Sitting of 27 January 1988

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

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Regional Aid
    Mr. O'Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss regional aid.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have not received any request from the Scottish Trades Union Congress for a meeting to discuss regional assistance.
    Mr. O'Neill: When the Secretary of State next meets the STUC to discuss regional aid, what assurances will he be able to give, as it is likely that the amount of aid for 1986, £240 million, will have fallen by about a third by the end of the decade? How many of the 3,000 applicants who last year were successful in securing regional aid will be able to obtain it under the new regime that he outlined last week?
    Mr. Rifkind: It should be fairly easy to reassure the STUC. The switch from automatic to selective assistance is in line with the recommendation of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). In formulating its views on these matters the council consulted all its members, including its trade union members.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the STUC, will he point out that for regions, such as Grampian, there will be less advantage in these changes?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. We are considering not only the selective forms of assistance, as described in the regional selective assistance proposals, but
    292
    the new business advisory and consultancy services. They will have an enormous impact on the growth of small businesses in Scotland. I am sure that all hon. Members will support that objective.
    Mr. Kirkwood: When the Secretary of State meets the STUC to discuss regional aid, will he consider the important question of the impact of EEC aid? He will know that the EEC attaches great importance to complementing the national regional strategies that are being employed by the Government. However, is he aware that it does not recognise that we have a proper rural regional development strategy? Will he pay attention to that important missing element in the regional aid package?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is not missing. The Government consider the development of rural areas of major importance. The Scottish Development Agency estimates that 25 per cent. of its expenditure goes to rural areas to develop the economic infrastructure and to help businesses in those areas. Increasingly, that is being recognised.
    Mr. Maxton: As the latest report of the Manpower Services Commission shows that the Scottish economy is doing worse than the economy of the rest of the United Kingdom, will the Secretary of State admit that there is a need for a massive increase in regional aid, rather than a cut, which is what he is proposing over the next few years? How can selective assistance possibly replace mandatory regional development grants? If he can, will he give a guarantee that all the money available for selective assistance will be used in Scotland for investment in Scottish industry?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might like to read more carefully the survey of the Fraser of Allander Institute, published last week, which reported great optimism for the future of the economy. The Scottish CBI survey, which was published yesterday, showed that, for the first time for some considerable period, the prospects for businesses in Scotland are more attractive and beneficial to the prospects of employment and growth than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take as much pleasure from that as I do.

    BBC Scotland
    Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the controller of BBC Scotland; and what matters were discussed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. and learned Friend last met the controller on 4 December, along with other senior Scottish television and radio executives, for a discussion on a broad range of Scottish affairs of interest to them.
    Mr. Galbraith: Did they discuss the episode "Cabinet" of the series "Secret Society"? I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who has seen this programme, that it is a damning indictment of the Cabinet and Press Secretary Ingham. Is not the Minister, having failed to censor the Scottish media by using the courts, now resorting to his other method —intimidation?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question in relation to this film by saying that

    293
    I understand that, after consulting the Government, the BBC decided last year not to show the film; but the BBC is aware that the Government deplore the dissemination of security information of this nature.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend impress upon the controller the importance of improving both long-wave and VHF reception in Scotland? Secondly, will he take up the issue in south-west Scotland of the occasions when the BBC splits programmes and south-west Scotland receives programmes from the north of England, which often means missing good Scottish international football?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will draw to the attention of the controller my hon. Friend's comments. The proposals for the creation of new commercial stations will increase the competition faced by the BBC, and it will have to ensure that the quality of its material is sufficient to retain its business. I am sure that it will welcome that challenge.
    Mr. Darling: Further to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I have seen the programme "Cabinet", which is part of the "Secret Society" series. Can the Minister assure us that he will place no impediment in the way of the BBC transmitting the film, which was cleared by the former director general, and has been cleared legally, and which raises no questions of national security?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is asking for, but I can only repeat what I have already said. The Government would deplore the dissemination of classified information of this nature. I do not wish to depart from that.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister, with hindsight, regret the rather high-handed way in which the warrant against the BBC was executed by the police, and does he not have doubts about the endless paperchase through the courts as the Government attempt to stop free discussion in the press about matters that are already in the public domain and which can be discussed in almost every other country?
    Lord Douglas-Hamilton: I shall answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question first. In relation to the distinction between an injunction and an interdict, I would say this. The Lord Advocate has not suggested — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has asked about the courts, so I am entitled to give him a full reply. I will come back to the first part of his question as well.
    The Lord Advocate has not suggested that an injunction granted by the High Court in England would apply in Scotland. Nor does the statement, as reported by The Scotsman, imply that to be the case. The Scottish legal system is distinct and separate from systems applying elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Government consider that a responsible media will ordinarily take account of decisions of a court in one jurisdiction of the United Kingdom which may have an effect on the conduct of the press in that jurisdiction, and that a responsible media will deduce that, in the absence of special circumstances, a similar restriction might reasonably be expected to apply in other jurisdictions. The Government take the view that the media should not be subject to restrictions in Scotland to which they would not be subject in England, and vice versa. Therefore, the Lord Advocate took the view that if the injunction granted by the High
    294
    Court was in terms less restrictive than the terms of an interim interdict, it was appropriate to indicate that he would not seek to enforce the interdict. In one sense—[Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Gentleman's first question later. The Lord Advocate is satisfied that the proper—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Under-Secretary must be given a chance to answer. Or has he answered?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Lord Advocate is satisfied that the proper procedures had been followed in obtaining the search warrant.

    Scottish Film Council
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the Scottish Film Council, and the proposal to amalgamate that body with the Scottish Arts Council.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I shall make an announcement shortly on the Government's response to the report of a policy review of the Scottish Film Council which was carried out last year.
    Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister provide the Library with a copy of the review? Does he accept than no one who knows anything about film in Scotland — from film makers to consumers, to educationists and to those involved in film archives — supports the proposal for amalgamation? Does he further accept that although the proposals may be convenient to bureaucrats at St. Andrew's House, and even at the Treasury, it offers no help whatever to an organisation that has done much to promote film in Scotland and beyond since 1934?
    Mr. Forsyth: The proposal for a merger of the Scottish Film Council with the Scottish Arts Council is only one of a number of options put forward. The hon. Gentleman does the review an injustice by concentrating on that alone, as the review has been warmly welcomed by the council.
    Mr. Clarke: The report is not in the Library. No one has read it.
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the question, I shall try to answer the points that he has put.
    The review has been warmly welcomed by the council, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the arguments that he has advanced and the various options are under consideration at the moment, and we expect to make an announcement shortly.

    Regional Aid
    Mr. Fallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how much is spent on industrial support per capita in Scotland compared with England.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): In 1986–87, identifiable public expenditure on the industry, energy, trade and employment programme in Scotland was £178·2 per head compared with £81·4 per head in England.
    The difference partly reflects the fact that the share of the Scottish population in assisted areas is more than twice that in England.
    Mr. Fallon: Does not the fact that Scottish business now needs twice as much help as English business illustrate the dangers of overdependency of the "suppie" culture on the English taxpayer? Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that we are getting better value for money for this industrial support?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of value for money. Value for money is an important criterion in judging the value of regional assistance. My hon. Friend might like to know that in 1986–87 regional assistance in Scotland was £40 per head, whereas in the north of England it was £39 per head. In addition, Manpower Services Commission schemes provided £179 per head in the north compared with £143 in Scotland.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that under the current reorganisation of the Department of Trade and Industry — "DTI — the department for Enterprise" — the management of the consulting and advisory services for the engineering industry is being transferred from the National Enginering Laboratory in East Kilbride to the Production Engineering Research Association in Melton Mowbray? Is the Minister aware that that is part of the continuing pattern of draining industrial resources and activities from Scotland to the south?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his general conclusion. The whole purpose of regional assistance is to enable the delivery mechanism to be located in Scotland. The Scottish Development Agency will be providing a major part of that delivery mechanism.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in this country think that, overall, policies of industrial support have destroyed rather than saved jobs? At the risk of being accused of being gratuitiously offensive by The Scotsman, as I was, will my hon. Friend comment on the Labour party's proposals for regional aid? Those proposals would translate the regional aid budget from my hon. Friend's Department into the Department responsible for the arts, because all that the Labour party seeks to do is to convert Scotland into a museum of industrial archaelogy.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In the context of regional selective assistance, the House might like to know that a recent document produced by the TUC said that to make regional and local planning bodies effective the amount of selective assistance would be progressively increased until all assistance became selective.
    Mr. Salmond: When will the Minister educate his English Back-Bench colleagues in the realities of public finance in the United Kingdom? For example, will he tell them that industrial support through the medium of defence procurement, which is concentrated in certain areas of the country, results in a £2,500 million subsidy to the English economy–10 times the entire regional aid budget for Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to welcome that part of the defence budget that goes to Scotland. More particularly, I am glad to welcome the fact that Scotland shares in the general defence of the United Kingdom.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the number of persons in employment and the number unemployed in Scotland in the years 1983 to the present.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have put the figures in the Library. The provisional estimate of the civilian labour force in June 1987 is marginally higher than in the four previous years, and seasonally adjusted unemployment is now at its lowest level since June 1983.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the figures show that the Scots are slowly coming to grips with the structural weaknesses in their economy? Does he also agree that the figures confirm the Scots' reputation as a doughty, dour, hardy, independent-minded people, and that, unfortunately, that fine reputation is too often endangered by the constant whingeing by Opposition Members for more subsidies from the south?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is certainly correct. Opposition Members appear to think that the only solution to any economic or industrial problem is the expenditure of resources. The transformation that is taking place in the Scottish economy has more to do with the spirit of enterprise in Scotland than with the level of available public funds. Indeed, Opposition Members are gradually coming to the same conclusion.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Secretary of State aware that in October 1987, 19·6 per cent. of the economically active population of Glasgow were unemployed and that in April 1984 the figure was 20·9 per cent.? Is that what he calls the transformation of the Glasgow economy? Is he aware that of that percentage of unemployed people more than half are long-term unemployed? Is that what he calls a triumph for Tory economic policies? Is he further aware that for every job vacancy outwith the community programme in Glasgow, there are 22 applicants, compared with 10 in Great Britain?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady, as a Glasgow Member, appears to be the only person in Glasgow who is unaware that, during this Government's term of office, Glasgow has been transformed into one of the most impressive examples of urban regeneration. In every forum except this one the hon. Lady constantly pronounces to the general public how impressive Glasgow is now compared with what it was like in 1979.
    Mr. Worthington: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Clydebank and Milngavie in September 1979 there were 3,500 unemployed people, and in September 1987 there were 7,500? The figures do not take into account the 590 people in community programme places or the 19 separate downward adjustments of the unemployment figures. Is that the transformation of which the Secretary of State is boasting?
    Mr. Rifkind: The transformation of which I am boasting includes projects such as that of Health Care International, which, without any support from him, may bring 4,000 to 5,000 jobs to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Fairbairn: I join my right hon. and learned Friend in emphasising the magnificent transformation of

    297
    Glasgow, which is entirely due to the Government's policies in the past few years. Now that we have abandoned the blanket concept of regional grants, will he consider the regeneration of other towns, villages and cities in Scotland, so that we can attract industry instead of switching it from one place to another?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Government's priority for the future is to concentrate on many peripheral housing estates in Scotland in which there are substantial social, unemployment, economic and housing problems. It is by a major infusion of private sector investment, with public support, that we shall see the transformation of such areas into places of which we can all be proud.

    Newbattle Abbey College
    Mr. Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed closure of Newbattle Abbey college.
    Mr. Rifkind: Circumstances have changed in the last 50 years. The college prepares only about 40 students each year for entry to higher education, at a total annual cost of more than £500,000. But every year about 6,000 mature students go into higher education in Scotland who have made no use of the college. It is difficult in those circumstances to maintain that it is meeting a significant national need and I have decided to withdraw grant with effect from the end of the next academic year. In my view, the grant paid to Newbattle can be more effectively spent in other ways to promote increased access to higher education.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Secretary of State accept that Newbattle Abbey college is a national institution, which is greatly valued throughout the country because it provides a form of access to higher education, especially for late entrants and those who have already missed out in developing their education in earlier years, and that no comparable facility is available anywhere else in higher education or through the Open University? Does he also accept that there has been criticism of his Department for the total lack of consultation when taking that decision?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the right hon. Gentleman's latter point, the withdrawal of grant will take place in 18 months' time. Therefore, there is plenty of opportunity to hear any representations that people may wish to make.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's earlier question, he must take into account the fact that of the 98 students at the college in 1986–87, 42 were from Edinburgh and Lothian and were unlikely to require residential accommodation; 29 came from England and Wales; none came from the north of Scotland; and very few from other parts of Scotland. In those circumstances, it is difficult to put forward a credible argument that there is any significant need for residential accommodation of the kind that Newbattle provides.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not understand that the measure of consultation has been strange? My understanding is that there was no consultation prior to his decision to withdraw funding. Is it a case of shooting from the hip and asking questions afterwards? What a strange concept of consultation. Does he not realise that there is great resentment because the equivalent in Scotland of Ruskin college, Oxford, is to be
    298
    withdrawn? Is that not a shoddy way to deal with education, and do we not now seem to have a bunch of philistines in new St. Andrew's House dealing with education?
    Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate the fact that the trade unions have identified themselves with the campaign to save Newbattle Abbey college. However, that might be more impressive if the trade unions in question had used Newbattle Abbey college themselves, or if they had made any significant contribution to its work. Only one trade union in Scotland has made any donation to college funds during 1986–87, and not one trade union made use of it during that year to provide short residential courses for its members.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: First, will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that there was no consultation before the decision was taken? Secondly, will he tell the House what circumstances have changed since the HMI report of 1984, which recommended the continuation of the college?
    Mr. Rifkind: I must advise my right hon. Friend that with 6,000 entrants over the age of 21 going on to higher and further education in Scotland, I do not believe that he can put forward any credible argument that it is justified to use £500,000 of public funds for the admission of 40 students to that college, the vast majority of whom did not require residential accommodation, given their place of residence.
    I emphasise to my right hon. Friend that the resources saved from the withdrawal of support — whether the college will close is a matter for the governors—will be used for higher and further education in Scotland, which will assist the higher and further education requirements of far more students than currently seem interested in using the facilities at Newbattle Abbey college.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State not feel some sense of shame that, through his penny-pinching attitude, he is destroying what was bequeathed to the nation of Scotland and provided an additional asset to our education system? Surely the whole point of having a facility such as Newbattle Abbey college is to enable people to re-enter education for a variety of reasons at a later stage but not within the formal system? Therefore, does he not agree that, in the concept of life-long education, we should maintain that facility?
    Mr. Rifkind: Of course that is a desirable objective, but I advise the hon. Lady that there has been precious little interest in using that facility. No one from the hon. Lady's constituency or from a line drawn north of Fort William to Aberdeen has even entered the college during the past year. If we are considering the need for a residential college, we must have the gravest doubts whether there is any need for expenditure of that kind when the trade unions have made little use of the facility and, bar one union, have made no contribution to its running costs and, indeed, when most of the students come from the Edinburgh and Lothian area or from England and Wales. The hon. Lady should bear that in mind.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Circumstances have certainly changed in recent years. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman used to be listed as a friend of Newbattle college. Is he aware that we deplore the fact that the Government are discarding this unique college? Can

    299
    he tell us why Scotland should be the only nation in Britain without a specialist college to give adults a second chance of gaining the benefits of further education?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might bear in mind the remarks of some of his Labour colleagues. For example, during the discussion of these matters with Strathclyde regional council yesterday a Labour councillor, Councillor Gilmore, warned his colleagues against indulging in media protests and went on to say that, in his view, the Government had a case for the better use of a £500,000 grant from the SED.

    Cervical Smear Tests
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the results of the recent campaign to encourage women in Scotland to have a cervical smear test.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: There has been no recent national publicity campaign in Scotland on cervical cancer screening. I announced on 10 December 1987 that a comprehensive cervical cancer screening service is to be made available to all women in Scotland aged between 20 and 60 years of age.
    Dr. Moonie: In view of the increasing number of women taking advantage of screening facilities, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that back-up facilities for treatment are readily available to prevent women from having to wait inordinate lengths of time?
    Mr. Forsyth: The Government are providing about £6 million to ensure that the software and computer facilities are in place by the end of the year, so that women come in on a call and recall basis. The computer call and recall service will ensure that they are brought in. I am not aware of any problems with any health boards connected with the carrying out of screening.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will be aware that Tayside has a vey good recall system for cervical cancer. When will he be able to say where the unit for mammography will be established in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: We recently announced that we expected to establish 10 units throughout Scotland, and we expect all of them to be in place by 1991.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: We are now trying to increase the number of such tests. Is the Minister aware of the corollary —that more tests will mean a much heavier workload on MLSOs and associated technical staff in hospitals? Is he also aware of the anger felt by MLSOs and other staff about the failure to recognise their proper status or salary levels, and will he give his backing to help them to carry out their important work?
    Mr. Forsyth: The precise pattern of workloads and the way in which tests and screenings are carried out are matters for health boards. I am sure that they will take into account all the options open to them.

