners rather than to protect the salmon or the jobs connected with salmon. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, made a plea for salmon fishing to
300
be made available to. people with lower incomes. Speaking personally, I know that my tenants come from all backgrounds. Some are professional men with quite small incomes, and they come from both sides of the border. In fact, some of my tenants are tackle-makers and sellers in Newcastle. Perhaps they are using some of their ill-gotten gains, selling their tackle to noble Lords to take my fish!
The higher purpose of the Act, which is the conservation element, is disregarded by poachers. If they had their way they would plunder the salmon out of existence. Rod fishermen are playing their part in the conservation programme. Riparian owners on the Tweed are bearing the cost of the proposed purchase of nets by the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust on their behalf. They have agreed to ban the use of prawns during the summer months. We believe that conservation is a matter of international concern, but if we expect other people to clean up their rivers then we ourselves should give maximum protection to the salmon in our own waters.
Drift netting is banned in Scotland, but fish entering the Tweed along the Northumbrian coast are at grave risk. They run the gauntlet of licensed drift nets and of countless unlicensed nets which are used by people of all ages for material gain.
The department of my noble friend the Minister has been most active over the introduction of shorter working periods for the nets. In view of government promises to monitor the effects of the north-east drift netting, perhaps I may ask him whether he believes that the return of catches by the drift netting licensees will be sufficiently accurate for an assessment on north-east drift netting to be made. If not, will the Government take soundings from people on the ground who are in touch with what is happening?
Should evidence of the need to phase out netting become available, how long will it take to introduce new legislation? Should this step be taken, conservationists as a whole would feel happier at the removal of a form of netting which inflicts great cruelty on birds and seals as well as fish, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said. River fishermen in the east coast rivers would feel happier at the removal of nets which kill fish on the way to spawn and which rightfully belong to the rivers.
The banning of drift netting would be good news to everyone except the drift netters, who understandably have lobbied sympathy and support on the grounds of threatened job losses in an area of heavy unemployment. But how many men are employed in that industry? How far do they depend on those jobs for a livelihood, and how much are they part of the black economy? How far is unemployment being used as an excuse to prevent the abolition of drift netting? If these nets were phased out, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, has suggested, it would be a major breakthrough in conservation. I believe it would result in a gradual improvement to our spring runs. It would also lead to a new dilemma, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred.

301
It would provide more scope for river poachers, who would find pools full of fish at times of low summer levels. I suspect that some of them would continue to operate—even though opportunities to sell were not so available—simply to spite the landowners. My fear is that the battles will be long-lasting.
There are other threats on which I shall not enlarge, but I should like to mention one, the goosander, which does tremendous damage to our smolt population. All concerned with the protection of the salmon—NASCO and other international organisations, the Government, river authorities, and riparian owners—must work together against these various threats so that salmon, looked upon as the king of fish by conservationists and fishermen alike, are free to run up our rivers.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should also like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I have to declare an interest as I am chairman of the Ness District Fishery Board. Though I could take issue on some point or other with a number of your Lordships who have spoken, I shall keep to four main points: first, fish farming; secondly, poaching; thirdly, water extraction and fourthly, seals. The first point is by far and away the most important. Although I do not have second sight, I can readily predict that within a comparatively short time we shall have a major disaster concerning our fish stocks. We are at the edge of a precipice. I hope that the fish farmers and the Highland Development Board in particular will not rush over the edge of this precipice like lemmings.
Fish farming is a new industry. It has been extensively encouraged by the Highland Development Board and so far has undoubtedly been a major success, bringing employment to the remoter areas where little has previously existed. What is as important is the money which it has brought to these areas. However, there is a major fly in the ointment, for though there are many conscientious developers there are undoubtedly cowboys jumping on to the bandwagon. Even with the bigger concerns there is a substantial risk.
As it is a new industry, there are many matters about which there is little experience and we are playing with nature in a major way. We could be doing serious damage to our stocks of wild fish, but what is most serious of all is that it is only a matter of time before we have a major outbreak of disease which will affect the wild stocks every bit as much, perhaps more so, than the fish farms. We all know that UDN broke out in the South of Ireland, almost certainly from a rainbow trout farm. It had a devastating effect on our migratory fish around Britain. More recently there have been the troubles off the Norwegian coast. I am no scientist but I understand that a number of diseases are endemic in our salmon stocks. It is almost certain that it would only require something quite minor to trigger off a catastrophic disease, possibly resulting from stress or irritation caused to the gills through pollution.
302
I understand that one of the fish farms on the River Nairn was closed down for about three years by the Ministry of Agriculture through an outbreak of some sort of disease, possibly caused by a landslide further upstream or through the work being carried out on the A9 when it was under construction, causing contamination of the water which may have irritated the gills of the fish. However we are not told about these things, so we do not know what to look for and we do not know the cause.
This summer I heard that a village in the Ness Fishery Board area was complaining bitterly about an obnoxious smell. The environmental health officer was called in and he found that a fish farm had been burying fish in a pit dug for it by a JCB. As the last pit was full, the JCB had been called back in to build a new pit and had cut into the old one so that the whole village was being polluted by the smell of rotting fish.
As chairman of the fishery board I felt that investigation was required and was informed by the company concerned that no fish were being buried. That was clearly untrue but immediately aroused one's suspicions. On further inquiries to the company I received an apology and was told that the person to whom I had spoken did not know that fish were being buried. As this is a large company it was, to say the least, alarming that there should be such lack of control or knowledge of what was happening. I understand that a lot of fish were buried on another fish farm on the west coast. I still do not know what caused the death of the fish, or what kind of numbers died, but I think this is an example of how a major company was hiding losses. If they were to do so, what happens with the small farmer who wants to keep inspectors off his back?
This leads to the question that I should like to put to my noble friend. How much inspection is done by the Ministry of Agriculture? How many inspectors are there? Is a proper check kept on the farms as regards health and general management? I appreciate that the department may say "We are too short staffed to do it". Perhaps that is not right, but if we are to have an industry such as this, why should not companies pay a licence to ensure that adequate inspection takes place? It is every bit as much in their interests as in anyone else's. We shall be told that the fish farming industry has a code of practice. But it does not have the force of law behind it. It is frequently broken and it is vital that we have new legislation for the industry.