    Health Service Expenditure
    Mr. Forth: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the expenditure per head in real terms on health services in Scotland in 1979 and 1987; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Gross expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland in 1979–80, at 1987–88 prices, was £354 per head of population. The corresponding figure for 1987–88 is expected to be £454.
    These figures for Scotland are some 25 per cent. higher than the equivalent figures for England, and Scotland has 39 per cent. more health staff and 59 per cent. more hospital beds than England on a population basis.
    Mr. Forth: I thank my right hon. Friend for those impressive but not surprising figures. Can he tell the House whether he believes that there has been a commensurate dramatic increase in the quality of patient care, particularly in the light of the article on the front page of today's Glasgow Herald? Can he explain that?
    Mr. Forsyth: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that article, and I have had inquiries made. The injuries suffered by the reporter concerned can be treated by a padded crepe support bandage or short plaster. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dr. Forsyth?"] May I ask hon. Members to listen? Contrary to what is printed in the Herald the reporter expressed a wish not to have a plaster, so that he could drive to Stirling. I am reliably informed that this was recorded and witnessed.
    Had a plaster been essential, the medical staff in the accident and emergency unit could have applied one. This is a scurrilous and inaccurate piece of reporting, and I deplore such an unwarraned attack on the excellent facilities and staff at the Western infirmary in Glasgow.
    Mr. Douglas: I believe that we should get back to the main question. I want the Minister to deal with the relevant aspects of expenditure, that is the proportion of GDP spent on health care in England and Wales and in Scotland. Is it not a fact that for the United Kingdom as a whole expenditure on health care is good value for money, and that attempts to undermine that by stupid proposals such as contracting out are to be deplored by hon. Members on both sides of the House?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking about GDP. He will know that health expenditure in England as a proportion of GDP is 6·2 per cent. In Scotland it is 8·2 per cent. That means that we have significantly more resources. The point of competitive tendering is to ensure that we make the maximum possible provision for patient care.
    Mr. Bill Walker: These interesting figures provided by my hon. Friend show clearly that the Government are concerned with health care and that health care really matters. Will he confirm that the Government will look very carefully at these matters to ensure that we receive value for money throughout the Health Service in Scotland, and in particular will he consider the great value for money provided by community hospitals?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government are determined to ensure value for money in the Health Service and at the same time to provide additional resources. Next year's additional allocation of expenditure for the Health Service in Scotland, at some £120 million, will be the biggest ever in cash terms in the history of the Health Service in Scotland. I wish that Opposition Members would acknowledge that.
    Mr. Wilson: In view of the Minister's very recent, very personal and very profitable connections with the private health sector, is it not time that he was seen to get his sticky

    301
    fingers off the Scottish Health Service? Will he accept that it is doubly offensive to loyal servants and low-paid workers in the National Health Service to see someone trying to do them out of their jobs when they know that that individual has such strong, personal, vested interests in the destruction of public sector employment and its replacement with cheapskate contract labour?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have no vested interest. I deplore the hon. Gentleman's offensive attack on those workers because, by implication, he is arguing that competitive tendering will put them out of work. That means that he thinks they are providing inefficient services. They have nothing to fear from competitive tendering if their services are providing value for money. Any savings that are achieved will result in improved patient care for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, whom he should seek to represent.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that since 1979 the Government have provided 5,770 new beds and that in the 34 new projects under construction there will be another 4,484? Is that not a splendid achievement, which shows that the Government have every intention of maintaining a close interest in the Health Service?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has drawn attention to the biggest capital investment programme in the history of the Health Service in Scotland undertaken by this Government because of the success of our economic policies and the priority that we have placed on the Health Service. When Opposition Members formed the previous Labour Government they presided over the biggest ever cut in the capital programme in the Health Service in Scotland.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister not share my sharp concern about the crisis in the Health Service and the frustration that is growing daily among those committed to the delivery of a comprehensive and adequate service to those in need? Will he accept that if we are to avoid industrial action—which no hon. Member wants to see —it is important that he makes his contribution to that process? Will he look again at the circular on privatisation, because it is resented by the boards, which, in many cases, are seeing their professional judgment on how they manage their areas being overturned? It is also resented by the staff whose jobs are at risk and by the public who know that contracting out is depressingly irrelevant to the real problems facing the Health Service.
    Mr. Forsyth: I noted that the hon. Gentleman has aligned himself with those calling for industrial action in the Health Service, and his photograph appeared in the Glasgow Herald. It is in the interests of the Health Service to maximise the resources available for patient care. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not align himself with those calling for industrial action in the Health Service, I welcome that.
    Since 1983 the boards have been asked to carry out competitive tendering in Scotland. They have not done so. Health authorities in England have, and as a result the Health Service in England has had £100 million a year extra to spend on patient care. Is the hon. Gentleman really arguing that patients in Scotland should be denied those extra resources simply to keep his friends in the trade unions happy?

    Councillors (Salary)
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from COSLA proposing salaries for councillors; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations from the convention regarding salaries for councillors. The convention has, however, indicated that it is in favour of the Widdicombe committee's recommendation that councillors should be paid a flat-rate allowance.
    Mr. Brown: Is it not the case that the people who represent local government in Scotland, the councillors, deserve a proper rate for the job, a salary, particularly when they have to defend basic services and fight against the poll tax? We in the Labour movement expect them to organise a movement which will, if need be, break the law to challenge the Government, who are imposing a regime that is totally unacceptable to Scottish people.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of the contributions made by councillors. The hon. Gentleman and I were councillors in Edinburgh together. I should mention that proposals for a further increase will be considered in the near future, and the results will be announced in the spring. The maximum daily rate of attendance allowance is now 17·;55. That may be seen as inadequate by those who insist on regarding it as a daily rate of pay, but it was never intended to be that.
    Mr. Robertson: Was there not something impertinent and improper about Ministers attacking Scottish councillors for coming to the capital city of the United Kingdom last week to tell the House—which is, after all, considering poll tax legislation in England and Wales — about universal Scottish feeling about that unfair, inefficient and deeply unpopular imposition on the people of Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is a perfectly legitimate comment if councillors are travelling at the ratepayers' expense. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is referring to assertions arising out of that.
    Mr. John Marshall: As a former Aberdeen town councillor, may I suggest that service in local government should appeal to people's sense of service rather than to their sense of greed?
    lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. A sense of public service is extremely important, and I have no doubt that many people enter local government as a vocation and not for any other reason.

    Regional Aid
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest estimate of the number of jobs created by regional development grants in Scotland since 1984.
    Mr. Lang: Revised regional development grant has been associated with the creation of over 25,000 jobs in Scotland since 1984. The old regional development grant scheme was not linked directly to job creation.
    Mr. Bruce: While the Government's proposed changes will be welcome in areas such as mine, where we do not

    303
    have access to regional development grant, will the Minister nevertheless acknowledge that the lack of automatic availability of grant could be at considerable cost to Scotland in terms of investment in the coming year? If there is to be a programme of selective assistance, will he ensure that the criteria are fully understood and appreciated so that investment is not driven away because people have to wait too long before they know whether they will get assistance?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman welcomes some of the provisions in the recent enterprise initative. He will have noted that Aberdeen is one of the areas where a higher rate of consultancy assistance grant will be payable. The take-up of applications available under the selective assistance scheme will depend entirely on the number of applications forthcoming. We intend to publicise the scheme widely to ensure that the funds available are taken up.
    Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that he has reduced expenditure on regional development grant from £170 million in 1986–87 to £66 million in the current year? That is against a background of three points: first, manufacturing employment in Scotland has fallen below 400,000 for the first time this century; secondly, the figures in the MSC "Labour Market Quarterly" report of November 1987[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not read them, please.
    Mr. McLeish: The figures show that in terms of the 10 economic units in the United Kingdom, Scotland has had the smallest increase in the number of employees between June 1986 and 1987, and the biggest reduction in manufacturing jobs in any economic region in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister take pride in such a background when cutting regional development grants?
    Mr. Lang: I do not recognise the background that the hon. Gentleman describes. In the first place, the proportion of regional aid coming to Scotland has risen from 20 per cent. in 1979 to over 30 per cent. now, and, in the second place, the background is one of falling unemployment and rising investment, manufacturing output and manufacturing productivity.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that if regional aid as practised by successive Governments since 1945 had been successful, as is claimed by the Opposition Benches, the areas of high relative unemployment would not be the same today as they were immediately after the war? The sad fact is that the areas of high relative unemployment are much the same, so the system obviously does not work. Therefore, the new system that is being introduced must at least be an improvement on what has gone on in the past.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not without significance that the Labour Government cut the industrial programme in the Scottish block allocation by 13 per cent. during their last three years.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister realise that the automatic availability of regional development grant played an important part in Ford's decision to locate its latest plant in Dundee, thereby bringing 400 desperately needed jobs to an area of high unemployment? Does he share the people of Scotland's view that, in the fiercely
    304
    competitive business of attracting major inward investment projects into areas of high unemployment in Scotland, it is essential to get the total package of incentives right, so that we can out-compete areas such as Spain? How are we to do that if that total package is gravely weakened by the removal of automatic regional development grant from development areas such as Dundee?
    Mr. Lang: The successful attraction of Ford to Dundee had nothing to do with the availability of automatic regional development grant. The company would have been equally entitled to regional selective assistance and the package available to it could have been exactly the same. The fact is that inward investment, which is such an important and successsful part of our economic industrial policy in Scotland, will not be jeopardised by the changes that we are making.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend, as a Minister in the United Kingdom Government, give some thought to how many jobs have been created by regional aid and how many jobs have been switched from various parts of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that there is deep resentment in Belper, in my constituency, where jobs were lost when English Sewing, part of the Tootal group, was switched to Scotland? Jobs are important in every part of the United Kingdom, not just in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to point to one of the disadvantages of regional assistance, when it simply moves jobs around the country. A recent study, which has been published, shows that about 600,000 jobs have been created, but 150,000 of them have subsequently been lost. That is a strong argument against automaticity and in favour of a more selective approach.

    Health Service Expenditure
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of Grampian health board to discuss national strategies for health expenditure.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I hold regular meetings with the chairmen of all Scottish health boards, at which strategic issues are discussed.
    Mrs. Ewing: At the Minister's next meeting with the representatives of Grampian health board on strategic issues, will he consider with them the issues surrounding the future of maternity services in Grampian region? Is he aware that the professional advice offered to Grampian health board showed that the SHARPEN recommendations of nil growth in maternity facilities would be unacceptable in that area because staffing complements and bed levels are already well below the national level? Against that background, will he ensure that he reads every response to proposals to close the peripheral units in my constituency, and those of other hon. Members, where there are sound medical, economic and social reasons for their retention?
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Lady knows, Grampian health board recently conducted a review of maternity beds in the area which revealed particular pressures on facilities at the Aberdeen maternity hospital and widespread under-use of facilities elsewhere. I cart assure the hon. Lady that the board is currently consulting. Any

    305
    decision that might involve any closures would require the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and we shall obviously consider carefully the representations that we have received from her and from her constituents before any conclusions are reached.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures that he gave in reply to an earlier question, showing the enormous disparity in money and in the proportion of the GNP being spent in Scotland, and in Grampian as part of it, merely demonstrates the fallacy of the argument that the Opposition are trying to foist upon the public, and that throwing more money at a place is not the answer to improving medical services?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who makes a very important point with regard to Grampian, because not only has Grampian a share of the additional resources available for health care in Scotland, but its share of the Scottish SHARE has been increasing. Its share of available resources has gone up from 8·5 to 9·2 per cent., and the board is approximately £10 million better off today than it would have been if our SHARE formula had not existed.

    Devolution
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has of the level of demand for a devolved Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have considerable evidence of the Opposition's interest in a Scottish Parliament, but little evidence of the electorate's interest.
    Mr. Canavan: When will the Secretary of State stop simply parroting his mistress's voice, repeating her absurd claims that there is little, if any, demand for devolution in Scotland? If he refuses to acknowledge that 76 per cent. of the Scottish voters voted at the last general election for parties with a commitment to set up some form of Scottish Assembly or Scottish Parliament, will he at least have the courage to put his view to the test by the people of Scotland, by having another referendum, so that they can decide, instead of being dictated to by this autocratic Government?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note that the hon. Gentleman has been virtually disowned by his parliamentary colleagues for his general approach to these matters. He really must take account of the fact that the referendum that took place resulted in less than one third of the people of Scotland voting for the proposals with which he is associated. There is no reason to believe that the results of another referendum would be any different.
    Mr. Fallon: Are not the Scots already complaining about the level of community charge to be levied in Scotland? What would be the annual cost of the Assembly charge levied on every Scot to finance this pipe dream?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that it is extraordinary that the Labour party should be committed to imposing on Scotland a tax which at no time is to be imposed on any other part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hood: I rise to change the tempo of Question Time, to acknowledge that the greatest service the Prime Minister has done for Scotland so far is in appointing Sir
    306
    Ian MacGregor to the new Tory party think-tank in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "What has this to do with the question?"]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The subject is the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Hood: May I say — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."]—that it will do the greatest service to the Scottish people's argument for devolution, because if Sir Ian MacGregor does as much for the Tory party as he did—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this matter would be better raised in the debate.
    Mr. Rifkind: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that it is thanks to the work Sir Ian MacGregor did for the steel industry that Ravenscraig can look forward to the next seven years.

    Court Actions (Costs)
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the costs to the Government of the recent court actions raised in Scotland against The Scotsman and Glasgow Herald newspapers and Scottish Television.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The expenses of the court actions and liability for their payment will be known only once the actions are concluded.
    Mr. Doran: From my knowledge of legal expenses, I think we can assume that those expenses will be considerable. The Minister has already criticised certain councillors of all parties who travelled to London last week to give a very useful presentation on the poll tax. Does the Minister not consider that the expenses that will be incurred in these fruitless actions, which are simply intended to prevent any part of the media from criticising or embarrassing the Government, constitute a useless and outrageous waste of public funds?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, Sir. I believe that the Government were absolutely entitled to uphold the confidentiality owed to the Crown by present and former members of the security and intelligence services. The Government consider that the action they took was entirely necessary in the circumstances.

    Housing
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives from COSLA to discuss matters related to housing.
    Mr. Rifkind: No date has yet been fixed, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible for home affairs and the environment, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), holds regular meetings with the convention.
    Mr. McKelvey: Am I correct in thinking, then, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the views of Scotland on the housing crisis in Scotland today? Nearly 1,250,000 people, including families, are living in overcrowded conditions. About 200,000 people are on the waiting lists. Some 31,000 are regarded as homeless. In Kilmarnock alone there are 2,000 on the single homeless list, with 600 of them now being regarded as deserving top

    307
    priority. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider COSLA's view that the Housing (Scotland) Bill now going through Committee does nothing to alleviate the problems of all those very unhappy people?
    Mr. Rifkind: Given the hon. Gentleman's interest in the housing problems of Kilmarnock, I would have thought that he would welcome the fact that the Government's housing allocation on the housing revenue account block to Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council for the current year represents no less than 97 per cent. of what the council felt it needed.
    Mr. Forth: In the context of the housing matters referred to, can my right hon. and learned Friend comment on rent levels in Scotland? Does he believe that these are appropriate to modern and future conditions, and how do they compare with those south of the border?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is the case that rent levels in Scotland remain significantly below rent levels elsewhere in the United Kingdom, although average earnings are comparable.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is it not significant that the Secretary of State is answering his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) in such a friendly way? Is it not a fact that the hon. Member has probably had more influence over housing decisions in Scotland than all the homeless, the overcrowded and the people living in sub-standard conditions in Scotland? Why is the Minister bringing forward legislation which will be of substantial benefit to private landlords, but which will do nothing to meet the housing needs of the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the housing legislation before the House will not help the housing requirements of the people of Scotland and that they will not be interested in its provisions, he and his colleagues might like to reflect on the fact that in the last week 1,000 tenants in Castlemilk have voted to have their houses transferred to the forthcoming Scottish homes organisation, in the knowledge that that might involve higher rents, but that it would also involve the refurbishment and improvement of the houses they live in.

    Local Government (Tayside)
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Tayside police on the progress of inquiries into allegations of misconduct in local government.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are no current inquiries by Tayside police specifically into allegations of misconduct in local government.
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will have seen the reports in the Scottish media which link the problems of local government in Dundee with activities in the Labour party. Can my hon. Friend tell the House when these matters will be dealt with, so that the suffering of those affected by the allegations can be brought to an end?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In answering on behalf of the Lord Advocate, I understand that inquiries concern the alleged misappropriation of funds. I am advised that the police will report to the procurator fiscal as soon as their inquiries are completed.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Minister confirm that it was at the request of officials of Dundee Labour party that the police were called in in the first instance and that they are as anxious as anyone to have the matter cleared up as quickly as possible?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, Sir. I am advised that most of the allegations were first intimated to the procurator fiscal by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran).

    Day Centres
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage joint funding of day centres for elderly people in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The provision of services for groups such as the elderly is a matter for individual health boards and local authorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.
    My right hon. and learned Friend has encouraged health boards and local authorities to make full use of joint funding. Places for the elderly in day centres provided by local authorities and voluntary bodies had increased since 1979 by 61 per cent. to a total of 5,690 at March 1986.
    Mr. McAvoy: I thank the Minister for his answer. I hope he accepts that in Scotland, and in my constituency in particular, there is a high proportion of elderly within the community. In Strathclyde region, where there is a first-class, prudent authority, as instanced by the recommendation to increase its rate for the next financial year by only one pence, will the Minister consider seriously injecting further finance into the health board so that it may co-operate with the local authority in providing more of these much-needed centres?
    Mr. Forsyth: The increased finance that has been provided to the health boards since 1,979 amounts to some 26 per cent. in real terms. The increased finance made available to the local authorities for this purpose as part of their social work services has increased in real terms since 1979 by some 36 per cent. That is a record to be proud of, and the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that considerable progress has been made.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of the concern in Ayrshire about the proliferation in the number of old people's homes and nursing homes, causing consequent strain on the Health Service and social work services? Has he seen the proposals put forward by Age Concern Scotland about the registration of private nursing homes and old people's homes because of the concern over the exploitation of old people to provide profit for the owners of some of these homes? Will he consider legislation along the lines proposed by Age Concern Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman does the private sector, which provides excellent care for many people in Scotland, and proportionately more in England, a great disservice by implying that, because these homes are private, there is any question of lower standards. As he will know, the Government intend to make regulations to ensure that the highest standards continue to be maintained.

Scottish Bus Group
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Scottish Bus Group.
The Scottish Bus Group is a nationalised industry, providing bus services in Scotland. It has a total staff of about 10,000. In its latest annual report, covering 1986, it showed a turnover of £160 million. The Scottish Bus Group has over 3,000 buses and in terms of vehicle miles is responsible for over half of stage carriage services in Scotland. Through its 12 subsidiaries, it is Scotland's largest provider of bus services.
I have decided that I should now seek powers at an early opportunity to privatise the Scottish Bus Group. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' All nationalised industries which have been privatised have benefited from taking control of their own affairs. I am sure that the Scottish Bus Group will be no exception. Privatisation will allow investment decisions to be made in Scotland, free of the Government's constraints on nationalised industry financing. Management will be free to manage, the travelling public will benefit from the greater sensitivity to the market which a private sector company necessarily has. Deregulation has already achieved much in that field, with increased competition and innovation. I am presently considering whether the Scottish Bus Group should be privatised as a single company or as several regional companies.
Whichever method of privatisation is chosen, there will be benefits to the Scottish economy. It will be strengthened by the addition of one or more new private sector firms providing substantial employment and free to take full advantage of market opportunities. The privatisation of the bus group will complement the major stimulus to be given to the Scottish economy by the privatisation of the electricity industry.
Privatisation should also provide opportunities for the work force, at all levels, to take a stake in the business for which they work. This increased sense of involvement should also lead to improved performance. The work force as a whole should benefit from being part of an organisation which has been set free to operate in a fully commercial way.
This decision will have implications for Caledonian MacBrayne which, together with the Scottish Bus Group, makes up the Scottish Transport Group. Caledonian MacBrayne is responsible for providing ferry services on the west coast of Scotland. I shall be considering the best future arrangements for Caledonian MacBrayne, consistent with our commitment to the provision of shipping services to the islands.
Mr. Donald Dewar: The announcement that we have just heard will please no one but the placemen and the zealots. I thought that the source of the cheering behind the Secretary of State was highly significant and rather depressing. This measure may earn him some brownie points with the Prime Minister, but it will do very little for public transport in Scotland. It is a remarkable turnabout which has been largely unexplained.
The privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group was specifically rejected in the White Paper of August 1984, yet
310
suddenly the group is now to be sold off in very difficult trading conditions. Does the Minister accept that these are difficult and unsettled times and that many bus companies, particularly in central Scotland, are trading at a loss? Is he not aware of this from the fact that, in the calendar year 1986, the profit of the Scottish Transport Group, at £10·7 million, was over £6 million down on the previous year?
That was specifically ascribed by the chairman, in his report, to the difficulties which attended deregulation. Why, then, the further difficulty of sale now to an unknown buyer on speculative terms? Can the Minister says what impact he thinks that this will have on jobs? That is a highly relevant question, because we all know that there have been difficulties in the Scottish Bus Group. Kelvin Scottish, in particular, has been the subject of reports and of suggestions of a loss of about £3 million. One important depot, Milngavie, has already been closed. With 10,000 employees, is it not important that we know a little more about that side of what the Government propose?
I recognise that we cannot know today whether it is to be one company or 11 or 12 companies. There is a lamentable lack of specificity. May we be assured that the Minister will return to the House at an early date, as soon as decisions have been taken, with information? Will he confirm that primary legislation is needed? I presume that that is the implication of the phrase that he will "now seek powers", but I should like that matter cleared up. Will this be a sale by share tender, or will the Minister be looking for some existing company, possibly in the industry, to buy the Scottish Bus Group? What price does he expect?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman note that what happens to Caledonian MacBrayne is a matter of deep concern to the Opposition because it is an essential lifeline to island communities? Does he accept that we have little confidence in his touch in these matters? We, like many people who depend on Caledonian MacBrayne, will remember the fiasco of the Gourock-to-Dunoon run and Western Ferries' pre-emptive raid, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assistance. We remember also the sale of MacBrayne Haulage to Kildonan Transport, if I remember rightly at a knockdown price of £450,000. We hope that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman insists on going ahead mistakenly with this exercise of selling assets, it will be carried out with greater respect for those who depend on the services, and for the public purse.
There is a great deal of talk of stimulus, of the freedom of management to manage, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement is the worse sort of padding—specious propaganda bordering on claptrap. No case has been made out for this U-turn. Stripped of the advertising copy, it is nothing more than a bald, unsatisfactory, unacceptable statement of intent, and we will oppose it when it comes to the House in legislative form.
Mr. Rifkind: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's experience of specious claptrap and will respond to the points he raised. I share his view that the ferry services are a lifeline to the islands. That will be a fundamental consideration when determining future arrangements. I point out that Caledonian MacBrayne and the ferry services to the islands have improved enormously beyond all recognition over the past 10 years. If the hon. Gentleman will not accept my word on that, he should speak to those on the islands, who will be happy to confirm it.

311
As to the reasons for and the background to my announcement involving the Scottish Bus Group, the board of the Scottish Transport Group fully supports privatisation and believes that it will be in the interest of bus services in Scotland, and that this is the right way forward. Our experience since deregulation came into effect has shown that the Opposition's alarms and fears were competely unjustified and that deregulation has been to the benefit of bus services in Scotland. More bus services are available and competition has been to the benefit of those involved.
I confirm that these proposals will require primary legislation. As to the form of flotation, we shall of course seek advice from financial advisers but, in the light of experience elsewhere in the United Kingdom, it is likely that there will be interest among the management and employees as well as others, depending upon the type of structure which is eventually determined.
Given that, over the past 30 years, there has been a decline in bus services throughout the United Kingdom, including Scotland, the increased competition which this decision will ensure will be of great benefit to those who use bus services and therefore very much in the interests of those who work for the Scottish Bus Group. They can only benefit from being part of a successful private sector industry, and that will be the effect of these proposals.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is the moment for the bus industry to show initiative and enterprise and to go ahead and develop its services, especially on the major trunk routes? Would the Minister also keep in mind during his consultation the issue that has already been raised about employment, and particularly the development of rural services?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I very much confirm what my hon. Friend has said. It is factors such as these that we will take into account when determining the precise structure under which privatisation will take place.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I bring the Secretary of State back to his rightful acknowledgement of the fundamental concern about the ferry services, not least for the employees but also for the communities and the many others dependent upon them? Referring earlier to the Scottish Transport Group, the Minister said that it had not been decided whether to have one monopolistic concern or to break it up regionally. What is the implication of that thinking for the ferry services? Does the Minister propose to privatise ferry services as one group, or is he looking at individual routes which may be sold off to individual companies which may bid for them?
Would the Minister address himself to the very simple fact that, taking my own constituency, the ferry services to the Isle of Skye and the feeling that, even with a level, of public subsidy, the fares are extremely high, when it comes to considering the replacement of ferry vehicles, it is very difficult to see how something that is economically viable can at the same time serve the public interest?
Mr. Rifkind: My statement today was solely concerned with the Scottish Bus Group. Nothing in it involves any decision having been taken with regard to the future of Caledonian MacBrayne, with the exception that the privatisation of the bus group will mean the end of the
312
Scottish Transport Group as such, because Caledonian MacBrayne would be the only remaining element in it. We have yet to come to a view as to the future organisation of Caledonian MacBrayne and the extent to which either privatisation or some other arrangement would be appropriate for that organisation.
What I have said is that our prime consideration is to ensure that this vital lifeline for the islands, which we have built up over the past ten years, is maintained insofar as it is the necessary transport facility of those who depend on it.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that all experience of privatisation so far suggests that the removal of Government interference in management is to the ultimate benefit of both management and the users, the customers, of the services in question?
At the same time, following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, will rural services be taken into account in my right hon. and learned Friend's consideration? The need for them does not change, whether the service is nationalised or privatised. They are an important social service and for many are the only link with centres of population for shopping and so forth. That is a major consideration.
Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct in the priority that he identifies. I will simply add that up to now the investment decisions involving the Scottish Bus Group have had to be made by Government in the context of their overall public sector borrowing requirement. That is true of all nationalised industries. In future, these decisions will be taken in Scotland by the management of the new company or companies, and will be taken on the basis of the perceived needs of the Scottish Bus Group.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a great deal of concern that control of the Scottish Transport Group or the Scottish Bus Group, when it is sold off, will pass out of Scotland, perhaps to London or even abroad, and that a new owner living in London or the Gulf will care little about when the last bus runs and how much it costs? Is he also aware of the concern that Caledonian MacBrayne has received large sums of public money to modernise its fleet which, by the 1990s, will be very new and that it would be quite wrong for someone to snap up a bargain, into which public money has been poured, at a knockdown price, as has happened elsewhere?
Mr. Rifkind: In answer to the first part of the question, I do not remember the hon. Gentleman complaining when the Perth-based Stagecoach bus company successfully acquired one of the English bus companies after the privatisation of the National Bus Company. I have every faith in the Scottish bus companies being able to make a major contribution to the improved well-being of the Scottish economy. As regards Caledonian MacBrayne, any future decision, if it did involve some form of privatisation, would obviously be subject to the same principles with regard to public assets as has been the case with other nationalised industries.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on freeing from bureaucracy and Treasury control a service of the greatest importance to people in Scotland, to be run, I

313
hope, by several competing companies—that would be my preference—for the benefit of those concerned? As regards bus provision in the countryside, at the moment only private companies provide the sort of facility that shoppers want, taking them to the places where they can shop at the time they want to do so or, like Stagecoach, giving them the service that they really require. My right hon. and learned Friend is greatly to be congratulated.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I agree that these proposals represent an exciting opportunity for the bus industry and for those who work in it.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On what basis does the Secretary of State make his confident claim that privatisation will automatically lead to an improvement in services? Has any research been undertaken? Have there been any preliminary soundings among people who might be interested in taking over bus services? I reiterate the point that has been made by other hon. Members —rural communities are dependent on bus services as lifelines. Any company interested in services in rural areas, such as my constituency, should be asked to take full cognisance of the need to offer an efficient and effective service.
Mr. Rifkind: Those who run the Scottish Bus Group believe that these proposals will be in the interests of the bus services that it provides. I would be somewhat puzzled if the hon. Lady and her colleagues were opposed to the transfer of ownership of the Scottish bus industry to Scotland from London, where it presently operates.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend should be congratulated on the measures that he is proposing to introduce. Will he confirm that, contained in these measures, whatever they are, there will be a requirement that employees will be given an opportunity to purchase shares in the new company or companies, whatever form they take? Employee shareholdings are an essential part of changing attitudes, which will be required if we are to improve services.
With regard to rural services in my constituency, there is no question but that one of the advantages of deregulation has been competition. It has brought about circumstances that I have never known before. Bus companies have been prepared to divert and re-route their buses for the benefit of people living in small communities. That would never have been achieved before deregulation.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's experience of the benefits of deregulation. I agree with his objective of encouraging share ownership. I have no doubt that the people of Scotland and the employees of the Scottish Bus Group will be especially interested in the opportunities that this will present for the greater involvement of the public, including employees, in the ownership of an important industry in Scotland.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the Minister considered what the feelings of many Scottish people will be when they hear this news and realise that bus companies will chase profits by concentrating on the most profitable routes and times? Those people will be condemned to stand for long periods in the wind and rain waiting for a bus to arrive.
314
I notice that the Under-Secretary is smiling. He obviously thinks that it is funny to stand under a draughty bus shelter with small children in the cold. He has probably never had to do so. It is very easy for people such as him who ride around in ministerial cars. This is a piece of vicious class legislation. It will affect those who rely on buses, such as women with young children and elderly people going to the shops or to their doctor. Those people are forced to rely on public transport, and what you are doing—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Fyfe: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that we can expect no benefit to services from this measure. Have the Government investigated the needs of the people that I have mentioned?
Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Lady has been one of the foremost critics of the Scottish Bus Group, which is a nationalised industry, and its attempts to introduce competition in Glasgow, I am rather puzzled by her anxious desire to defend the status quo.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is only under this Government that the bus industry has been rescued from terminal decline? Will he accept from us that what he has announced is welcome news? It is typical of the whingeing Opposition parties that all they want to do is stick their collective snouts into the public trough.
Mr. Rifkind: For the past 30 years, the use of buses throughout the United Kingdom has declined. The combination of deregulation and privatisation of these bus companies will offer the first serious opportunity for many a long year to reverse that decline in the use of buses, in the interests of the general public.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The statement that the Secretary of State has made is so vague as to be almost meaningless, and it makes it very difficult for people who are trying to make an objective — not an ideological—judgment about whether this measure is to be supported or not. We are prepared to look at the proposal for the buses, but if the Secretary of State is thinking of privatising the ferries, he will run into stout opposition from Members on these Benches and from Members in other parts of the House.
As to the date, the Secretary of State said that he would take an early opportunity to take powers. What does an "early opportunity" mean? There is worry that the phasing out of public sector subsidies, which are due to end in 1991, will be conterminous with the introduction of the powers that he may wish to take. That will mean that there will be no central Government subsidy, which will leave local authorities to carry the can. That would be unacceptable in rural areas.
I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State has made about the opportunities for management and, we hope, staff buy-outs. Last, but most important, we would favour these proposals only if they are carried out on a regional basis, because otherwise it is impossible to protect individual companies from predatory depredations of companies from out of the Firth of Scotland.
Mr. Rifkind: So far as I could tell, I think that the hon. Gentleman was saying was that he gives a cautious and qualified welcome to the proposed privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. Unless I am mistaken, I am grateful

315
to the hon. Gentleman for that. As far as Caledonian MacBrayne and ferries are concerned, I have said that we have not yet come to any conclusion about the future organisation or structure of the ferries, including whether and to what extent privatisation would be appropriate. The supreme consideration will be to ensure the maintenance of healthy ferry services to the island communities. There are other ways in which, in theory, it might be possible to do this.
For example, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will be aware of that support for those islands communities is organised in a different way. The islanders are provided with services mainly by P and O and other smaller companies. There are other options. Therefore, it is important not to come to a speedy conclusion on these matters, but instead to examine all the possibilities that might be available.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Is this not clear evidence that, at long last, after eight and a half years, the fog of political cross-subsidy and bureaucratic Socialism is finally lifting in Scotland? That will be warmly welcomed by bus passengers throughout Scotland. Will my right hon. and learned Friend turn his attention to other parts of the British Scotland Corporation that might benefit from similar freedom of management to run good Scottish businesses without further political interference?
Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that the levels of political support in both Scotland and the north of England are matters that equally attract the attention and interests of my hon. Friend. I am sure that we shall be able to apply similar principles in both parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ron Brown: The Secretary of State and the Government have sold the family silver, no doubt at a knockdown price, to his friends in the business community. Is it not true that, increasingly, within this country and within the Labour party, there will be demands for renationalisation of those public assets without any compensation and under workers' controls? Is that not real democracy, and will that not come in time?
Mr. Rifkind: I can appreciate the hon. Gentleman's aspirations in this matter, but he will expect me to conclude that he is hardly likely to persuade the Government until he has persuaded his hon. Friends.
Mr. Eric Forth: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) in welcoming this further stage in the journeying of the Scottish Office towards Conservatism. Has my right hon. and learned Friend yet had time to read the proceedings on the Transport Act 1985? During the Committee proceedings on that Act, those of us who have the privilege to be members had to listen to Labour Members telling us of the doom and gloom that would come from the successive privatisations and deregulations of the buses, all of which have been proved wrong. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take heart from this fact and, when he has any moments of doubt, re-read the proceedings on the Act and gain a new confidence?
Mr. Rifkind: I say in the kindest possible manner to my hon. Friend that if he had ended up representing a Scottish rather than an English constituency, the Scottish Office might have approached the Conservative ideal for which both he and I stand that much earlier.
Mr. Tony Worthington: What is to happen to the rumoured £25 million-worth of reserves of the Scottish Transport Group? How are they to be distributed? Since a consequence of deregulation of buses in the Kelvin Scottish area has been the acquisition of a clapped-out bus fleet, the loss of one garage and £3 million of losses, who will buy that without the consequence being a massive loss in the number of journeys available to constituents in that area?
Mr. Rifkind: On the financial arrangements. I shall shortly be appointing financial advisers to make recommendations to me on these matters. We shall then be in a position to ensure that the best possible method is used.
On the other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he will appreciate that whether the Scottish Bus Group is a public or private sector company, it would do devastating damage to its long-term future if it did not make whatever economic decisions were necessary on the use of its assets and other such matters.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend consider it paradoxical that Opposition Members, who are presumably keen to get the best value for money when their own money is involved, have no interest whatever in the principle when they think that we are spending someone else's money'? Is not their concern for jobs bogus? Instead, they seem to be concerned with preserving non-jobs. If jobs are providing services that people want to buy in the market place, they will be as safe after privatisation and competition as before.
Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that Opposition Members' concern for jobs is bogus; it is simply confused.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: As the Minister knows, Kelvin Scottish is an important company in my constituency. It is one of the largest employers and in large parts of my constituency it provides the only form of transport. I have to deal with the problems, as do some Conservative Members, confronting rural areas. In that context, and further to the question asked by my lion. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) does the Minister intend to take any steps to ensure that the control of any new companies is retained in Scotland, or will it be possible for that control to move elsewhere?
Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there is no legislative provision—under this Government or any previous Government—dealing with the control of a particular company in any one part of the United Kingdom. That is the legal position, and it has not arisen since 1979. It has flowed from the policy of all Governments—Labour as well as Conservative—as we live in a single United Kingdom economy.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that special concessions are given to employees of the group when the industry is denationalised, so that the workers can have a special stake in the future success of the company under private control?
Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be giving close and sympathetic consideration to that kind of approach.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister agree that his complete failure to reassure the