Agriculture as a whole has many rules and regulations enforced by law. For example, the sudden death of an animal has to be reported in case it has anthrax. If a number of fish die on a fish farm for some inexplicable reason, there should be a law to say that this must be reported at once. More important still, there should be inspections of the farms to ensure that as far as possible no outbreaks of disease occur. We can understand fish farmers resisting interference, let alone expense, but it must be for their benefit in the long run.
Apart from disease there is the substantial worry about the effects on our wild stock of the genetic

303
changes which are occurring. We do not have time to go into the matter tonight; it is a subject on its own. However, I recommend to the House a little booklet published by the Atlantic Salmon Trust, written by N. P. Wilkins, called Salmon Stocks: A Genetic Perspective. It begins by quoting Andrew Young, a pioneer of modern salmon cultivation, who, in 1854, wrote about each river having its own peculiar race of fish. He knew that the salmon had a kind of apartheid. What will happen now that we are mixing up the races? There are grave fears that we may well have mammoth problems. I am pleased to hear that the NCC is doing something useful and researching this subject, and that a paper will shortly be published.
One of the important steps taken in the Salmon Act was to sharpen up the laws on poaching with particular regard to modern methods. Several noble Lords have already mentioned that, but I feel that I must draw attention to the fact that the intentions of Parliament are being thwarted by some members of the judiciary. Only yesterday the superintendent of our fishery board reported to us his frustration and disgust at the outcome of a case where two tenants of a sweep net station were using hang nets instead of sweep nets. They had pleaded guilty—they did not have much option—and were fined a mere £35 each. They also had their nets confiscated; but that raises another problem. I wonder what has happened to those nets. I raise the matter, as, so often in the past, poachers have bought back their equipment from courts.
I should like to make a final point with which I sincerely hope my noble friend can assist. There is a little river which runs out of Loch Oich to connect with Loch Ness called the River Oich. That river is an important connecting link in the Ness board area. The river flows were set at a time when the hydroelectric dams were being constructed on the Invernesshire Galley. Parallel with the river runs a section of the Caledonian Canal, also connecting the two lochs. In recent years the locks at the lower end of this part of the canal have markedly deteriorated and water pours through the canal. That is in addition to the substantial extra traffic making use of the canal and also letting through extra water.
As a result, in drought conditions the river becomes very dry and salmon become stranded in small pools. That condition was produced entirely by the British Waterways Board because the minimum flows were agreed by the hydro board. That would be bad enough in itself, but our fishery board discovered that the British Waterways Board was selling water from the canal to water a golf course. That was necessary only in drought conditions and could only exacerbate the position of the salmon. We objected and we were supported by the purification board. I have now heard that the Department of the Environment, based in London, has overruled those local bodies and has encroached upon the Minister's preserves. The department has sanctioned that quite unnecessary sale of water. It is an extraordinary state of affairs for a body which is supposed to look after our environment and which controls the NCC.
304
Part of the Question before us is whether the threats to salmon stocks are being contained. As for many years I have been on the Ness District Fishery Board, I should like to contradict my noble friend Lord Thurso because, even if there is an annual fluctuation of our fish stocks, we are most concerned that there has been a steady decline in our fish. That may not be attributable to the Ness system; it may be untreated pollution from the town or it may be due to hydro schemes. However, we have been suffering a steady decline and whatever we do to try to repair the damage has no effect.
One immediate action which the Government could take and could authorise in order to help is a substantial seal cull. It is estimated that seals are taking four times the catch taken by rod and net put together.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for enabling the House to have a timely look at the situation which has arisen since the Salmon Act was passed. I declare an interest in that I own fishings in Northern Scotland as a riparian owner on a minor salmon river, although I have not fished since I was wounded and partially disabled 43 years ago. I should like to ask the Minister two questions about which I was able to give him notice yesterday. Although I am the last but one speaker in the debate, I hope that the notice will have helped him to respond. First, what is the latest position as regards drift netting off the coast of North-East England, which has already been spoken of during the debate? Secondly, what is the Government's view of the purpose and actions of the new Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust, Scotland?
I shall put those questions in their context. I have been involved in some of the events and decisions over the past 30 years. Drift netting for salmon became an urgent issue in the early 1960s, when I was a junior member of the government of the day, and in another place, because this drift netting was suddenly taken up by seine net boats, herring boats and small trawlers in Scotland. The main reason for this was the use of new, very strong, man-made fibres of the nylon type. They were more effective in large mesh in catching salmon than the previous materials. It was also possible for skippers to work out the routes taken by fish on returning to the rivers. Swimming near the surface, as they do at that stage, they were an easy prey to these hanging nets which could be extended for long distances round the mouths of rivers.
It was some of the sea fishing boats from Scotland, especially on the north-east coast, which quickly equipped themselves for this new fishery. At the time the Hunter Committee was in existence considering the whole subject of salmon and trout. Therefore, that committee was asked for an urgent interim report. As a result, a total ban in Scotland on drift netting salmon was imposed. It was carried out by order and reviewed every few years until the 1986 Act.

305
The paradox which remained was that licensed drift netting off the coast of North-East England continued as it had for, I understand, at least 100 years. One paradoxical effect on the Tweed was that salmon coming in from the north were luckier than those coming in from the south. For the Scottish fishermen, particularly those who had already invested in new nets and gear for drift netting, this was an inexplicable anomaly.
When the 1986 Act was about to be introduced as a Bill, some of us hoped that it would propose a phasing out of that fishery, but it was not to be. Shortly before the Bill appeared at the end of the previous Session of Parliament, I received a long written reply to a Question; that was on 7th November 1985. Besides dealing with other matters such as tagging and dealer licensing, it announced three changes to be made to drift netting off the North-East coast of England. The first was that the licensee would have to be present in the boat unless he was ill. The second was that there was to be a shorter fishing time during the week. The third was to change the balance so that there would be fewer drift nets and more fixed nets.