317
people of Scotland about the future of services —particularly rural routes and other unprofitable routes—under the arrangements will be noted with apprehension? Will he further agree that his failure to give firm commitments on the future of Caledonian MacBrayne as an integrated unit serving the Scottish islands will be greeted with similar apprehension, not least by the excellent people who maintain the services in conditions that most of us would baulk at working in?
Will the Secretary of State recall the last Scottish Office transport privatisation? It sold off £1·5 million-worth of assets of MacBrayne Haulage to Mr. Billy Walker for £450,000. At that time, Mr. Walker was asked whether he thought that he had received a bargain. He replied:
"It would be a stupid man who didn't think that. An asset-stripper taking over this firm would have made a fair profit for the money. We have no intention of doing that."
Will the Secretary of State consider that Mr. Billy Walker, who was handed this valuable public asset on a plate, is about to sell MacBrayne Haulage —Kildonan MacBrayne, as it now is — to a firm in Yorkshire without a whit of social guarantee for those who rely on the services? Is that the policy that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to pursue? If so, can he not easily understand why his party is a discredited rump in rural, as well as urban, Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not quite clear from the hon. Gentleman's splendid but somewhat empty rhetoric what his conclusions are. If a Scottish company had purchased an English company, would he have condemned that in similar terms, and if not, why not?
Mr. Wilson: What about the knockdown price?
Mr. Tony Favell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, although we are glad for Scotland, the new wind of free enterprise that is blowing through Scotland is regarded with some apprehension elsewhere in the United Kingdom? It will undoubtedly attract back to the country those entrepreneurs who were so famous in Scotland. Our gain will be your loss.
Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly the case that Scotland's major contribution to the industrial growth of the United Kingdom was based not on Government funds but on the ingenuity of the enterprise and initiative of the Scots themselves.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not have to arise out of questions.
Mr. Walker: I advise you and the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Billy Walker who was referred to in the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is not me, nor is he a relative of mine.

Telephone Talkabout (Abolition)
4.1 pm
Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the use of the national telephone system for the purpose of joining together several telephone users at a time for casual conversation.
I make no apology for returning to the subject so soon after having raised the matter in December by the same means. The objective of the Talkabout service is to join up to 10 people at random–10 young people, usually—in casual telephone conversation. When so joined, they engage in what is mainly idle chatter, and which mostly, to say the least, is banal. That sounds fine and harmless, but there are five main complaints to which I draw the attention of the House. They are the obscene conversation that takes place; racist comments, which are usual; the costs; the addiction that young people suffer; and the exchange of phone numbers to make dates with perfect strangers—"imperfect strangers" is probably a more apt description.
One need say little about obscene conversations and racist remarks. To start with, they are contrary to the telecommunications legislation. There are procedures by which they could effectively be dealt with outside British Telecom. That has not happened. If anybody argues that racist comments and obscene conversations do not take place, the evidence of my own ears argues the contrary.
The cost of the service to the consumer is tremendous. The problem is that British Telecom gears its advertising to young people, who, mainly, are not subscribers to the telephone service. That is a bad business ethic. It is immoral for a huge corporation such as British Telecom to advertise in that way. It is tantamount to encouraging young people to steal.
I show the House a Talkabout bill. This bill was sent to me by a constituent of an hon. Friend in the north-east. He received a bill of £351 and complained to British Telecom. He was told that it was a bona fide bill and that he had to pay it. He subsequently paid British Telecom for a computer printout of his bill. I show the House the computer printout, nine tenths of which comprises calls made by his 15-year-old son to the Talkabout service. That consumer is still strenuously arguing with British Telecom that he should not have to pay the bill. The service is driving people into debt. People innocently think that their telephones are being reasonably used by their families, but, usually, a youngster in a family is not using it reasonably.
I draw another problem to the attention of Conservative Members in particular. Small business men are in the same boat as parents. Small business men who employ young people may find that their telephone bills have escalated. I suggest that they quickly get on to British Telecom and get a printout. They will find that their profits are rapidly going down the drain. I sincerely hope that that matter interests Conservative Members.
One of the worst examples of despair that has come to my attention through another hon. Friend concerns a young lady in Scotland —a 15-year-old girl. When her mother received a bill for £397, she attempted to commit suicide. That young lady spent a long time seriously ill in hospital. Thankfully, she is now on the mend. From conversations that I have had, I do not believe that British Telecom is working hard to help that family's problem.

319
Young people have written to me stating that they are addicted to the Talkabout system. They are addicted in the same way in which people are addicted to one-armed bandits and fruit machines. Of course, it leads to escalating bills and the matrimonial and family problems to which I have referred.
Another problem is potentially more serious. It is the exchanging of telephone numbers. One example occurred not far from the House. After an exchange of telephone numbers, three young girls were abducted, not to put too fine a point on it, by an ill-disposed man.
For the best part of two years, British Telecom has claimed that it is capable of monitoring the problem. That is not so. It cannot effectively monitor and control callers, mainly because there are up to 10 people on a line. Some monitors look after more than one line, and many more than one line in some areas. Control, perforce, is reactive. British Telecom can react only after an obscene comment is made, after a rascist comment is made, and only after telephone numbers are exchanged.
In addition, the young people who know that this campaign is running and that the House is examining the service, have invented their own ways of circumventing British Telecom's weak control. They have a code by which they swap telephone numbers. They have all sorts of ingenious ideas for getting into the service when the service has been stopped. I shall give the House an example. It is part of the addiction.
I have evidence that some parents have taken their home telephone instruments to work to stop young people using the system. Young people then go to the cheapest shop around the corner and buy £5 made-in-Hong Kong telephones, and plug them in to run up their parents' bills. Even more ingenious young people take the tops off telephones. They know which part of the system to tap to get into the service. It cannot be locked up. Young people cannot be stopped by taking telephone instruments away.
320
Before anybody tells me that parental control and responsibility are involved, many hon. Members who are parents who know how difficult it sometimes is to keep an eye on one's offspring. I do not mean that in a malevolent fashion, but I hope that it strikes home to those hon. Members who might not respond positively to the matter.
I am convinced that British Telecom, whether well motivated or not, cannot police the system, from which it is making an inordinate profit. I cannot accept that monitoring is effective. I cannot believe for two minutes that any senior manager, from the director down, would wish such an obscene, addictive and costly service to go to the people of this country. If British Telecom cannot act, the House should.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Terry Lewis. Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Tony Blair, Mr. Robert Litherland, Miss Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, Mr. George Howarth. Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Bruce Grocott and Mr. David Young.

Telephone Talkabout (Abolition)
  TELEPHONE TALK ABOUT (ABOLITION)
  Mr. Terry Lewis accordingly presented a Bill to prevent the use of the national telephone system for the purpose of joining together several telephone users at a time for casual conversation And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed. [Bill 91.]
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered, That Mr. William O'Brien be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Graham Allen be added.—[Mr. Foster.]
Opposition Day
  8TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Government of Scotland
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.10 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
    That this House welcomes and endorses the proposed reform of the structure of government in Scotland contained in the Scotland Bill presented in the House on 12th November 1987; and, believing that it both reflects the strongly expressed wishes of the people of Scotland and would strengthen the United Kingdom, calls for the setting up of a directly elected Assembly in Scotland with fiscal powers and legislative responsibility for Scotland's domestic affairs.
    I begin by giving an assurance to the Secretary of State for Scotland that I do not regard this as a debate about why he did not mean what he said in 1976. I imagine that he will be grateful for that, because the alibi that he has so carefully constructed over recent months is pretty thin. He is a man with previous convictions in the eyes of the Government. In Scotland he has an honourable history, which, sadly, is now being rewritten. It is very much a scissors and snopake job but the record is there for all to see. The explanation that he has offered, if never less than agile, is nowhere near convincing.
    I am not interested in the Secretary of State's old speeches, but I am interested in one or two of the things that he said in the debate before Christmas, on 23 November 1987. He argued then, in a remarkably blatant way, that his allegiance in the early days to devolution was based on the electoral arithmetic of the day and that it was not a matter of principle but of expediency. He put that argument forcefully during the debate, when he said:
    "The argument then was that such was the demand from the people of Scotland—and indeed of Wales— for some constitutional change, however illogical, and however much it failed to answer the fundamental point … we must make that change because the break-up of the Union was the … alternative."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
    "It if became clear that certain constitutional changes were required to ensure the future of the Union, whatever doubts many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I might have, we are so attached to the Union of the United Kingdom that we would reluctantly be prepared to see those constitutional changes made."—[Official Report, 23 November 1987; Vol. 123, c. 37–39.]
    That was a quite remarkable gloss on the speeches that the right hon. Gentleman had made. It was especially odd because, at column 42 of the same debate, he stated that in his view the arrival of Scottish devolution would not necessarily lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That drove a substantial coach and horses through the argument that he had deployed. As I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he was then showing a voluntary abdication of judgment and going for a cop-out of the most blatant and dishonourable sort. It was a case of, "public opinion rules, OK."
    I advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if that was his position then, and presumably it is still his position today because it merely justifies his bombast on
    322
    devolution by saying that the people of Scotland do not really want it, what price the poll tax, or what justification for the privatisation of the Health Service? We might as well wipe the slate of the Scottish Office totally clean if we are to substitute public popularity for principle, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks us to do.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be taken seriously. I do him the credit of believing that back in the late 1970s he said what he thought was right at the time. He has either changed his mind or silenced his conscience for other reasons — I do not know which — but he is certainly not doing any service to himself if he holds the idea that he did not believe what he was saying, and that in some way his resignation from the Opposition Front Bench over devolution was a personal act of idiosyncratic flagellation. If that is to be believed, it is, indeed, a Pyrrhic victory for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The Secretary of State is now trying to pretend that there is the silence of the grave in the Conservative party. We know that that is not true, because there are already rustlings in the undergrowth. There are probably some Conservative Members who have some sympathy —indeed, some have consistently shown sympathy — for devolution. Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Brian Meek and others are putting forward a case. I remember that in a splendid article, to which I have referred before, Councillor Brian Meek noted that the characteristic of Conservative Members of Parliament for Scotland was that they would jump into the sea if asked to do so by the Prime Minister, without stopping to take off their trousers. Little changes, even after the general election. However, at least that good councillor is proving that some Tories are not prepared to jump to each and every command.
    For Labour Members, devolution is an argument based on the condition of Scotland and on the Scottish psychology. It is a debate about our place in the United Kingdom and our ability to contribute to a common cause. We believe that that is a strong and sound case that has been well made out. It is an argument about democratic control, about the control of almost 7,000 civil servants already in post, and about the sprawling mass of the Scottish Office administration. At the moment, one Minister covers, for example, a Health Service that is in crisis, and an education system that has recently been in turmoil and may well be so again if certain plans are pursued.
    The other day I read a famous passage about the Minister's predecessor at the Scottish Office. He was described as a Pharos of Scotland:
    "who steered upon him was safe, who disregarded his light was wrecked".
    Every appointment and every detail of the administration, and the placing of every policeman, was
    "the breath of his nostril".
    That predecessor of the Secretary of State was a giant and was apparently omnicompetent and dominating, but when we looked to see who now sits in his place,.we see the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). There must be a better way of running our affairs.
    This country is gripped by a metropolitan obsession. Power is being focused more and more in Whitehall and in the Scottish Office. Initiative is choked, and discretion is now a luxury that is enjoyed in few elected council chambers. Experience proves, and has proved, over the past few years that the man from the Scottish Office does not necessarily know best.

    323
    The argument is about democratic control and how we exercise that control over the administrative devolution that is already in place. It is also an argument about legislative competence. It is bizarre—some people would use the word grotesque — that, for example, housing, education and health are in alien hands in the Scottish Office, and that the Scottish Office itself is being run as a sort of branch office of the Adam Smith Institute. It is not pleasant to watch the death of a liberal reputation and to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman claiming common heritage and common cause with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), as he did only a few moments ago. That is not an encouraging phenomenon.
    I want to make it clear that we are not arguing that the Government of the day do not have a right to govern. However, a Government with any wisdom, common sense or sensitivity would exercise their power differently and would think in terms of devolution of power. Not to do so is to fly in the face of so much evidence of public concern. The case for administrative efficiency is simply offensive.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: So that we can be clear, on the subject of democracy and the Government's right to govern, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have a mandate to govern Scotland, and is he arguing that the Labour party has a mandate to bring forward a devolution Bill?
    Mr. Dewar: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's objection to us bringing forward a devolution Bill. I absolutely hate to think of the plaintive gnashing of teeth, the rending of clothing and the false hypocrisy that would have emerged if we had not done so. We are pleased and proud to stand by a good blueprint that was well worked out and well argued, and which is represented by that Bill.
    I know that the Secretary of State will argue that in a unitary state one must accept the majority vote. That is the position that he puts forward. However, he must accept that Scotland is not just another administrative area within the United Kingdom. It is an entity—distinct, sometimes idiosyncratic, but always different.
    The Scottish Office exists. There is a legal system in place — a corpus of separate legislation — and it is justified by our own particular Scottish approach to education and to local government, by our social priorities, and in half a hundred other ways. Apart from the self-appointed rabble of Scotophobes who now appear once a month for Scottish questions, who would want to abandon that tradition? Indeed, Tory Members and Ministers boast about their contributions to putting administrative devolution in place. If that is a cause for congratulations, what is so dangerous, revolutionary or wrong about parallel political developments?
    The Bill that we have laid before the House, and to which we refer in the motion, is a substantial measure and puts forward a well-argued case. It is a realistic look into the future of Scotland. I accept that it is there to be shot at, but we are glad to take the flak: the case will stand it. Of all those who have talked about devolution or Scottish solutions, it is perhaps significant that the Labour party has done the work, put its detailed thoughts up front and shown the people of Scotland what we propose and want.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Granted that the devolutionary arrangements that the hon. Gentleman
    324
    presents to the House have been well argued and well worked out, will he explain what the cost will be once those arrangements are in place? What will be the assembly charge on each Scot, on top of the community charge?
    Mr. Dewar: I shall come to the financial arrangements for the assembly in a moment. Although the hon. Gentleman may imagine that this is some enormous new charge on the people of Scotland, the Scottish Office and all its works are in place. The hon. Gentleman may find that regrettable. He may have become the enemy of everything Scottish now that he has fled to find his fortune south of the border, but for those of us who have a commitment to Scotland, and remain there, that Scottish tradition is important and ought to be fostered. The marginal — and I mean marginal — costs of the administration of the assembly are a small factor to weigh in the balance against the advantages, if it is accepted that they are advantages, of a better system of government.
    Miss Marjorie Mowlam: I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) was going to rise in support of the Bill launched this afternoon by the northern group of Members of Parliament. However, he seems to have exported himself north of the border and deserted the people of Darlington.
    May I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about his views on, and, I hope, support for, the Bill launched today by the northern group, which itself launches a northern regional assembly and northern development agency?
    Mr. Dewar: I strongly welcome that initiative. —[Interruption.] We are attacked because it is said that there is no sympathy, no parallel movement, in other parts of the country; then we are attacked again when it becomes evident that there is. That, no doubt, would win cheap debating applause in certain artificial settings, but it has little to do with furthering proper debate on the government of this country.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) is right. One of the difficulties of the Scottish experience and the Scottish devolution argument 10 years ago was that it was unique. It was, in a sense, constitutionally lonely, and that set up some stresses and strains that were used effectively in the argument.
    I welcome the fact that the point that I made about the centralisation of power — the need for influence and decision-making in parts of the United Kingdom outwith the London area—has led my friends from the north to come forward with imaginative and innovative proposals for a northern assembly and a northern development agency. If we achieve that kind of movement throughout the United Kingdom—for it is relevant not only to the north but to Wales and other parts of the nation—the case for Scottish devolution will be infinitely strengthened. My hon. Friend will find a warm welcome and strong support for the discussions that her group is launching in the north of England with a view to finalising and sophisticating an important initiative.
    No one is trying to dictate what is the right solution for every part of the United Kingdom. We are merely noting that we are wrestling with common problems and moving in the same direction. Our particular solution is a directly elected assembly, with legislative powers, and a greater say for Scots within the framework of the United Kingdom.

    325
    I recognise, of course, that there are arguments on the other side. No argument is so complete that it cannot be challenged. Some people will say that it is all an additional tier of government, an unnecessary bureaucracy, but, as I have tried to point out, the civil servants are already in place and Westminster, by passing power and authority to Scotland by agreement, will be doing a job for the United Kingdom.
    There may well be further changes. For example, I believe that there is a case for a move towards a one-tier, all-purpose local authority below an assembly, in terms purely of appropriateness of scale, but that is for the future. The important thing is to achieve that passing of power from the centre to the areas where it will have its impact.
    There are, of course, arguments for and against what is a grand design, an important constitutional change. What I find unpleasant is the parish-pump politics approach that so often lies behind the opposition to devolution. Neville Chamberlain was said to look at the world through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe, and I sometimes think that Conservative Members have the same noble sweep of vision when it comes to the devolution argument.
    The other point of contention—and I accept that it is contentious—is what we have built into the Bill: a right to vary the level of public expenditure and revenue that is raised in Scotland. I consider that imaginative. I think it right that we should be able to vary the rates without affecting the yield taken by the United Kingdom Treasury, which is the effect of the scheme that we have devised. However, the Secretary of State is entitled to argue, as he did in the House on 23 November, that this is
    "the single most damaging element of the proposals". —[Official Report, 23 November 1987; Vol. 123, c. 44.]
    I find that rather odd. The people who are saying that now are exactly the same people who, in 1978, were saying that an assembly without revenue-raising powers was constitutionally irresponsible. I suppose that we have become rather used to that kind of flexibility in recent years.
    I believe, and I think that I carry all my hon. Friends with me, that if a directly elected tier of government is set up with those powers, it must have the necessary discipline of raising some of the money that it ultimately spends. I find it astonishing that the Minister's obsession with accountability, as has been illustrated in the argument for the poll tax, is so conveniently selective when it comes to a Scottish assembly.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he has not taken his argument to its logical conclusion? If an assembly is to have tax-raising powers, why should it not be responsible for raising all the money that it wishes to spend, rather than only a tiny fraction of it?
    Mr. Dewar: I suppose that that is the new policy for local government announced by the Secretary of State. I suppose that he is going to apply a new principle. [Interruption.] It is a matter of balance. It is right that there should be a Scottish budget that is evolved in negotiation between, now, the Scottish Office — but, ultimately, the Scottish assembly—and the Treasury. We
    326
    are arguing that there should be a right to vary that on the margin, which seems to me an unexceptionable and sensible democratic procedure.
    I am astonished that the Secretary of State is so gloomy in his assumptions about the future of his party in Scotland. When he says that it inevitably means Administrations with high public expenditure, he clearly assumes that the Scottish people will forever bar the door to any influence of power to his party if they are given the chance. That is a remarkable assumption for any politician to make.
    There is also the insulting presumption that, while Westminster can be trusted in its stewardship of Scotland, any politician who is directly elected in Scotland cannot be so trusted: that he will have absolutely no interest in the future of Scotland's industrial base or commercial life and will cheerfully choke it with the crippling burden of taxation. Of course the powers will have to be used responsibly, but I trust Scots to use them responsibly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not, and that is the basis of his argument.
    We want a comprehensive Health Service that is freely available. If that is under threat, if we are threatened with a two-tier service by Conservative policies, with those who can afford it baling out to the commercial medical sector, is it not right for Scotland to have an option to go another way? Is it not right for Scotland to have the financial machinery to tackle the problem, given that we already have separate legislation and a separate financial framework within the government of the United Kingdom?
    I believe that the case is strong. I accept that it will give us difficulty, because there will be scaremongering on the other side, but if we stick to it, and argue for it with care and responsibility, I believe that we will win on that, as we will on the worth of the general scheme.
    Mr. Bruce Millan: On my hon. Friend's point about scaremongering, will he clarify the exact powers in the Bill that will vary the rate of tax on individuals, but not on commerce and industry, in view of the misleading and frankly dishonest propaganda that we have heard about that in Scotland from Conservative Members?
    Mr. Dewar: I do not know whether it was dishonest, but it was certainly misleading. I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no power in the Bill to allow the Scottish assembly to vary commercial or corporate taxation. We are trying to strengthen the government of the United Kingdom. We will remain within the United Kingdom, and we will create a system for Scotland that will allow us to contribute more effectively to the common cause. Obviously, that reflects a balance that must be struck. The right balance has been tested in argument, and we will stand by it.
    Mr. Rifkind rose—
    Mr. Dewar: I want to finish this important point.
    We have built into the scheme a process whereby if there is a need to raise revenue — and of course the Scottish assembly must answer to the ballot box for its actions—it can vary the rates and the extra money will be available for the assembly to use. If it wants to cut taxation, that may be done. However, the United Kingdom yield must be maintained by an adjustment in

    327
    the block grant, which will be negotiated each year. That is simple. No doubt the technique and mechanics may be complicated, but the principle is clear and it will receive a response from the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am rather puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's response to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). If local authorities can increase their marginal revenue by levying taxes on individuals, businesses and companies, why should the Scottish assembly, a much grander and more important body representing the will of the Scottish people — in the hon. Gentleman's view — not have a similar right which local authorities take for granted?
    Mr. Dewar: Because we are devolving power to an assembly. We are giving it powers. We want to give it the powers relevant to its duties within the United Kingdom framework. The Secretary of State is being obtuse, although he is obviously enjoying himself. He is complaining bitterly that the scheme does not go far enough. If that is his complaint, let him bring forward amendments to our Bill; let him allow the Bill to be debated. If his real objection is that we are being too cautious in our approach I am surprised, but I am prepared to be tutored on that point.
    We are producing a solution to a problem. The assembly will not be a talking shop. It will have substantial legislative powers, which will be increased and tidied up, with the inclusion of the universities and the legal framework within which the police operate. The assembly will have a budget in current terms of about £8 billion. It will have economic clout using section 7 of the Industry Act 1980, with control of the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. We are not claiming for it powers that it will not possess. We believe that it will be able to put Scotland's case effectively. It will he a competing centre of power and an advantage in an unbalanced land. Politics is about influence and pressure, as well as about legislation. I believe that the assembly will operate in both those senses.
    We hear a blatant appeal to political fears from the Secretary of State and his colleagues. They argue that we are on a slippery slope to something very different. I note that the Secretary of State rather retreated from that during the debate in November, as I said earlier.
    However, on one point the Labour party takes a different stand from that adopted by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who represents the Scottish National party. We see devolution as a means of strengthening the United Kingdom, establishing that it can respond to Scotland's needs. In a sense, I invite the House to know the scheme by its enemies. Although I believe that Scottish National Members will vote for us tonight for tactical reasons, ultimately the SNP will see devolution as essentially negative because it represents reform and not the break-up of Britain. Devolution and separatism are ultimately incompatible.
    Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The hon. Gentleman referred to the other national party within our group. Does he realise that within our group of national party Members we regard the transfer of power from London as progressive wherever it happens, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) argued? I am concerned to note the absence of colleagues from Wales on the Labour Benches today to
    328
    speak up for Wales and give Wales the same high level of support as hon. Members from the north of England are demanding. I congratulate the north of England on its initiative.
    Mr. Dewar: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is congratulating the Labour Benches. I shall have to be satisfied with that rather grudging congratulation. However, I suspect that in time we may well be able to convince the hon. Gentleman that he should be more generous. I certainly hope so.
    I have not been greatly impressed by the SNP's recent campaigning on this issue. The campaigning has been rather long on advice and short on action, if I may say that to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Our late colleague Mr. Gordon Wilson called for a boycott of Parliament on two occasions, but he did that in vain, because his colleagues remained rooted to their seats. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is now held up as a shining example of what others should do, but there is no sign of SNP Members following their own advice.
    I genuinely tell SNP Members that I would have been more impressed if one SNP hon. Member had been present in the House to vote against the Second Reading of the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill, which killed regional development grants on Monday. The Scottish National party is hard at work portraying tonight's vote on this motion—while the big batallions will trudge through the Lobby and give the Government their majority—as a decisive setback. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan told The Scotsman that the devolution option would no longer be on the table. I believe that that was said in an extremely hopeful fashion. It was wishful thinking.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to hear me elaborate my thoughts on this matter later in the debate. What will the Labour party's strategy be once the motion is defeated tonight—as we know that it will be—for implementing its policy on which it fought and won the general election in Scotland?
    Mr. Dewar: I shall not ask the hon. Gentleman what his strategy is, because I do not have sufficient interest to listen to his reply.
    Our job is to campaign for what Scotland demonstrably wants, no more and no less than that. Nothing less than that will do. It would be a very poor politician who, if he lost a vote in the House, failed to move the Government miles in terms of their prejudice over a short period of time, packed, struck tent, went home and refused to carry on the struggle. That is not the way of the Labour party on this issue. We openly admit that we have a long way to go, because we are realists. We are in the realistic business of communicating what will happen and what our objectives are for the people of Scotland.
    No doubt we will have to track back many a dreich and weary mile in the argument. No doubt there will be many echoes of the past. Doubtless the West Lothian question will reappear, probably during the course of the next half hour or so. No doubt the charge will be made that Scotland's influence at Westminster will be undermined. I accept that there are always reasons for buttressing doubt if the doubt exists and if people want to find those reasons. However, we should have a debate that does not involve myths or scare stories.
    Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Referring to the matter of doubt, may I, as a Scottish episcopalian Jacobite bathed in scepticism, ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if the Labour party had been in power over the past nine years and had had a majority of the Scottish seats in Scotland, he would be seeking devolution?
    Mr. Dewar: I imagine that the episcopalian Jacobite party in Scotland is probably just as strong as the Scottish Conservative party. However, in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, we have stuck with the devolution argument through good days and bad, through thick and thin. No one can say that we will not deliver or that we do not believe that devolution is right on its merits. It may well be that there is an argument about whether we should have it, but everyone knows on which side of the argument the Labour party stands. Everyone knows that there will be action when we next have a Labour Government.
    Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, I do not believe that we will lose our role and influence at Westminster. Our role may change. Scottish Members may not have to be jacks-of-all-trades, trying to cover the whole range of Scottish Office activities, but there will be more specialisation; for example, in foreign affairs, defence, economic and fiscal matters. It will be an important role. I certainly do not consider that we are trading power in Edinburgh for impotence at Westminster.
    There is a different climate now, and there is a different thinking about regional government in other parts of the country. The northern Bill underlines that point. We are no longer isolated. We are part of a wider movement, with the strength that that gives.
    The argument about devolution is a matter of conviction and gut root feeling about what Scotland wants. I believe that it has support. Even the new, reformed, sanitised Secretary of State has to concede that point. He dressed it up. He told The Independent that devolution was a preference in Scotland, not a priority. That is a nice distinction, but it will not stand him in good stead in the months ahead.
    I believe that the preference is a strong one. It has been repeatedly illustrated and will grow because of the Government's insensitive policies. Its roots go deep. In the 19th century, Scotland was something of a fading memory. People were building British hotels and hiring elocution teachers to get rid of the last traces of a Scottish accent. However, the tide turned, as can be seen in many ways. The Scottish Office was set up in 1885, and since then we have built and improved, and we have tried to establish a structure in Scotland to serve Scottish needs. We wish to complete that structure by putting a parallel political and democratic roof on it.
    There has been a growth of confidence in Scottish literature. Even in my day, Scottish literature was limited to "L'Allegro", "I1 Penseroso", "The Deserted Village" and one Shakespeare play. People are now becoming aware of Scottish literature. The feel for history in Scotland has grown beyond Scott's "Tales of a Grandfather." There is a sense of purpose. The legal system, the Church, educational and cultural traditions have survived and flourished, and we must build on them and harness them in the nation's interest.
    I remember the impressive arguments of John McIntosh about dual nationality. All Scottish Opposition Members would agree that we are citizens of Scotland and
    330
    of the United Kingdom. Devolution strongly reflects that feeling. It is an important and pressing matter. The present situation is flawed and the danger is that flaws lead to fractures.
    There is sometimes an air of beleaguered desperation about the Scottish Office. In a recent newspaper article the Secretary of State was driven to Hilaire Belloc, who said:
    "Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim Gun, and they have not."
    That was an arresting and clever point, and shows that he has a good memory. It was also flippant, and says something about what is wrong in Scottish society and Scottish political life. The Bill is designed to meet a challenge. If Scotland ends up with an assembly, it will have the Maxim gun, but that will be Scotland's choice. The Opposition face that challenge, but are the Government prepared to face it, or will it be the status quo again, at whatever cost?
    We have stayed with our argument. The Labour party has fought for devolution for decades, and we have won many victories, but we will achieve the ultimate victory only by convincing and probably by capturing government. We have made a pact with Scottish public opinion and we intend to carry it out. The motion underlines our commitment and determination to win through. I commend it to the House and hope that we will have solid support in the Lobby tonight.
    4.43 pm
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `rejects the arguments for constitutional change that would be disruptive, unworkable, costly to implement and destabilising in their effect; and in particular rejects the added tax burden that would fall on the people of Scotland from a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers.'
    I have listened with particular interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). There is a distinct change in the tone of this speech. Unlike previous occasions, today we were not told about the "irresistible demand" for devolution from the people of Scotland. That irresistible demand changed to a "strong preference". If the hon. Gentleman now wishes to maintain that there is an irresistible demand, we are entitled to ask for evidence of that demand.
    The evidence of a demand is normally considered on the basis of representations being made to the Government. I have made inquiries about recent representations made to the Government by those who have strong views on policy. The Labour party in Scotland is committed to and calls for devolution. However, the Government have received only 64 representations since the general election. On the other hand, the Labour-controlled Strathclyde regional council has committed itself to a certain education policy. The Scottish Office has received 2,555 representations on that issue. That is a helpful indication of relative priorities.
    We were told by the hon. Gentleman that there is a major new move towards devolution.
    Dr. John Reid: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way in a moment.

    331
    We are told that there is a major new movement in the Labour party, seeking devolution not only for Scotland but for the north of England, and no doubt for other parts of the United Kingdom.
    The motion on the Order Paper is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, who is committed to the policy put forward by the hon. Member for Garscadden.
    Mr. David Marshall: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way in a moment.
    On a previous occasion in the House, the Leader of the Opposition, speaking on devolution, referred to
    "the central misrepresentation of the whole devolution case—the idea that more houses can be built, more jobs found, more happiness manufactured … if only we have an Assembly."—[Official Report, 18 January 1977, Vol. 924, c. 153.]
    The Leader of the Opposition now supports an assembly for Scotland, and perhaps one in the north of England. Why does the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), representing Plaid Cymru, appear not to believe in one for Wales? If the fact that there are only 10 Conservative Members in Scotland somehow makes devolution essential, why does the fact that there are only eight Conservative Members in Wales not lead to a similar conclusion?
    Dr. Reid: As the right hon.and learned Gentleman is interested in evidence of the demand for devolution in Scotland, I draw his attention to a recent poll, undertaken for Scottish Television in November 1987, which said:
    "Question 7: Do you think that the Government cares about Scotland? 20·1 per cent. answered yes: 79·9 per cent. answered no. Question 8: Which system is best for governing Scotland? 23·1 per cent. said the existing system: 52·2 per cent said a Scottish Assembly: 24·7 per cent. said independence".
    When 77 per cent. of people are not satisfied with the present system and want at least some form of devolution, is that to be defined as demand or a strong preference?
    Mr. Rifkind: We should attach the same value to the results of that opinion poll as we did to the results of the opinion poll during the general election campaign, which showed that 97 per cent. of Scots did not think that devolution was a major issue for the general election. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden, in presenting the Scotland Bill, hardly referred to it. Normally, when one presents a Bill, one devotes a substantial part of one's speech to its content. However, apart from a few cursory references to it in the hon. Gentleman's speech, it might never have existed.
    I have looked at the Bill. It is an interesting and revealing document. In the history of the United Kingdom, there have been campaigns for greater power from certain areas and the language is significant.
    There have been calls for home rule, demands for Parliaments and requests for a Prime Minister of the territories concerned. Perhaps we have given insufficient consideration during the past 10 years to why the Labour party has steered clear of such terminology.
    There have been no references to home rule, only adherence to a much more clinical and sterile term—devolution — which is hardly likely to set alight any great passion or interest in such a mundane approach to the problems of government. There have been no calls for a Scottish Parliament, merely for an assembly, which, by
    332
    definition, has reduced relevance and significance. Most important, the executive head of the assembly to which the Labour party refers, is to be called not a Prime Minister, Premier or Chief Minister, but First Secretary — a magnificent title, normally more relevant to a senior official in a trade union or a senior official in the central committee of the Soviet Communist party.
    Mr. Millan: That is exactly the terminology in the Scotland Act 1978, for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted.
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken, and I shall explain why. I did not vote for the Scotland Bill on Third Reading.
    The Labour party's reluctance to use the terminology that one usually associates with a genuine campaign for home rule is of great significance. The reason is quite simple. Opposition Members know perfectly well that the terminology which refers to home rule, to Parliaments and to Prime Ministers is the language of nationalism. They are conscious of the fact that they are opening a Pandora's box which they believe, by their addiction to a sterile indifferent terminology, they will somehow be able to conceal.
    There is a basic and fundamental inconsistency between the Labour party's claim to speak for the Scottish people, and claiming that they deserve a legislature of their own, and its refusal to use the terms usually associated with such a political philosophy.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman still hold to his view, expressed in Scottish Field in March 1986, that the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland are not unlike those of a colonial governor?
    Mr. Rifkind: I made no such remark. I am aware of that quotation, but it was never a remark made by me, as I have said on several previous occasions.
    I repeat—I return to the point because it is of great significance—if the Labour party wants to maintain its argument on the basis that the needs and wishes of the Scottish people should be respected, why adopt such a meaningless concept as devolution? Why apply titles as insignificant as that of First Secretary? The Labour party will not attract millions to its banner on this issue if it campaigns on the slogan that every nation worthy of its name is entitled to have a First Scretary of its own.
    Mr. Dewar rose—
    Mr. Rifkind: I give way to the prospective First Secretary.
    Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to have the right hon and learned Gentleman's good wishes for my future career, but I fear they will do me no good.
    I am puzzled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. I understood that devolution was a disaster, a catastrophe — the dismemberment of the United Kingdom, according to the Conservative party. We are now being told that it is all minor cosmetic tinkering and dry administrative adjustment, not worth a candle. Which is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position? He is making himself more ridiculous by the minute.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's proposals have a fundamental significance, but I am puzzled and curious as to why, for the past 10 years, he and his colleagues have constantly shied away from the terminology which is