When the Bill was passing through its stages a deputation of about six licensees from the Northumbrian fishery came to Westminster and I, with a few parliamentary colleagues, met them. The picture they painted was of a traditional occupation extending back into the last century, that it was carefully controlled, only very small boats were involved and the permitted areas were closely restricted and delineated. Indeed, it was a very different picture from the free-for-all which could have developed in Scotland. I liked those Northumbrian fishermen, and I understood the importance of the livelihood which had been part of their community's way of life for so long.
Nonetheless, the catch figures (when one could identify them) seemed to show a huge increase in catches of that fishery. Since that announcement, and further restrictions in November 1985, I should like to ask the Minister what the effect has been there. I must state that personally I still think that the fishery should be gradually phased out.
Turning to the second question, I remind your Lordships that the Hunter Committee's final report was published in 1965. One of its principal recommendations was that there should be a calculated take from each river, so determining the number running up to spawn and available for anglers. Coastal, estuarial and river mouth netting would come to an end. There would be one station on the river where good management would enable the optimum number of fish to be taken each year.
306
This part of the report, naturally, met opposition from the netting interests and it was estimated that some 3,000 to 4,000 people might lose their jobs in Scotland, though most of them were part-time. It was not surprising that that part of the report has not been pursued. Other parts of the report have been the basis of subsequent legislation, particularly on trout fisheries. I was concerned with the process of consultations on the main report between 1970 and 1974 when I was the Secretary of State.
Two years ago this new conservation trust in Scotland came into being and its aim is to buy out the netting interests. The founders informed me before it was established at the end of 1985 and I advised them that there could be problems and objections arising from loss of jobs, though I believe the situation is different from that of 1965. That trust to which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred, has achieved much in two years. It has bought a large number of netting points in the Moray Firth and the north-east of Scotland and it has now bought quite a number on the Tweed. Lord Hunter is the patron of the trust and I should like to record in the words of the trust what it has done:
"The Trust has taken up the challenge proposed in the Hunter Report. By the end of 1986 it had purchased or arranged to purchase—on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis—and will permanently close 283 interceptory, coastal and estuarial netting points around the North-East of Scotland, thereby freeing annually another 40,000 wild salmon to return to their ancestral rivers to spawn. This represents up to 25 per cent. of the 'indiscriminate' catch in Scottish waters".
Those were willing sales but I do not know whether any significant unemployment is being caused. I hope not, but the Minister may be able to tell us about that. In my view, in other respects the trust can only be doing good. Angling is the method of catching which best helps the economy of Scotland and other areas where there are salmon rivers. The tourist industry, especially hotels, benefits; and in some areas the hotels are completely dependent upon the fishing.
In Scotland fishing pays local government rates; it contributes financially to the local services and the scale is related to the numbers of fish caught. If few fish are available in rivers, that discourages the holiday angler as well as reducing the rates of contributions. The more fish in the rivers (as only a proportion can be caught by anglers) the more salmon are likely to be reproduced because they have to run up the rivers to spawn. Despite the success of salmon farming, wild salmon are still a vital part of the economy in parts of our country and I should be grateful to hear the views of the Government on the new initiative of this trust.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that speaking on salmon in your Lordships' House means meeting and listening to very erudite and experienced people. I took part in the debates on the 1986 Act and I have done some re-reading of it. I have not gone through the entire Act or the proceedings in the House, but I have paid a fair amount of attention to it. It is interesting to note the way in which the arguments are arising again in this debate.
I think we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who is one of the experts in scientific matters and on a par, I believe, with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in his study of salmon, the habits of salmon and the whole background of the North Atlantic salmon. When I read the subject he had chosen I felt that perhaps it was a little early to be discussing the effects of the 1986 Act but, having listened today, obviously we could have a debate on salmon fairly regularly and we would be continually turning up new material.
I am sure it will not be too difficult to discern that I am not an expert on the North Atlantic salmon or even on angling, but I have been approached by netsmen on the subject. I am sure the Minister will know many of the arguments that netsmen have put forward. No one else approached me which would make one believe that others, particularly those who have rod fishing beats, are fairly happy with what the Government have done. Therefore I make no apologies for putting quite strongly the arguments put by the Scottish Salmon Net Fishing Association.
A number of questions have been asked of the Minister and I shall put some myself. It would make the debate very long if the Minister were to answer them all, but I hope that he will find a way, if not tonight, to get the information to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. He will realise from listening to the debate that Ministers' replies are treasured and brought up again to see what progress has been made since the statements were originally made.
The traditional Scottish salmon net fishermen are concerned about the weekly closing time which was put forward as the principal way— particularly at the beginning of the debate—of preserving salmon stocks in Scottish rivers. Other arguments were put forward later. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, used other arguments, rather than netting, for preserving the salmon stock. The netsmen of course, as one would expect, would agree with this, but they believe that the Government's announcement to extend the weekly closing time by 18 hours will in fact reduce the netsmen's earnings by at least 18 per cent. They believe that this is a factual figure arrived at by examining marketing records from the industry going back over many years. I think it is true that there are few businesses which could stand a cut of that magnitude in their turnover, and salmon fishing is no exception.
The netsmen believe that there is no justifiable reason for this measure other than the political
308
pressure that has been applied to both Houses from angling interests. These are not confined to the one party, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley, who I know is a keen fisherman, and he spoke very much in favour of the weekly closing time.
The facts as I have been given them are that salmon stocks are governed by the capacity of any river to support the young salmon stock for at least the first three years of their life before the smolts go to sea. Over decades the ecology of all our rivers has changed markedly due to a number of factors. Again the noble Lord, Lord Burton, mentioned some of them. Those factors are hill drainage and forestry leading to erosion and flash floods; increased acidification from the rapid run off of acid rain; lower water levels in drought; hydro dams; increased water extraction for domestic, industrial and agricultural use; industrial, agricultural and domestic pollution.
Those factors have all had an adverse effect on the quality of our rivers, and their capacity to produce and nurture young salmon has undoubtedly been greatly reduced. However, the salmon scientists of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say that virtually all Scottish salmon rivers are producing as many smolts as their ecology can provide for. A 20-year research programme has shown that increased numbers of mature spawning salmon do not reflect directly in an increased smolt production.