    333
    usually associated with campaigns for home rule, federalism or constitutional change in almost every other part of the world. There is a significance, and the hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.
    Mr. Dewar: I am puzzled. If someone strays into the kind of language that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is accusing us of eschewing, that is immediately pounced on as an example of the central irresponsibility of the devolution scheme and as evidence that it is not really a scheme to reform the government of the United Kingdom, but something totally different. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now complaining that we are being too careful, saying what we mean, and arguing the case in which we believe— that the government of the United Kingdom can be strengthened by giving a greater say to Scots over their own domestic affairs. I do not see why we should be pilloried for doing, precisely and accurately, what we claim to be doing.
    Mr. Rifkind: That is clearly a matter of dispute between us. There is one major way in which the Opposition's presentation is fundamentally different from what we had 10 years ago, and that is its proposal for a tax-raising power. One must ask on what basis such a proposition is put forward by the Opposition. Some years ago the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), now a member of the Shadow Cabinet, said:
    "Any power to raise revenue in Scotland would create a tax unique to Scotland, which therefore would be politically unacceptable".—[Official Report, 14 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 161.]
    Why is that which was politically unacceptable some years ago now a fundamental element in the Labour party's policy?
    The hon. Member for Garscadden says that that is not unique to Scotland. He cannot deny that if that proposal were used to vary upwards the level of taxation in Scotland, it would mean a level of direct taxation which did not apply to any other part of the United Kingdom. The Opposition have spent many hours criticising the Government for the fact that we are to introduce a community charge in Scotland 12 months earlier than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Yet here the Opposition are committing themselves to a higher level of taxation in Scotland, not just in the short term, not just for a number of years, but for the indefinite future.
    If the hon. Gentleman says that this is a power to levy tax downwards as well as upwards, I am well aware of that fact. But as the whole tenor of the Opposition's case over the last nine years has been that the Government are not spending enough resources in Scotland, is he seriously asking us to assume that, if the Labour party were in control of such an assembly, there would be the slightest possibility of reducing the tax burden on the Scottish people?
    The hon. Gentleman can give me a theoretical answer. He can pretend that that is a matter for the Scottish assembly to decide. But he knows perfectly well that if one of the purposes of such an assembly is to achieve a more generous provision of public services in Scotland, that can only mean that the people of Scotland will be burdened by a higher level of taxation than any other part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dewar: Income tax is not a unique tax. It is levied in other parts of the United Kingdom, as no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware. I give him that much credit. Is he trying to argue that if one has a form of taxation, it is constitutionally obnoxious and wholly impractical to have different rates in different parts of the country? If so, presumably he is against all forms of variation in, say, rating or poll tax levels when the time comes.
    The point of the scheme is that it allows a variation of the revenue of the assembly, for which the assembly will be answerable at the ballot box. But it also preserves the take of the United Kingdom Treasury at national taxation rates. I see nothing offensive or essentially impractical in that and it gives the kind of flexibility that Scotland would clearly want. The Government talk about choice. Why, within the framework of the United Kingdom, do they deny choice to Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: I did not suggest that there is anything constitutionally improper in one part of the United Kingdom being burdened by a higher level of taxation than other parts if such a political structure were created. I suggested that that would be fundamentally against the interests of jobs, employment and industry in Scotland.
    The hon. Gentleman will have to address himself to another matter. In an exchange a few moments ago arising out of an intervention by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), the hon. Member for Garscadden confirmed that his proposals would not involve any additional taxation on industry or commerce. We have to ask: why not? We know that the Labour party believes that an assembly should have industrial powers, control of the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and section 7 grants to industry. Therefore, if industry is to benefit from the expenditure of an assembly, what curious reasoning has led the hon. Gentleman to conclude that any additional taxation that the assembly might levy should not include business and commerce?
    We know perfectly well what the real explanation is. It is that Labour Members are excessively sensitive to the argument that heavier taxation will be a burden on the Scottish economy. They are hoping to convince people that, because that heavier taxation would be imposed only on individuals, not on business, such fears are unjustified. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the view of Scottish business or Scottish industry. He knows that the unanimous view of those who run Scottish industry is that the Opposition's proposal would be a grievous burden—[Interruption.] It is for all practical purposes unanimous.
    Furthermore, if the hon. Gentleman ever had my job, and if one of his future responsibilities was to encourage new investment in Scotland, the idea that companies such as Ford would be contemplating Dundee, that Compac would be going to Renfrewshire, that Caledonian Paper would be going to Irvine, if they knew that their employees in those locations wold have imposed upon them a higher level of taxation than if they went into development areas elsewhere in the United Kingdom—[Interruption.]
    The hon. Member for Garscadden does not understand this point. There are development areas throughout the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman ever ran a company and was contemplating which development area to go to, would he take his company and his investment to that one part of the kingdom where his management

    335
    employees and the rest of his employees — the whole work force — were subject to higher levels of direct taxation than in other development areas in England or Wales? If he seriously believes that that would not be a major problem, he is living in a world that bears no relationship to the real problems of industry. There is evidence for what I have said; all the spokesmen for Scottish industry have said so—[Interruption.] If hon. Members refuse to accept the evidence of those who work in industry, that shows why industry has so little confidence in their views.
    Mr. Fairbairn: I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend is coming to the serious financial disasters that would result from the Scotland Act. Section 2(2) would give power to the Scottish assembly to
    "amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament."
    If that is not a recipe for constitutional warfare, what is?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. The Bill contains some open-ended powers which might indeed have the effect that he suggests.
    One of the main arguments that the Opposition have used on various occasions is that if an assembly had existed over the past eight or nine years, many of the major problems that have affected Scottish industry would not have occurred.
    Mr. John Maxton: No.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that that would not have been the case.
    Mr. Maxton: I said that we had never argued that.
    Mr. Rifkind: Then I must assume that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that an assembly would have no significance for the major industrial requirements of Scotland.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Secretary of State should not debate with hon. Members who are intervening from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to accept your advice on these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    If anyone is of the view that an assembly would somehow be relevant to helping the level of employment in Scotland, or to Scotland's industrial requirements, I would advise him or her to consult the paper on devolution published by the Labour party two or three years ago. It said:
    "The economic problems of Scotland are very similar to those of Merseyside, the North, and, indeed, the West Midlands. They must be dealt with in a national context, and therefore, in terms of broad UK strategy, are best tackled by the United Kingdom Parliament."
    I am glad that there is happy agreement between the two sides of the House—certainly between the Labour party and the Conservative party — that Scotland's industrial and employment requirements will be of little relevance to the work of an assembly, other than that the additional powers of taxation will add to Scotland's unemployment and distract from the investment needs of our country.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden rightly prophesied that we would refer to the fundamental unresolved issues, with which the Labour party has never been prepared to come to terms. Here I refer to the question how, if an assembly were created, Scottish Members would continue to have a significant role to play.
    Mr. Dewar: What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think?
    Mr. Rifkind: I shall come to my own views, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient. At present I wish to refer to the views of an English Labour Member, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) who, in 1977, said:
    "If Scottish Members of the Labour Party think that for one moment I, as an English Member of Parliament shall tolerate their coming here and determining what happens in my constituency when I can say nothing about Scotland, they have another think coming." —[Official Report, 14 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 182.]
    That is not only the view of Conservative Members from south of the border; it is the view of a colleague of Labour Members. It is a matter to which they have blindly, in an extraordinary fashion, refused to address themselves.
    Mr. William McKelvey: It would also be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House to echo what I once told the House — that we do not seek to impose or to foist Scottish legislation upon our English counterparts. We do not seek to force the Scottish education or tax system on England. But we are having to suffer English legislation being foisted on the people of Scotland, and they do riot want it.
    Mr. Rifkind: What the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate is that what he would be foisting on the people of England is a Labour Government that they had not voted for. That is exactly what happened in 1964 and October 1974, when the majority of people in England returned a clear majority of Conservative Members, but still had to live with a Labour Government. I do not recollect Labour Members saying that that was a grave embarrassment to them. I do not remember the hon. Member for Garscadden or other Labour Members, on the Front Bench or on the Back Benches, saying, "Clearly, we must apply our Labour policies only in Scotland and Wales, because England did not vote for them." I do not recollect the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), saying either in 1964 or in 1974, "The Labour Government do not have a mandate for their policies in England, so we shall not nationalise any industry in England; we shall nationalise only those in Scotland and Wales, because they are the only parts of the kingdom in which we received a mandate."
    Suddenly there is silence on the Opposition Benches. Can Opposition Members explain why what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander? I shall happily give way to anyone who can explain why a Labour Government, not elected in England, were entitled to govern on a national United Kingdom basis, while a Conservative Government are not entitled to the same privilege. I shall happily give way to any hon. Member who would like to deal with this matter.
    Mr. Bill Walker rose—
    Mr. Rifkind: I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to help, and that Opposition hon. Members are anxious for me to give way to him, but on this occasion I would rather give way to an Opposition Member, because we are dealing with a fundamental issue. The deafening silence that has suddenly descended on the Opposition Benches speaks louder than words.
    Mr. James Wallace: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a world of difference,

    337
    a deep qualitive difference, between the situation now and the situation in 1964 or 1974, when indeed there was a Conservative majority in England, but Labour seats in Scotland and Wales gave Labour a majority? After the last election the Conservative party in Scotland had only 10 out of 72 seats. If in England the Labour party had been unable to secure more than one seventh of the seats, there would never have been a Labour Government. That qualitive difference is fundamental here. The Conservative party in Scotland has no mandate, and it is no use pretending that it has.
    Mr. Rifkind: If that is supposed to be a statement of principle, it is an extraordinary attempt. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is doing his best, but he knows perfectly well that the principle that one has a mandate only when a majority of hon. Members elected from a particular territory are of the party to which one belongs is entirely invalid.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask Opposition Members why it was in order for a Labour Government, without a majority in England, to abolish grammar schools — something that the English cared very deeply about — using the strength of their votes from Scotland, which was not affected, and of their Welsh votes?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because he has given a very relevant example, which Opposition Members will not and cannot seek to justify.
    Mr. John McAllion: Will the Secretary of State concede that he is trying to confuse the debate and take it off at a tangent? No one on the Opposition Benches, apart from nationalist Members, is challenging the mandate that the Government received in the June election to rule as the Government of the United Kingdom. What we are telling the Government is this: "If you are to be a reasonable, realistic and caring Government of the United Kingdom, you will take heed of the views of the Scottish people within the United Kingdom".
    The Scottish people have clearly expressed their view, which is that they want a form of devolution in Scotland. The Government — as the Government of the United Kingdom, although they have little support in Scotland —should be conceding that to the people of Scotland, if they wish to keep them within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rifkind: That is an interesting point, but it is in no way relevant to the position on which I had hoped the hon. Gentleman would comment.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: Would the Secretary of State not think it equally atrocious if the intervention of the Prime Minister today were to secure the return of selective independent grammar schools in Paisley when they have been rejected by the electorate in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: Nothing that has been said today will have that effect. When there is a proposal to close a school, which is the choice of parents and which is full, that proposal will require the consent of the Secretary of State. Why the hon. Gentleman should be so opposed to parental wishes being taken into account I find it difficult to understand.
    Mr. Alistair Darling rose—
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on a matter that is relevant to the debate, I shall happily give way. That is what is required, I think, by the rules of the House.
    Mr. Darling: It is on devolution. The Secretary of State asked about the justification for hon. Members from different parts of the country voting on legislation that will affect parts of England and Scotland. Surely the point of devolution is that it gives expression to the fact that in Scotland the dominant wishes of the electorate are different from those in other parts of the country; devolution would allow those differences to flourish within the whole. It is a question not of a mandate but of allowing differences to be expressed within the whole United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State might care to address his attention to another point. Does he consider that the scrutiny that the House can give him and his colleagues for one hour every five weeks is adequate when in a Scottish assembly scrutiny could be carried out daily?
    Mr. Rifkind: The objective is to ensure that those who believe in the Union and in the United Kingdom support a constitutional structure that provides a long-term future for all the territories of the United Kingdom. A system of reform which proposes a fundamental constitutional change for one part of the United Kingdom but no change for the other parts is inherently unstable.
    Mr. Maxton: I have been listening to the argument that the Secretary of State is putting forward. First, I do not understand it because there is no English Department of State. We have the Scottish Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the Welsh Office and United Kingdom Departments. There is no English Department. Secondly, the pure logic of his argument is the abolition of the office that he holds and the integration of Scotland fully within the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State cannot argue for a separate Scottish Administration without accepting that there has to be some form of democratic control over it.
    Mr. Rifkind: I accept that we cannot argue for a separate Scottish Administration on that basis.
    Mr. Maxton: That is what we have got.
    Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, what we have was introduced by a Conservative Government 100 years ago — a Scottish Office within a unitary system of government. The hon. Gentleman is trying to reverse that process.
    I have noted over the past few months a very engaging interest in my previous speeches. There have been so many references to them, and such is my curiosity about the interest of the Opposition, that I thought it was about time that I re-read what I said 10 years ago. In 1977, the time that the hon. Member for Garscadden was talking about, I find that in The Guardian, of all newspapers, I wrote:
    "Few doubt that the Government's present Bill is unworkable and that the mood of the people of Scotland may now become reconciled to our present unitary system and single British Parliament. We could do far worse than our present institutions, but those who wish to preserve the Union must look to other solutions if the need becomes imperative. The answer will not lie in appeasement or in piecemeal constitutional changes for one or other part of the kingdom. It will require Parliament to provide a British answer to what would have become a British problem."

    339
    In 1978, in an article that I wrote in The Times, I referred to
    "the fundamental defect in the Government's proposals; namely, that Scottish MPs will also be able to vote on purely English domestic issues, while their English colleagues will have lost the corresponding right to influence Scottish legislation. That is a defect that can, probably, only be resolved by either creating a federal United Kingdom or by dropping devolution altogether."
    I am amazed by my consistency over the years.
    Mr. George Robertson: Many of the arguments that the Secretary of State is rehearsing now are arguments that I remember hearing when I came into the House in 1978. What we are all agog to know—and I hope the Secretary of State will confide in us — is whether he voted yes or no for the Scotland Act 1978 in the referendum in 1979.
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the last devolution debate he would have heard two things: first, that I voted for the 40 per cent. rule and, secondly — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I believed that devolution could only be justified if there was an irrestible demand by the people of Scotland. Secondly, I indicated the day after the referendum that, as that referendum had shown that there was no irresistible demand—[Interruption.] I voted yes; it is well known that I voted yes. I have never made any secret of that fact. I indicated then, as I indicate now, that only if there was an irresistible demand was that kind of fundamentally unsound constitutional change in the interests of the United Kingdom.
    We saw then and have seen since that the interest in devolution in Scotland is largely concentrated on the Opposition Benches. Even among the Opposition there are three schools of thought: those who wish for separatism, those who yearn for a federal solution and those who are trying to avoid the consequences of their own philosophy and are seeking to achieve a devolved system within a unitary structure.
    The proposal that the hon. Member for Garscadden put before the House would involve a higher level of taxation on the people of Scotland. It would be contrary to the interests of industry and jobs in Scotland. It would be contrary to the interests and well-being of the United Kingdom. On that basis, and because of other propositions that have been put to the House, I have no doubt that the motion should be summarily rejected by the House when it votes tonight.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a grave matter affecting the operation and the privilege of the House. I arrived here within the last half hour to be told by the press about a decision referred to in documents, which I saw later, which had been given to the various Front Benches this afternoon. The documents contain a letter which had been sent to the headmaster of a grammar school in my constituency informing him, before the House was informed, that the Government propose to introduce regulations which would have the effect of saving schools such as his.
    This is a crucially important set of regulations which should be considered by the House. Although the letter was sent to one headmaster—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is raising a matter of privilege, is he not? There
    340
    is an established procedure which would require the hon. Gentleman to write to Mr. Speaker on the subject. I suggest that he adopts that course of action.
    Mr. Buchan: May I have further clarification Mr. Deputy Speaker? As I understand it, the information was given first to the headmaster of a school in Scotland before being given to the House. No one in the House has been informed, officially or otherwise, of the regulations. I may have chosen the wrong procedure. I am very angry, which is perhaps why I have chosen this procedure. You may advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how best to proceed and whether it should not be followed up as a point of order.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question of a Minister informing people outside the House of matters which the House feels it should be informed of first has been commented on by Mr. Speaker in the past. It is not a matter on which I can rule now. If the hon. Gentleman has put the point in the context of the privilege of the House, the procedure would require him to write to Mr. Speaker. That is the best advice I can offer him.
    Mr. Rifkind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred were announced in a written reply at 3.30 pm today.
    Mr. Dewar: This matter is of grave importance, not just in terms of the fate of the schools concerned,[Interruption.] The Secretary of State groans, but he has done a remarkable thing. It appears to be done by the Prime Minister from on high. The balance between ministerial power and local government will be altered. It is legislation for a special case.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must raise matters on which the Chair can rule. The Chair cannot rule on such matters.
    Mr. Dewar: I shall be brief. The fact that this incident occurred today was possibly not a coincidence, given the business that we are discussing. The least that the Secretary of State can promise is a full statement in the House tomorrow. We are changing a system in a fundamental way and many hon. Members will want to criticise that change.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: No doubt the Secretary of State will have regard to what has been said, but the Chair cannot rule on the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman. The best advice that I can offer is that which I offered the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan).
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be for the benefit of the House to know that regulations and a prayer were tabled this morning in the Table Office. My colleagues and I have already prayed against the regulations and I hope that we shall have an opportunity for a debate on the basis of that prayer. I hope that that will help the House to proceed with tonight's business.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Leader of the House. I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: On several occasions I have tried to raise with the Secretary

    341
    of State for Scotland the issue of school closures, which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has also raised.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot start discussing the procedure for dealing with school closures. I was asked a specific question, and I hope that I have helped the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). The House should now move on.
    5.22 pm
    Mr. Dick Douglas: I do not intend to go through the rather arid country of the Secretary of State's speeches, but I shall comment on some of the points that he has raised.
    I concede that this is the United Kingdom Parliament, for which we all stood in June 1987. I readily concede that that is a truism and that the only ways to show disapproval of that result, and therefore not to represent one's constituents, are to be disruptive and to get oneself constantly expelled, to withdraw, like some Northern Ireland Members, or, indeed, not to take one's seat at all.
    I concede the Secretary of State's point that devolution is not a prime election issue. No single political issue of this nature dominated the Scottish electoral scene in June 1987. The nature and approach of the Thatcher Government dominated the political scene. No one would dispute that. The Scottish people showed an almost universal distaste for the style of that Government.
    Most Scottish Members are here because the Prime Minister's personality found no favourable response among our constituents. She came to Fife during the campaign and her visit was shrouded in secrecy, not particularly for security reasons, but because the opposition was such that she would have had a rough ride from the general public.
    Of course, Conservative Members march to a different drum. They believe that, because they have a United Kingdom mandate, Scotland must be given the shock treatment of Thatcherite policy. I do not think that I am misinterpreting the position. They believe that we will eventually see that this is good for us and that the Scottish electorate have been terribly mistaken in rejecting Thatcherite policy in successive general elections.
    This is a gamble on the part of Scottish Tories. I have little objection to them gambling with their own future, but today we are discussing the future government of Scotland and the future of our country. What is before us today is not merely a piece of paper with 48 clauses and five schedules. That might be easily dismissed and we might be willing to listen to disputation on it clause by clause, and line by line. What is before us today—I wish that the Secretary of State would rise to his office—is the democratic structure of Scotland which will fit the requirements not just for the 1980s and 1990s, but for the years after 2000.
    I give the Prime Minister credit. She, perhaps more than any of our other political leaders, recognises the imperatives of science and technology. Science and technology in modern society have enabled individuals to adopt a self-sufficient, self-reliant approach. Like most hon. Members, I shudder at the amount of time that I spend isolated in a steel box, a car, on my own, going to and from my constituency. I shudder at the amount of
    342
    time—when we get time—that we spend at home in small family units, watching television. The growth of small-scale businesses which do not necessarily feel remote from markets and information, bears testimony to advances in science and technology.
    On the other hand, the revolution of science and technology, particularly in information technology, has encouraged the view that society can be centralised. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) demonstrated a flaw in the Secretary of State's argument. If we took the Secretary of State's argument to its logical conclusion, we would wrap up the Scottish Office. We would wrap up a separate Secretary of State for Scotland. That may be the Government's design. Perhaps that is what the Tories are moving towards. Perhaps their desire for a wholly centralised society will eventually come about, because they give the impression that they want to eliminate all sources of democratic resistance to them, whether in local government or other spheres.
    I put this point sincerely to the Minister of State who will reply to the debate. If the constitution stands that now seems to be developing under the Government, are there any hopes for decentralised areas of democratic power within the United Kingdom? Do they have any plans for constitutional developments which will give voice to the aspirations, desires and outlooks which go against those of Whitehall and Westminster?
    Mr. Edward Leigh: No one doubts the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, but I put one small difficulty to him. If he argues that a majority will for devolution in a certain part of the United Kingdom should be met by central Government, how can he deny that will for devolution in another part of the United Kingdom— Northern Ireland? Or is he prepared to grant the wishes of those people? Is there not a certain difficulty?
    Mr. Douglas: I recognise that the Northern Ireland situation is extremely delicate, especially for the Labour party. I do not want to be tangential or to avoid the point. We make claims for Scotland because Labour party members stood for election there. There is a great weakness in our advocacy of certain policies in Northern Ireland, because the Labour party does not participate in Northern Ireland elections. Some may say that Northern Ireland must remain part of the United Kingdom unless and until the people of Northern Ireland change that. That is the constitutional view. I claim that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to a flexible view of how they would democratically control themselves. This is a reflection not just on the Labour party but on the whole House. Because of the strains of history and the delicate position, we have not been able to deal with this matter. I recognise the difficulty.
    The centralised approach which the Tories adopt is damaging to the unity of the United Kingdom because it is unlikely to meet the important social aspirations of people in Scotland. It may suit Conservative Members because it facilitates the view that Whitehall, Westminster or St. Andrew's house temporarily knows best, but in a society of 55 million it does not take cognisance of a sense of identification or loyalty among human beings.
    The logic of the approach of the Secretary of State is to do away with the Scottish Office and run everything from Whitehall. I submit that modern science and technology could assist them. There is another approach,

    343
    which claims that we have the resources to make government more responsible and more responsive to people's needs. I shall illustrate this by referring to taxation. Most of the arguments of the Secretary of State on taxation in a modern context fall down, especially his addiction to a poll tax. The poll tax will prove impossible, but not because there is no technical ability. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have embarked upon such a device had we not had our existing computer facilities.
    I shall illustrate my point by referring to some taxation provisions in the Scotland Bill. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred during the debate on English and Welsh poll tax legislation to a local income tax. He referred to the practicability of collecting income tax on a local basis because modern computers could be programmed for such a purpose. Modern technology gives us these tools, and will increasingly do so, to make variations in our constitutional and political practices which would have been difficult, if not impossible, to make before.
    Surely we cannot think that these devices will be used only for the Government's highly centralised purposes. Surely, as Socialists, we must believe that science and technology can be used to enhance human freedom. That is what we are in the business for. Will the Government say that this constitutional edifice epitomises all that is good in human freedom and that we shall rest there until kingdom come? I do not suggest that we are putting forward a perfect device, but I argue that it has a greater thrust in terms of meeting individual aspirations, especially those of the Scottish people. We are not merely voting for a Bill. We are voting on the direction that the nation of Scotland will take in the last decades of the 20th century and into the 21st.
    The Secretary of State says, "No change." We say that the imperatives are to change the forms and substance of government to make them more responsive to the needs and wishes of the Scottish people. Those who share that wish and aspiration will vote for us. The people of Scotland will make up their minds in a future election in relation to their responsibilities.
    5.35 pm
    Sir Hector Monro: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and to listen to his views. To a degree I subscribe to them — a party's standing depends very much on hearts, minds, style and presentation and, equally important, on results. At the end of this Parliament in four or five years, the Government will be judged on that. The people of Scotland will have seen what I am determined to see—for example, unemployment continuing to fall as it has over the past year.
    Tonight we tend to say to ourselves, "Here we go again. When will we stop debating devolution?" Is the Labour party trying to show its virility week by week, month by month? The Labour party was piqued that it was trumped by the Liberal party in November and that Labour's deployment of a Second Reading debate on its Scotland Bill was prejudged and pre-debated by the House in November.
    This debate highlights Labour's ineffectiveness. No wonder the reputation of the "feeble 50" is developing week by week. Those hon. Members have shaped up particularly poorly during questions and in debates on
    344
    orders and statutory instruments and on the Select Committee issue. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has messed up our procedures in the Chamber and in Standing Committees, which shows that the Labour party is hardly fit to govern or fit to bring in an assembly with any hope of success. Labour Members must learn more about this place and parliamentary democracy before trying to take it apart with mayhem and to break up the unity of the United Kingdom.
    We all appreciate the fact that Labour's stock is plummeting and that the heady words of June had evaporated by mid-winter. I was interested to read the leader in The Scotsman—no friend of the Conservative party—on 22 January. It said:
    "Mr. Dewar" —
    who has now given his life story to the Sunday Post—
    "has to accept that his 50-strong phalanx has suffered a shaky baptism … he must … persuade all of his colleagues to trim their ambitions to suit the constitutional reality. Unless he is successful in that, Scotland's Labour MPs will appear to be a rag-taggle, undisciplined crew for which 'feeble' would be too kind a description."
    [Interruption.] That is The Scotsman, not me. This shows that one of the newspapers of Scotland has already taken a different approach compared with recent years.
    Mr. Maxton: Since the Conservative party lost 11 seats and the Labour party gained nine in Scotland in the general election and since the last opinion poll in the Glasgow Herald showed that we are seven points up in Scotland on our remarkable election results in June 1987, could the hon. Gentleman explain why he considers that the Labour party is doing so badly in Scotland?
    Sir Hector Monro: I am explaining to the House something that is well known, that the performances of the Labour party in the House has been beyond description and that it is not fit to bring in a Bill for Second Reading. In a way, that is also a con on the Scottish public, because Labour Members know perfectly well that, whatever happens, they are in no position to obtain a Second Reading for this Bill and so are certainly not fit to guide through this House legislation that might have such an impact on Scotland.
    The Opposition spokesman on Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) declined to go into any detail on the cost of what the Opposition propose. They have spent the past year drumming up tremendous opposition to the community charge, enlisting the support of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, at great expense to the ratepayers, and saying that this is a unique tax; yet here they are in their Scotland Bill inevitably moving towards a far higher tax on the people of Scotland because of the expenditure on the proposed assembly.
    No one would deny that over the past nine years the Labour party has shouted the odds from the rooftops. They have declared that we must spend, spend, spend to buy ourselves out of economic trouble — never mind inflation, never mind the rise in the cost of living. They say that if we just keep on spending, everything will be all right in the end. If that were to be the policy of a Labour Government and a Labour assembly dominated by Strathclyde, heaven help the economy of Scotland and heaven help the people of Scotland who would have to pay the cost of an assembly. It is no use the Labour party trying to avoid this key point in the question whether there should be an assembly.

    345
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely right to highlight in his brilliant speech how important it was to bring home to the people of Scotland that to put through the Scotland Bill as proposed by the Labour party would lead to one of the most expensive operations ever imposed on Scotland.
    We know too that we had endless promises last May and June about the future of Scotland under a Labour Government and how they would overcome the problem, again highlighted by my right hon. and learned Friend, of how to be fair to England if there were a Labour Government only because of the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. Again Opposition Members dodged that issue today and sat in deathly silence when my right hon. and learned Friend asked them to explain away this very important point.
    In the 1970s, I was one who favoured a form of devolution, and I abstained from voting on the Bill because I felt that there was merit in proceeding in the right direction to give Scotland additional powers through a form of assembly; but subsequent legislation and the subsequent attitude of Opposition Members have shown that my hopes in that regard were quite unfounded.
    I have always believed in the possibility, which has become a reality, of a dramatic improvement in the administrative devolution at St. Andrew's house. In passing, I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend how delighted I am to see that he intends to return to old St. Andrew's house. As a junior Minister in 1974, I manned a small rearguard action to the then Secretary of State and asked that we should not move to the awful jungle across the road but should rather stay in that imposing building with its great Scottish Office tradition; and I am very glad that my right hon. and learned Friend is returning to relative peace and quiet, somewhere which the average person can find and where he can park his car in reasonable comfort.
    What we should be acknowleding today is how effective the Secretary of State, with his Ministers, has been in obtaining additional resources for Scotland in industry, the Health Service, education, the police and fire servies and every other direction, and in helping local government to spend more money then ever before. The fact that local authorities come here, supported by COSLA, and talk about nothing but cuts is quite irrelevant, because more money than ever is going into services in Scotland due to the good administration of my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government as a whole.
    All in all, Opposition Members have not succeeded in making a case that would carry any weight in Scotland. They have dodged the issue of the enormous cost that would be placed on the people of Scotland if an assembly were ever to come about. We must throw out the motion before the House and show the Scottish people that there is a better way forward than that proposed by the Labour party.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. James Wallace: It is always particularly interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), especially on such an issue as this. I remember receiving an election address from him in the October 1974 election in which he gave an unequivocal and clear commitment to support a Scottish assembly. I
    346
    also noted his wish to have the Secretary of State restored to old St. Andrew's house, a building which he described as imposing. It is an apt word, considering the impositions that the Secretary of State makes on the people of Scotland in his continued exercise of that office.
    When the Leader of the House announced the title of this debate last Thursday, there was an audible groan from Government Members who feel that the House—rightly, in my view — is frequently asked to debate the government of Scotland. It is an issue which has been debated here over many years. In moving the Second Reading of the Government of Scotland Bill in 1913, the Liberal member, Mr. Cowan, itemised five or six occasions in the previous 26 years when the issue had been debated in the House. In 1966, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir. R. Johnston) introduced a Scottish Self-Government Bill, and twice since his election in 1983 a similar Bill has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
    Mr. Salmond: Could the hon. Member tell the House if the 1966 Bill that he referred to contained provision for proportional representation?
    Mr. Wallace: I am pretty certain that it did. If the hon. Member speaks later in the debate, I will try to intervene and give him confirmation.
    Against that background, although I have many reservations on the Bill which forms the subject matter of this debate, I nevertheless think that it is a welcome contribution to the debate on Scottish home rule and devolution.
    It will come as no surprise to hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench that one of my party's reservations is the absence of a clear commitment to proportional representation. It is perhaps significant that there is no indication which electoral system will be used. I remember campaigning in the referendum debate in 1979 in the south-west of Scotland; I now represent a constituency at the other end of Scotland; both constituencies are rural and are sometimes described as peripheral areas. It has been clear to me that one of people's anxieties about Scottish home rule without proportional representation is that there would be a large single-party majority which would dominate the assembly and which would not be sensitive to the needs and views of those who live in the rural areas of Scotland.
    Mr. Maxton: I can understand the debate about proportional representation in respect of the overall balance within a country, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that single-assembly constituencies, elected in the way that we suggest — which is two assembly constituencies for each present parliamentary constituency —would give a much greater proportion of seats in the assembly to rural areas than would proportional representation. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman keeps putting the case before us.
    Mr. Wallace: I am in favour of an assembly Member for each part of my constituency, but, assuming that constituencies voted consistently and elected two Members of the same party, it would double the imbalance that we presently have with the Labour party. I am not detracting from the considerable electoral success that it enjoyed in June, but it amounted to only 42 per cent. of

    347
    the Scottish vote. It gave it a huge preponderance of seats, which, if doubled up, would give it 100 out of 144 seats in a Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Sam Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two matters — the geographical distribution of seats and distribution among parties. Proportional representation is distribution among parties, not geographical distribution. Proportional representation will not shift any bias to the rural areas; it will shift it within the political parties. I do not see why that advantages or disadvantages rural areas.
    Mr. Wallace: I follow the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but the Labour party, with one or two exceptions— notably the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)—derives most of its membership from the urban areas of Scotland, whereas the other parties derive their membership from the non-urban areas. It is not healthy for our politics to have one party with a predominance of interests in one area. The Conservative party is represented in the rural areas of Scotland, but—perhaps for obvious reasons—is not represented in the urban areas of Scotland. It would benefit the Conservative party, and would be healthy for democracy, if it had a more direct interest in and a closer relationship with the electorate in, for example, Glasgow, which it does not have under the present system.
    In a previous debate, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) suggested that my right hon. and hon. Friends regarded proportional representation as a higher principle than Devolution. It is not a question of one principle overriding another. We believe that, unless they are taken in tandem, the pro-home rule argument is weakened. Proportional representation has not been put forward by us as a blocking measure but as an enabling measure for a more democratic nation.
    Our other reservation relates to the problem of introducing a new tier of government while retaining a two-tier system of local government. It may be that the Labour party has an open mind on this subject. If we were debating this proposal in Committee we would hope for some movement on it from the Labour party.
    Mr. Maxton: Perhaps I can clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman — we are anxious to have as much agreement as possible. It is in the view of the Labour party in Scotland that it would be for a Scottish assembly, given the power, to take decisions about local government and its structure. It has always been my view, and that of many Labour Members, that once there is such an assembly it would move quickly towards single-tier government.
    Mr. Wallace: That statement helps to try to win greater consensus for the proposals that we have put forward.
    While I agree that the boundaries and powers of local government should be a matter for a Scottish assembly, we have proposed that, at the same time as bringing in a Bill to devolve power to Scotland and create a Scottish Parliament, a commission should be set up whose remit would be to report to that Parliament with new proposals for local government in Scotland to reduce it to a single tier. It is necessary to give an assurance that we are not imposing an extra tier of government that which already exists.
    Mr. Malcom Bruce: Are we not anxious to get across the fact that the difficulties faced by the Labour
    348
    party in securing the necessary support for the last legislation were partly because of the voting system and partly because people were not prepared to accept an assembly on top of the existing tier of local government? Therefore, those problems must be solved together.
    Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend has articulated our important reservations about this matter. If this were the Second Reading of a Bill, these points would have to be debated in Committee. At this stage, it is better not to give the Government troops an opportunity to say that the Opposition are divided and that there is no consensus in favour of the principle of greater decentralisation. On that basis, we are prepared to support the motion.
    It is important to take up some of the arguments that have been advanced, somewhat weakly, by the Government. The Secretary of State thought that he had made a clinching point by saying that he had received only 64 representations on the subject of home rule. There is an old Scottish phrase that says that there is "no use preaching to Ailsa Craig." As we do not expect any response from the Government, there is little point in making any representations.
    The Government have said that home rule is a short cut to separatism. The truth is quite the reverse. The longer that the status quo is dammed up and the Scottish desire for self-government frustrated, the greater will be the damburst in a separatist direction.
    We have been told that business will desert Scotland. That is not a point that Lord Home advanced in 1979, when he called for greater economic and financial powers for a Scottish Parliament.
    The last bastion of Conservative argument raises the banner of fear. It is not in tune with what for centuries has been the native Scottish spirit of enterprise and innovation. There are financial institutions in Edinburgh that all hon. Members would like to see playing a more prominent role. No one has suggested that they are being parochial or inward-looking. What we lack in Scotland is the political focus that would be the catalyst to draw more industry and enterprise.
    Mr. Brian Meek, the Tory leader on Lothian regional council, recently said:
    "Opponents say that firms will go elsewhere if taxes here were different, but I think that is an utterly simplistic argument that can be demolished on a whole range of points."
    Why is it always assumed that taxes will be raised? Fiscal regulation could mean reducing the rate of corporation tax. The Government have always advanced the argument that cutting taxation will make the economy more buoyant, but if it were the vote of the Scottish people to raise taxation, to opt for better roads, hospitals, housing and schools, that would be the democratic view of the Scottish people. If money were invested in education, training and better roads or, for example, in my constituency, on better subsidies for transport to and from the islands, it would help industry to become more competitive.
    The Tory party in Scotland has advanced the bogus argument that a Scottish assembly would lead to an extra bureaucratic tier. As a description of our proposals, that argument is not accurate. It also ignores the presence of substantial administrative bureaucracy in St. Andrew's house, which is inadequately accountable; at least, it is not properly accountable in the limited time available during Question Time.