Another research project by departmental scientists has shown that the Deveron—and I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made reference to this in his speech— which has not been netted since 1901 was compared with the Spey which has been intensively netted continuously. There was no detectable difference in the state of the stocks. The departmental salmon scientists have also shown that up to 40 per cent. of our salmon stocks return to our rivers after the close of the netting of salmon in August. Changing the weekly closing time would make no difference to this particular stock.
The only section of salmon stock that is in undoubted decline is the stock of spring salmon. The Government's own catch statistics show in the figures published in December 1986 that commercial netting caught only 5.5 per cent. up until 1st May annually, with the angling sector catching 94.5 per cent. There is a large discrepancy in the figures and perhaps the Minister will have something to say about that. I wonder whether it is realistic to suggest that netting is responsible for any appreciable decline in the stock.
The salmon scientists of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say that allowing more summer grilse and salmon into our rivers may in fact help to hasten the decline of the stock. If, as the Government stated, this measure was in part a conservation measure, why—and this point was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—were millions of eggs from our rivers sold to the fish farming industry and for export? The reason is frequently given as over-stocking in the spawning grounds; but the revenue from these sales goes to support the running costs of the fishery boards and

309
therefore subsidises the riparian sporting owners who support the order. That situation hardly supports any conservation argument.
A great deal was made of the effect of the grey seal. It was even suggested by one noble Lord— despite the fact that there was a good deal of complaint about the law not being enforced properly in terms of poachers and certain illegal netters— that there was nothing wrong with a wee hit of illegal culling of seals if that were possible. I am not suggesting that. I am sure that the Minister caught the point as it was made.
In Scotland, a salmon fishing, whether commercial or sporting, either in the rivers or in the sea, is owned by the same heritable title, just as a house, farm or factory. The order proposed by the Government will undoubtedly erode the value of the netsmen's title; and where the loss in earnings makes a fishery no longer commercially viable, the value of the title will be totally lost with no compensation to the owner.
Most salmon fishing is carried out as family businesses, frequently in the more remote and disadvantaged areas. Like family farmers, all their capital is tied up in their business assets. These assets specific to salmon fishing have no real alternative use or value. In this respect, I am in the hands of the Minister who may know more about the alternative use. I shall be only too pleased to hear that there is a use for the assets if no net fishing is possible. I believe that the order could ruin financially many of the families for generations and could result in the loss of about 1,000 jobs provided annually by salmon fishing in those remote areas.
I hope that the points that I have made will allow the Minister to deal specifically with the area on which he has been hailed as breaking new ground by increasing the closed time for netting. He will be aware that it has caused a great deal of anxiety to a section of the salmon fishing community perhaps less well off than the one we were concentrating on this evening.
9.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the implementation of the Salmon Act, which came into force just over a year ago, and various related matters. The questions that have been asked in this debate are fairly lengthy but I should like to go through as many of them as possible so that we can deal with them this evening, if that meets with your Lordships' wishes. All the matters that have been raised are integrated and are important as far as the salmon species is concerned.
I am particularly grateful for the advance notice given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, of the matters which they would be raising today. The 1986 Act was of course introduced in your Lordships' House and deals with issues which are of great interest to many noble Lords.
310
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about the introduction of the salmon dealer licensing schemes. As the noble Lord said in his speech, we have just issued our consultation documents to interested organisations in Scotland and England and Wales and await their comments. I do not think that it would be appropriate to go into the details of the proposed schemes this evening but it may be helpful if I make some general remarks. I am grateful for the generally welcoming remarks from noble Lords who have spoken about this particular part of the Salmon Act.
The noble Lord referred to an article in the Daily Telegraph about whether records would be kept of sales as well as purchases. The extent to which records of sales will be required is raised in both consultation papers. No decisions have been taken on this: it is a matter for detailed consideration after the consultation.
It may be felt that it has taken a rather long time to get from the coming into force of the Act to the consultation stage. I can appreciate such views but in fact this is a complicated subject not least because of the different legislative background north and south of the Border and the need to produce proposals which are likely to he effective but not too burdensome on the lawful trade. The Scottish scheme, which will have district and island councils as the licensing authorities, will be, so to speak, tacked on to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
On the other hand the licensing authorities in England and Wales are not subject to the 1982 Act and the scheme will be administered by the water authorities who have responsibility for salmon conservation. It has, therefore, been necessary to ensure, given the different administrative and legislative background, that the proposed schemes are as compatible as possible. The proposed schemes have been discussed in Scotland with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and in England and Wales with the water authorities.
A fair amount of work has already been done and I hope that there will be general agreement in this House that, given the significance of the measure, it is more important to produce good schemes than to unduly rush consideration. I can nevertheless assure noble Lords that we will continue to make as much speed as we can in moving through the consultation stage to production of the schemes themselves. The orders containing the schemes are of course subject to affirmative resolution and this will give the House the opportunity to discuss the matter in detail at a later stage.
I regret that I cannot give an accurate forecast as to when the schemes will be brought into effect. We have asked for comments within two months and have offered meetings. This will take time and I hope the House will understand if I say that I hope implementation will be later this year.
As to whether the schemes will be tough and effective depends to some extent on the result of the consultation. Certainly, we believe that our proposals

311
are both. There will, for example, be provision for disqualification from holding a licence for up to five years at the discretion of the court. It would, however, be unreasonable to make disqualification mandatory, however minor or technical the offence.
The noble Lord asked if an hotelier convicted of receiving illegally-taken salmon could lose his liquor licence or be liable to lose it. I have to say that automatic loss of a liquor licence would be draconian in my view and that, in Scotland, the enabling provisions we have for salmon dealer licensing do not allow for it. However, in considering applications for liquor licences, licensing boards do have regard to the character of the applicant and any offences under the salmon legislation could be taken into account. When in force the dealer licensing schemes will supplement the handling and, as we in Scotland prefer to call it, the unlawful possession offences provided for in Section 22, the Scottish section, and Section 31, the English and Welsh section. of the Salmon Act.
I understand that there have been five convictions in England and Wales, with fines of up to £1,000 plus costs being imposed. The cases have involved a variety of circumstances: persons seen removing fish from vehicles; carrying fish from a foreshore; offering fish for sale at a place of work and a well-publicised case involving a large quantity of salmon in an hotel freezer. A further 13 prosecutions are pending. Unfortunately, I cannot give your Lordships parallel figures for Scotland but there have certainly been cases, one of which involved the handling of 27 salmon in Perth, a fine of £250 and forfeiture of a car and the fish.
My information is that local enforcement authorities are generally pleased with the provision and look forward to making continued use of it. All this indicates a very encouraging start and reinforces our view that the new offence, especially when coupled with dealer licensing, can be expected to make significant inroads into the trade in illegally caught fish.
The Government's recognition of the seriousness of salmon poaching and the tendency for poachers to operate in gangs can be seen by the penalties contained in the Salmon Act. If there is one theme that ran through this debate this evening, it was the seriousness attached in the House to the whole question of poaching. For fishing with an illegal instrument or unlicensed net in England and Wales, poachers can on indictment be imprisoned for up to two years and receive an unlimited fine. Magistrates can impose up to three months' imprisonment and a £2,000 fine. In addition, boats, vehicles and nets are liable to be forfeited. Sentences of similar severity apply to the new offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances.
The Government's concern is also reflected in the removal by Section 35 of the Salmon Act of the differential penalties which depended on whether an offender acted on his own or with another person. The courts can now impose the higher penalties without the need to establish that persons acted together.
312
I have noted what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said about sentences imposed by the courts. We have of course no powers to influence the sentences imposed by the courts in particular cases. The judiciary's independence must be maintained. It is for the prosecuting authorities to demonstrate to the courts the gravity of any particular case and for the courts to decide whether exemplary punishments should be imposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has, however, drawn attention to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, to Buckinghamshire magistrates in April 1987. Those remarks were made in the capacity of president of the Magistrates' Association and not as Lord Chancellor. The remarks were published in the Magistrates' Association's journal and I have no doubt that magistrates will be able to take full account of them. Those who are interested in this point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, ought to read what is said there, for what is said is very true.
In England and Wales, the basic responsibility for enforcing salmon and freshwater fisheries law rests with the water authorities. However, I understand that there is often very close liaison between the police and the water authorities, with joint operations being quite common. I am glad to be able to add that the position in Scotland is generally regarded as good so far as concerns co-operation between the police, district salmon fishery boards and my department. Chief constables have of course other priorities but I have no reason to doubt that they apply whatever resources they can to combating poaching.
The particular case of the River Forth has been mentioned and I have to agree that the position there has been less than satisfactory. It is important to bear in mind, however, that questions of divisions of responsibility arise. My department can and does protect the fisheries in the sea. The district board and the police are responsible for law enforcement in the river and my department has rendered assistance. I am glad to be able to say that the situation seems to have improved in recent months, due in no short measure to the activities of the Forth Fisheries Conservation Trust, to which some of your Lordships referred. My department will continue to do what it can to help. We recognise the difficulties, particularly in that river.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, also asked whether the Government would be prepared to consider prohibiting the sale of rod-caught fish. This is not a subject on which, so far as I am aware, there is any consensus, and it is also one which could be regarded as draconian as well if, for example, the suggestion is that we went beyond the proposal in the salmon dealer licensing schemes that it would be an offence for an unlicensed person to sell a salmon to anyone other than a licensed dealer.
I again express the Government's recognition of the service performed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in raising, during the passage of the Bill, the problem of illegal netting of salmon in the guise of fishing for sea fish. I understand that some water

313
authorities and sea fisheries committees have been discussing measures to prevent this practice, but no firm by-law proposals have been submitted as yet.
The noble Lord expressed concern about the relationship between by-laws for the protection of salmon and those authorising the use of fixed engines. As the noble Lord will know, the very strong formulation of Section 6 of the 1975 Act (as amended by the 1986 Act) was designed to avoid doubts about the interpretation of that section following the judgment in the case of Champion v. Maughan and Groves.
It was, however, not intended to prohibit the use of all fixed gear in sea fishing. Such gear has been used, quite legitimately, in many areas to catch sea fish and eels. The intention was to provide for these activities through by-laws authorising fixed engines at such places and times where they do not threaten runs of migratory salmonids. The by-laws will be subject to water authority consent so there is provision to safeguard the interests of migratory salmonids. Since the passage of the Salmon Act, water authorities and sea fisheries committes have been considering what by-laws will be necessary. Many are in an advanced stage of drafting and several have already been made.
There is no question of fixed engine by-laws and by-laws controlling sea fishing for the protection of salmon being used as bargaining counters in any derogatory sense. Water authorities and sea fisheries committees are, I am assured, working together to improve fisheries management in their areas.
I am grateful for the kind words of support from some quarters of the House for the decision to extend the weekly close time for salmon net fishing. I am also aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Mason, has said about tourism and the effects of the rod fishing industry on tourism. It was not an easy decision to take, and I am therefore not surprised by the adverse comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
To those who are disappointed by the decision I have to make the point, however, that there are many more who are happy with it, including those who wish that I had gone much further. There is no suggestion that all the fish which the netsmen would take but for the increase will be taken by anglers. Those that are not will be available to increase the spawning escapement and salmon stocks. I accept that not all rivers need that increase, and the noble Viscount has made that clear.
He will, however, remember a meeting that he attended on 21st August last year—after meetings of netsmen and rodsmen which I had attended earlier in the day—when the proposal to increase the weekly close time was discussed. Far from everyone present agreed with him that no action was needed in the interests of salmon conservation. At 60 hours the weekly close time will be the same as applies to similar netting operations in the areas of the Northumbrian and Yorkshire water authorities, which are on the same coast as the major salmon net fisheries in Scotland.
The noble Lord expressed concern that the effects of the increase in the weekly close time will not be
314
monitored specifically. The review of the east coast net fisheries, for which Section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986 provides, will take account of the increase in the weekly close time. It is, however, a short time between May 1988, when I intend that the increase will be brought into effect, and the preparation of the report on the review—as soon as practicable after November 1989—and it would perhaps be unreasonable to expect anything very definite to emerge specifically on that count. Monitoring such as the noble Lord appears to have in mind would in fact be likely to be very difficult given other considerations, such as the fact that salmon catches vary from year to year due to climatic and other factors. While there would not be any separate specific monitoring of the close time change, my department will of course take this into account in its job of keeping the state of Scottish salmon fisheries under general review.
Other matters which were raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, when he was speaking on the close time were first in connection with the Solway. The noble Viscount referred to the anomaly which exists on the Solway because of the different close time north and south of the Border. I am advised that the North-West Water Authority are mindful of the desirability of maintaining the same close time on both sides of the Solway and are currently considering their response to the recent charge on the Scottish side.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, also questioned the scientific evidence. As regards that evidence, the answer given in another place and quoted by the noble Viscount was, I think, a fair one. The scientific evidence is not conclusive and a number of other considerations had to be taken into account.
Finally, another matter raised by the noble Viscount when talking about the close time was that he asked whether the local board could do their own thing—that is, restore the old close time in districts where further restrictions may not be necessary. I have to say that the Salmon Act does not allow for that and I looked at that very closely.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, that is not what I asked. I asked whether the noble Lord himself would use what is allowed to him in the Salmon Act, to make his order different for those boards which wanted it done that way. I would appreciate it if the noble Lord would answer my question in the way in which I put it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I shall certainly look very carefully at what the noble Viscount said. But my understanding of the Salmon Act 1986 is that there is no power in that Act for me to act differently with one river from another. However, I shall look very closely at what the noble Viscount said, and if my interpretation is different from his then of course I shall write to him. What is available is that the annual close time can be varied on a district by district basis, as he will no doubt be well aware.
With regard to the north-east of England drift net fishery, all the measures to restrict the fishery still further were in place for the start of the 1987 season. The measures to encourage a shift from drift netting

315
towards fixed netting will all he in place for the start of the 1988 season. I am sure the noble Viscount will accept that it is impossible to assess the effects of all these measures so quickly. The Salmon Act requires Ministers to review all salmon netting in north-east England and the east coast of Scotland in November 1989 and to place their report before both Houses of Parliament. That is a much more appropriate timescale. We have made it clear that we shall approach the review with an open mind and there is, I suggest, little if anything to be gained by speculating tonight on the outcome.
I would say however to the noble Earl, Lord Haig, that the catch returns of licensed netsmen will be one of the parameters studied in the review. These returns are required by the water authority by-laws and must be to the water authority's specification as to the details.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to the purchase of Scottish netting rights by the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland) Limited as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Mason. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mason, did the Government a disservice. I thought this Government were particularly interested in private enterprise and the private enterprise shown by this trust is quite remarkable.
This is, as he rightly said, a significant development and one that we are watching with interest. It is of course a complex matter and it has to be recognised that the removal of netting stations will not in itself necessarily improve the management of river systems. It should of course make more fish available to be caught by rod and line and by other nets. It should also lead to an increase in the spawning escapement particularly in those districts where only rod and line fishing would remain. I must point out, however, that the purchase of private rights in Scotland by a private organisation—albeit one dedicated to salmon conservation—is a different matter from the extinction of the public right to fish in coastal waters in England and Wales. Netting rights purchased by the trust are not of course automatically extinguished, although it allows their use to be suspended. Still on the subject of the northeast of England, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked me about the proposals regarding the use of T-nets off the Northumbrian coast. I should like to try to explain some of the background to this.
In November 1985, my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced measures for the future management of the English north-east Fishery. These measures were designed to do two things. The first objective was to reduce the fishing effort in the fishery as a whole by banning drift netting for eight hours each night, by standardising the weekend close time for all nets at 60 hours—thereby cutting out Saturday working—and by preventing "endorsees" using nets independently of the licence holder.
The second objective was to seek to change the balance of fishing effort from drift nets to fixed nets. Underlying this was the concern expressed by your Lordships again this evening about the interceptory
316
nature of the drift nets. T-nets do not intercept salmon in the same way as drift nets. They tend to take more local stocks and a higher proportion of sea trout than do drift nets.
Among the measures to change this balance of fishing effort was my right honourable friend's acceptance of the Northumbrian Water Authority's request for an order to permit the use of fixed nets in its southern area. Fixed nets were already allowed in the Northumbrian Water Authority's northern area and in the Yorkshire Water Authority's area and this measure would—on a strictly controlled basis—bring the southern Northumbrian area into line. The order to allow T-nets in the southern Northumbrian area was made last year and takes practical effect in March with the start of the 1988 season. The Northumbrian Water Authority has made two by-laws which will restrict the use of T-nets near the mouths of the rivers Wear and Tees. Without these by-laws the use of licensed T-nets would be totally unrestricted in the southern Northumbrian area.
The by-law regarding the River Wear would allow up to five T-nets inside the so-called Wear box, an area in which drift netting is prohibited. That proposal aroused considerable opposition and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food decided that a public inquiry should be held into the by-law. The inspector's report is awaited and I understand my right honourable friend will take his decision on whether to confirm the by-law in the light of that report.
It has been suggested that the introduction of T-nets in the southern Northumbrian area will result in an increase in fishing effort. This is not so. First of all, that area has seen its weekend close time increased by 18 hours for all nets and drift netting has been prohibited for eight hours each night. Secondly, no additional licences are being issued. Netsmen will be able to take out a licence which authorises the use of either T-nets or drift nets but they will not be able to use both types of net simultaneously. They will alternatively be able to take out a licence for T-nets only at a lower cost. The use of T-nets in the southern Northumbrian area will therefore lead to a direct reduction of the amount of drift netting in the area.
The noble Lord asked about the numbers of salmon and grilse caught in the Northumbrian nets in 1987. I think this was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The returns are still being analysed by the water authority and the final data will not be available for some time. However, on the basis of the returns analysed so far, it looks as though the number of salmon and grilse caught by the Northumbrian nets in 1987 will be fewer than the 54,000 caught in 1986. The rod catch returns for the Northumbrian area are also being analysed but early indications are that these show a significant increase.
As for the Tees, the proposed by-law will, if confirmed, introduce restrictions on both drift netting and T-netting around the mouth of the River Tees. No restrictions are currently in place on either fishing method near the mouth of the river. This bylaw has also attracted opposition from anglers who feel that it does not go far enough. The

317
Northumbrian Water Authority is, I believe, in touch with the objectors and they have yet to apply for confirmation of the by-law.
The Salmon Act provides for the making of subordinate legislation for Scotland. I have already referred to the weekly close time and the salmon dealer licensing schemes. Other matters can be regulated under Section 3 of the Act; for example the construction and alteration of dams, the meshes, materials and dimensions of nets and the construction, alteration and use of screens for the control of the passage of salmon. I have to say that although no regulations on these subjects have yet to be made under the Act, regulations relating to many of those matters made under earlier legislation remain in force.
In Section 21 there are powers to define methods of net fishing. Here again, no regulations have been made. I have to say, however, that the methods which may be defined; that is, net and coble, bag net, fly net and other stake nets are generally well understood in Scottish salmon circles. Noble Lords may however be interested to know that my department will be consulting shortly about dams and screens and the question of defining the lawful netting methods. On more local matters I have decided, on request, that a designation order will be made amalgamating the salmon fishery districts of the rivers Bervie and the North and South Esk. I have also decided, at the request of the Tweed commissioners, that a baits and lures order will be made under Sections 8 and 10 of the Salmon Act. That order will make it unlawful to fish on the River Tweed by rod and line with shrimp or prawn between 1st June and 14th September in any year.
I hope that those comments will confirm that we do not see the Act as a dead letter but rather as a means of bringing about improvement in salmon administration in Scotland and in England and Wales, and that we are making positive efforts towards implementing it in a number of cases. However, action requires initiative at a local level and we are beginning to see that.
Turning now to the Salmon Advisory Committee, the committee under the chairmanship of Professor Dunnet has now met four times. We have asked the committee to first of all examine and report on the availability of information on the status of salmon stocks and the influences on the level of those stocks, including the effects of predators and of fishing at low water levels. That is a large subject and no easy task, particularly as there are differing views on the status of stocks and the underlying influences. It is therefore with considerable interest that my colleagues and I await the committee's first report. I can confirm that the committee intend to report as and when it completes particular stages of its work rather than on, say, an annual basis.
My colleagues and I will have to decide the extent to which the committee's reports should be published in the light of the circumstances of each case. I cannot give a categoric assurance about publishing reports. It is not possible to forecast sensibly the sensitivity of issues which the committee might be asked to report
318
on in future. Moreover, reports may contain information given to the committee on the understanding that it would remain confidential. Nevertheless, I can assure the House that we do not intend to withhold information unnecessarily.
The committee decided unanimously to treat its discussions and papers as confidential. That allows members to speak their own minds freely and frankly without fear of being quoted outside. It will mean that they will be able to express their own views, based on their own knowledge, free from external pressures. That is a matter for the committee and not for ministers, but their decision strikes me as very sensible. I understand that the chairman wrote to all the nominating bodies to explain the point and none of them raised any objections. Nevertheless I shall draw the chairman's attention to the comments of your Lordships on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggested that the committee might issue a press release after each meeting and the chairman might speak to the media. I shall also draw that matter to the attention of the chairman. However, such issues can be difficult to relate to the press immediately after a discussion. I also have doubts about press releases in every case. Further discussions of those matters will take place with the committee.
With regard to acidification, I think that it is important to bear in mind that that is due not only to atmospheric input, to which noble Lords have referred, but also to local geology and land use. Controlling the planting of conifers in areas where soils are thin and poorly buffered is also of importance. I know that the Forestry Commission will be issuing guidelines for forest management and water and has been consulting those concerned with fisheries, and others, in preparing those guidelines.
It has been asked if the falling-off of runs and spring fish is mainly or partly due to the Greenland and Faroes Fisheries. Those fisheries are selective for multi-sea winter fish and undoubtedly some potential spring fish will be taken. It should, however, be noted that the decline in spring runs pre-dated those fisheries and showed no recovery when catches were reduced sharply under quotas. The primary cause for the current shortage of springers may well be environmental. However, exploitation by home-water fishing may be delaying recovery. District boards could consider, as was raised in meetings in Edinburgh, whether an extension of the annual close time in their particular district might be a useful measure.
The possibility of genetic changes arising from escapes of farmed salmon is, I believe, well recognised although there is little or no hard evidence of any damage being caused in this country. Research programmes are currently under way in departmental fisheries research laboratories. I am aware of a report called Genetic Impact of Farmed Atlantic Salmon on Wild Populations commissioned by the Nature Conservancy Council. The NCC has circulated the report to my department and a number of other organisations for comment.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, raised the question of outbreaks of disease in fish farms. This is an

319
important issue and one which the Government, and also the fish farming industry, take very seriously. This is quite understandable when one considers that the turnover from farm salmon in Shetland alone this year is £12 million. Farming only started in 1983 so noble Lords will see the speed of the increase in the business. However, there are dangers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, referred.
Disease at fish farms does occur but is not a frequent event. Fish farmers have a statutory requirement to notify my department if disease is present or suspected, and under the legislation my department has powers to apply restrictions on the movement of fish in and out of a site until we are satisfied that the outbreak has been dealt with. We adopt a safety-first policy and enjoy very good cooperation from the fish farming industry. I hope that the noble Lord can be assured that, although we are certainly not complacent, there is an effective mechanism for dealing with disease at fish farms. However, I noted what the noble Lord said, and I shall certainly look at it in conjunction with my colleagues.
On the subject of other river users it is perhaps inevitable that from time to time there will be conflicts of interest between canoeists and anglers—and indeed between other recreational activities—over access to and use of our waterways. Where such conflicts arise it is the Government's view that they are best tackled by local negotiations. In England and Wales the water authorities are currently well placed to handle these matters and I can confirm that the new National Rivers Authority, which will inherit the relevant responsibilities, will have an important role to play here. The NRA will have statutory duties relating to recreation and fisheries and a regional management structure which will place it in a strong position to play an active role in ensuring as far as possible the practical coexistence of the different groups of water users.
So far as concerns the subject of tidal barrages, it is the Government's policy to encourage the development of renewable energy sources where these are economically attractive and environmentally acceptable. The generation of electricity at tidal barrages is one possibility, but the environmental implications must clearly be fully explored before any decisions are taken. Currently the possibility of a barrage on the Severn is being studied under a programme funded by the Department of Energy, the CEGB and the Severn Tidal Power Group.
I recognise the noble Lord's concern about the possible effects of such a barrage on salmon. This concern is shared by the water authorities and the barrage's promoters, and I understand that the implications for fisheries are being carefully considered. Adverse effects could include interruption to upstream and downstream migration of fish—caused both by the physical presence of the barrage and the operation of its turbines—and the effects of any changes in the water environment. Clearly this all needs to be looked at very carefully indeed before any decisions are taken.
320
Noble Lords were right to point to a marginal decline in river quality in England and Wales from 1980 to 1985 and that, on evidence so far available, there appears to have been a further net decline in 1986. This must be kept in perspective. The fact remains that the UK is well up the league table in terms of river quality in Europe.
In relation to agricultural pollution, much has recently been done. The code of good agricultural practice has been published, extensive advice is made available on pollution avoidance, and grants are made available for waste management facilities. Nevertheless, the Government are very much aware of concern on this question and are considering very carefully what further measures may be necessary in the light of last year's report by the House of Commons' Environment Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton. mentioned the abstraction of water from Loch Oich. I understand that this relates to a recent application by the British Waterways Board for permission to sell some water from the Caledonian Canal to the Fort Augustus Golf Club. I appreciate the noble Lord's concern that flow in the River Oich be maintained, but I gather that in this case, because of differences in the design of the locks at each end of this part of the canal, no additional water will in fact have to be diverted into the canal from Loch Oich. The water being sold to the golf club is surplus to the operation of the lower lock. However, I should like to look at the papers on this case before agreeing entirely with what I am reading to your Lordships. The situation is quite complex and is one in which I should like to study the background papers before giving assurances on what I read here.
With regard to co-ordination of UK policy on salmon matters, the Government are always concerned to consult salmon organisations about their policies, both national and international, towards the conservation and management of salmon stocks. We are grateful for the advice and acknowledge the usefulness of representations made to us by bodies such as the Atlantic Salmon Trust.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, commented on coordination of policies with other salmon producing members of the Community and the Community's representation of UK interests. I can assure the noble Lord that there is close co-ordination amongst the salmon producing states and between the commission and the member states, both in preparation for the NASCO meetings and during them, and of course as required at other times also.
It is, however, the officials of the Commission who negotiate on behalf of the Community and speak at the formal meetings of the NASCO Council and Commissions. Membership of the delegation consists of Commission staff and representatives of member state governments. We are glad that the Atlantic Salmon Trust and other UK non-Governmental organisations attend NASCO as observers and we are grateful for their contribution to our deliberations at home, but I am afraid it is not possible to include their representatives in the Community's delegation.

321
Mention was made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, of seals. It has been argued that the increase in the seal population is having a damaging effect on salmon fisheries. There remains no evidence to argue against the fact that seals are predators which consume large quantities of fish, including many of the commercially valuable kinds. Losses due to reduction of fish stocks caused by ordinary feeding predation by seals cannot easily be quantified and much research still requires to be done to produce evidence which might prove beyond doubt the lasting effect of seals on fish stocks generally.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland decided in May 1985 that there will be no culling of seals until further notice because the evidence available to him did not justify culling to reduce or contain grey seal numbers. He indicated at that time that a further research programme of investigation into seal diet and distribution would be put in hand with a view to obtaining a better estimate of quantified damage to fish stocks. This research programme is now being undertaken, and until the results are to hand and assessed it is unlikely, as things stand, that there will be any change in policy.
However, we recognise that seals pose localised problems for salmon fishery as well as fish farming interests. For this reason, my department will continue to consider applications for licences for the control of seals to prevent damage to fisheries. Outside the annual close season there is no statutory protection for seals. There are also exemptions from the statutory liability to prosecution outside the licensing arrangements if seals are killed to prevent damage to fishing nets or tackle.
There was a strong attack by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, on monofilament gill nets. The carriage of these nets has been banned in Scotland for almost two years, and in Wales its use for salmon fishing is also banned. As regards England, where it is still legal to use these nets, my right honourable friend responsible for English fisheries is not convinced that there is a case for prohibiting their use; but the effect of these nets is kept under review.
Finally, the salmon catch data for England and Wales, which I think was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is published on a river by river basis and is expressed in terms of both numbers and weights. In Scotland we publish both numbers and weights by region and district. Both departments aim to publish the data in the year following that to which it relates and as early as possible in that year. However, to some extent we are in the hands of those who supply us with data. The Scottish Statistical Bulletin for 1986 is in the Library. Statistics for England and Wales will be published next month.
I am extremely conscious of the time taken to reply to this Question. However, I feel it is important to cover as many of the points raised in the debate as fully as possible. It is a subject which is very emotive and is one that we have to treat with great seriousness. I crave the indulgence of your Lordships for having spoken for so long.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  MALAYSIA: DETAINEES
  MALAYSIA: DETAINEES
  ETHIOPIA
  ETHIOPIA
  MOZAMBIQUE, ZIMBABWE AND ANGOLA: AID
  MOZAMBIQUE, ZIMBABWE AND ANGOLA: AID
  LAW AND ORDER SERVICES: FUNDING
  LAW AND ORDER SERVICES: FUNDING
  ALCOHOL MISUSE: MINISTERIAL GROUP'S PROPOSALS
  ALCOHOL MISUSE: MINISTERIAL GROUP'S PROPOSALS