    349
    It is not many years since we had the Portavadie fiasco. A rather mysterious financial consortium was given £12 million by the Department of Energy to build a workers' village for an oil platform site. The project was approved by the Scottish Office in spite of unfavourable evidence given at a public inquiry. No platform was ever built, and when the Government tried to recoup some of their investment they discovered that they had omitted to secure title to the land on which the village was built.
    If we had a Scottish Parliament making Ministers accountable on such matters, I do not believe that that money would have been wasted. There would be savings in public money if the Scottish Office were more accountable.
    Responsibility goes with fiscal powers. The block grant alone would surely be a recipe for confrontation. The blame for every school, hospital, trunk road or bypass delayed or not built would be laid at the door of the Westminster Government. Without revenue-raising powers, the financial responsibilities of the assembly could well be diminished.
    When the Scotland Bill was receiving its Second Reading 10 years ago this month, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) related his experiences when he was a member of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland—the Wheatley commission. He drew attention to a visit to the Faroe Islands, where he had seen a community school, in which the members of the community took great pride and interest. He pointed out that the community had contributed 60 per cent. to the cost, the Faroese Government 20 per cent. and the Danish Government 20 per cent.
    By contrast, in my constituency, my hon. Friend had been shown a school that had attracted 90 per cent. Government grant. Local people could not understand why it had been built in the face of a prevailing wind. They could not understand why there was no connecting corridor between the kitchen and the dining area. There were many complaints because it had been the responsibility of the people far away in London, not that of the local people. When the bulk of funding rests on a community or, in this case, the Scottish nation, there will be a more positive attitude to responsibility and price.
    We are always being told by the Tory party that the Tory Government were elected to get the state off the backs of the people. In speech after speech, the Secretary of State has said that we must wean Scotland away from the paternalistic society which he claims pervades it. What could be more paternalistic, or maternalistic, than a Government who say, "Trust the people, but do not trust the Scottish people to have their own self-government". They trust the people, but only if they agree with them. That view of trusting the people leaves no room for the maximum choice, variety or diversity or for having a real influence on the decisions that affect the people. The Government's version of trust is the very antithesis of the Liberal view, which is that people should have a choice and be able to decide things for themselves.
    We must take up, head-on, the issue of what really poses a threat to the Union. I do not believe that the threat comes from the Scottish National party. It could not have had more favourable political circumstances over recent weeks. My party has not exactly crowned itself with glory,
    350
    but the SNP has failed to make any significant political impact, with all the wind blowing in its favour. I do not believe that any threat to the union comes from the proposals in the Labour party's Bill or from the proposals for federalism consistently put by the alliance parties. One might ask whether we would know Canada as it exists today if it had not been for its federal structure. It is unlikely that a province as alienated as Quebec has been at times would have remained part of a unitary structure such as that which we have in this country.
    The most serious threat to the union comes from this Tory Government, who not only refuse to respond to the aspirations of the Scottish people for self-government, but do not even accept that these aspirations exist. In the last century, Lord Acton said:
    "A State which is incompetent to satisfy the different races within it, condemns itself."
    The intransigence of the Government on this issue may well prove that to be the case.
    I and my party do not wish to see the break-up of the United Kingdom. The ties of family and friendship, the shared triumphs and tragedies of our common history over the past 280 years are sufficiently strong to unite us. However, we are so confident of that unity that we think that it is not only possible but essential that Scotland's nationhood within the United Kingdom is properly recognised.
    In the great home rule debate of 1886, it was said:
    "The passing of many good laws is not enough in cases where the strong permanent instincts of the people, their distinctive marks of character, the situation and history of the country require not only that these laws should be good, but that they should proceed from a congenial and native source and besides being good laws should be their own laws."
    Mr. Gladstone's words ring true today. He was ignored then and great calamity followed. We will be in a sorry and dangerous state if his words continue to be ignored today.
    6.2 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and to hear his discourse on the dangers and threats to the union of the United Kingdom. I would have thought that a little modesty from a Scottish Liberal on the concept of alliances, unions and fragmentation would be in order at the moment. I cannot think of any surgeon on whom I would call less to receive a lecture on that matter than a member of the Liberal party or a member of the Scottish Social Democratic party, if there is one at the moment.
    Mr. Galbraith: Brutal.
    Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished surgeon, and he must have heard me give the anaesthetic before I made that remark.
    It is an important political fact that the interest of the Labour party in the concept of what is called devolution and the Scotland Bill is an interest that has arisen entirely as a result of losing three United Kingdom elections. I remember no enthusiasm when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made his disastrous declaration of power. I do not remember the Scottish Labour party saying, "Hooray, we are all Heathites now." The plain fact is that it is saying, "If we cannot run SS Great Britain, let us launch a little lifeboat with a unionised crew." Essentially, that is what it is about.

    351
    It is nothing to do with principle. It is a new-found faith based on the attitude that if it cannot swim in a sea, it can at least swim in a puddle.
    The Labour party has some explaining to do. We come, first, to finance. I do not see how central taxation in a unitary state can be raised differently. The fantasy put forward by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, that taxation in Scotland might be lower than that in England, is unbelievable. The Labour party in Scotland is constantly asking for tax-raising powers, in addition to those of the Treasury. The then Member for West Lothian, now the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked a fundamental question, which became known as the "West Lothian question". In a unitary state one cannot have different legislative responsibilities in which those in the large part have no say over those in the small part, but those in the small part can alter the decisions affecting the large part.
    I raise an infinitely more fundamental question, which I hope will become known as the "Perth and Kinross question". The Labour party's Bill says in clause 2—all hon. Members should listen to this:
    "A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under any Act of Parliament".
    That means that without consultation with Parliament, without the leave of Parliament and without the vote of Parliament, Acts may be altered and it has no right to interfere. If we are to have a situation in which a Scottish assembly can interfere with the United Kingdom legislation, such as Finance Acts, there is no answer to the old West Lothian question, the economic question or the constitutional question.
    Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the Bill further, he will see that that clause starts off by saying:
    "Subject to sections 3 and 4 of this Act".
    Clause 4—or section 4 as it would become—would give the Secretary of State the power to scrutinise such legislation before it is presented to the House if he thinks that it is ultra vires. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is just a red herring, or a blue finnan haddock.
    Mr. Fairbairn: It is not. Clause 2 continues:
    "The validity of any proceedings leading to the enactment of a Scottish Assembly Act shall not be called in question in any legal proceedings … The validity of any Scottish Assembly Act shall not be called into question".
    This will be an extra vires assembly. It will constantly be a law unto itself.
    Let us be quite clear about the present position of economics and funds in Scotland. At present, of the nine regional councils, two rule and raise money in the name of, or out of the funds of, two thirds of the people of Scotland. That is, Strathclyde region and Lothian region. These two Labour authorities put together are the equivalent in size, measure and political intent of a Labour Scottish assembly. They raise infinitely higher taxes on the unfortunate people of Lothian and Strathclyde than do any of the other seven regions of Scotland.
    Mr. George Galloway: That is why they keep getting elected.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Exactly. They get elected because they raise money from the people who make the money and spend it on the people who do not make the money. That
    352
    is always a recipe for being elected. Any assembly in the hands of the Labour party would increase Scottish taxes, not reduce them.
    Let us be absolutely clear about this. The United Kingdom Treasury spends about 25 per cent. more per head on Scotsmen than it does on Englishmen, and nearly double what it spends on Cumbrians or Northumbrians, whether in transport, education, the social services or the Health Service. Opposition Members may not know this, but at the time of the Scotland Bill the Treasury conducted an exercise in which it worked out the relative unfairness of the treatment of the regions of Britain — riot just England, Wales and Scotland, but the north of England, Cumbria, the west, the midlands, the south-west and so on. It concluded that Scotland was being overfed with between £600 million and £1 billion.
    The first thing that the Treasury said was, "Right. Pass the Scotland Bill and we will want that money back. If you want to run your own affairs, you can run them, but you will not get British Treasury generosity to an extent that no one else in the country gets it." In Scotland, we now spend £8,000 million. Therefore, the assembly would have to start by raising between £1,000 million and £2,000 million, using its tax-raising powers, just to get Scotland back to where it is now. Thai is the first fundamental flaw in the Opposition's argument.
    Dr. Reid: I am deeply moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman's touching concern over the onerous burden of taxation that the assembly might impose on the Scottish people. Given that deeply felt concern, will he confirm that the average family ill Scotland is paying just over £27 a week more in all taxes under this Government than it was paying in 1979? Will he further confirm the figures that I put to Ministers some days ago, which I received from the Library? They show that, in addition to that £27 a week extra, the average family with two adult children will pay an additional £2,000 a year in poll tax within the next lour years. Is it not the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman's crocodile tears over taxation are only a mask to hide the crocodile teeth of the Tories when they get their hands into the pockets of working people?
    Mr. Fairbairn: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because he has demonstrated another reason for our not having a Scottish assembly. He does not understand anything about economics. If he cares to examine the differences in taxation in Scotland between now and 1979, he will discover that the increase arises because the income of the average Scottish family and the average working wage have gone from the bottom of the table in Great Britain to the top. All that Scottish families are having to pay extra is £27 a week, and that is only because they are infinitely more prosperous than they were.
    Opposition Members cannot say that industry abroad will not take account of differences in taxation. It is a sensitive matter to try to persuade someone not to go to Holland, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece, France, Germany, Devon, the midlands or London, but to come to Scotland. The most important factor of all is cost and the best deal regarding cost. Taxation is taxation on employees, the incoming work force and the company's capital and income. Let it be understood that if Scotland earned a reputation for being the high-tax country—just

    353
    as Glasgow wrongly had the reputation of being the criminal city — it would be very difficult to shed, especially if the rumour were true.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the history of Scotland, which few Opposition Members will have read, I suspect. One does not have to be taught it at school to take the trouble to read it. The fact that historical chance has left the border where it is does not mean that there is a sensible constitutional argument for setting up another Government north of it. If Opposition Members want an example of the folly of that concept, they should look at the facts. Any lawyer in the whole of Europe can practise in a Scottish court, except an Englishman, and any lawyer can practise in an English court, except a Scotsman. That is absurd. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is not entitled to appear in a court in England, but a Greek solicitor can appear in a sheriff court or in the High Court in Scotland.
    That petty division—the idea that we must not allow anything that does not carry the title "Scottish" —demonstrates the fallacy of the argument. It is a specious argument advanced by Opposition Members who feel that if they cannot have a nice little Marxist republican state in Great Britain, they will settle for a wee one up north.
    6.16 pm
    Mr. Henry McLeish: Opposition Members share a profound concern about the quality of government in Scotland. We can ritually exchange views on the matter and watch Conservative Members treat with contempt any considerations of democracy, but the essential question that I want to tackle concerns the quality of government in Scotland. The arguments about that are very important.
    At the last general election, Scotland rejected two extremes. On the one hand, it rejected the extreme of Conservatism, offered by a party whose policies were clearly not in tune with the thinking of the Scottish people and which consequently suffered humiliation, from which it has learnt nothing. On the other hand, Scotland rejected another brand of extremism — the extremism of the Scottish National party, whose contribution to the devolution debate was to advocate Scotland's separation from the rest of the United Kingdom. The fact that Scotland made that decision placed on the Labour party a tremendous responsibility constantly to bring before the Government the needs and aspirations of the Scottish people, and this debate provides us with a useful opportunity to do that.
    There is unease about the government of Scotland for two specific reasons. First, a tremendous gulf is developing between the governed and the Government. That cannot be healthy in any democracy. Secondly, the Scottish people perceive the Conservatives as anti-Scottish. Conservative Members may laugh at that, as was shown by the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), who has decided to leave the Chamber, but it is a serious business. It is not a recipe for stability if the Government and the 10 Conservative Members elected to represent the interests of the Scottish people constantly appear to be anti-Scottish. That is a key issue.
    354
    I come to the House not as a separatist or a nationalist in the narrow way advocated by the SNP, but as someone who is clearly interested in the integrity of the United Kingdom, in social cohesion and stability, and who passionately believes that those interests could be jeopardised if we do not move towards decentralisation of government and power in this increasingly centralised state.
    It is quite obvious that the Government would like to dwell on the matter of taxation. That is ludicrous. They have not even accepted the notion that devolution is of benefit to Scottish people or can help in the cohesion of the United Kingdom and cement its stability.
    My main contention is that, at present, we in Scotland are experienceing thoroughly bad government. That provides additional pressure for the Labour party to put forward what it regards as reasonable, modest, moderate measures to give Scottish people a more direct say in matters that affect them.
    Bad government could be based on two things. One could be the Government's excesses. They are well documented and understood by Scottish people. There is another serious point. With the centralist Government that we have at present, it is obvious that strains and tensions are beginning to appear in other parts of the United Kingdom. A unitary state can retain cohesion and credibility only if it recognises the distinct features of all parts of the Union, not just the parts that are represented by the Government. To their peril, many people ignore that simple point.
    Our case, within the House and within Scotland, has traditionally been about devolved government that would attempt to do four basic things. First, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, it would democratise the administration of Scotland. We have widespread administrative devolution; and, indeed, it is certainly a democratic system, so-called. It is useful to make that system accountable to Scottish people.
    Secondly, there are separate national identities in education, religion, many aspects of the law, and culture. That fact must be recognised. Thirdly, the people of Scotland, as a separate area, have a different culture and different ways of life that the House will ignore at its peril.
    There is a fourth compelling reason why the debate should capture the Government's interest, and even that of English hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) mentioned decentralised government within the United Kingdom. There need not be the same solution in each part of the kingdom. Nevertheless, the same compelling pressures that are driving Scots towards more power over their own affairs exist in different parts of the country. That provides the link between what has traditionally been a Scottish and Welsh issue, distinct from the main stream of United Kingdom politics. If we absorb that point, it will make the debate more meaningful and should capture the imagination of Conservative Members, although I doubt it.
    If they are the accepted conventions upon which we base our campaign, I shall reflect for a moment on the strains and tensions that are now giving added urgency to the issue of devolution and government in Scotland. Again, I shall reflect on what I perceive to be manifest weaknesses in the Government's case. I hope that all Conservative Members represent their party's interests. That is fine. But surely some of them should have some pride in their political craft. When ideas about democracy

    355
    and accountability are being discussed in the Chamber, it is unacceptable for contempt to be shown for issues that allowed the country to develop the democratic system that is the pride of many nations.
    The first point that I stress relates to legislation. I refer to education, housing, poll tax, local government, regional policy and bus services. If a devolved assembly existed in Scotland, Scottish people would be able to state their views and debate and judge such issues. What do we have? Uniquely unpalatable proposals are put forward by the Government, who take cognisance of nothing that is Scottish. Indeed, if the proposals were not contained in Government legislation, to all intents and purposes they would be regarded as a complete joke. That is offensive to Scottish people. When a Government's legislative programme bears no relation to the consensus that the culture reflects, it is a serious matter for the Government.
    My second point relates to policy. We talk about the Health Service. The Minister with responsibility for Scottish health matters, with every power at his disposal, tries to force Scottish health boards to do things that are in the interests of neither the Health Service nor the people whom it is supposed to serve. Why? It is because he is motivated by organisations that care not a jot about the concerns, needs and aspirations of Scottish people. It is an absolute outrage that the Minister can abuse his power and, at the end of the day, is elected by Scottish constituents to represent their interests.
    Thirdly, what about the parliamentary dimension? It is a farce for a new Member such as myself to sit here when the Government have about 370 supporters. But the Government cannot find five hon. Members to serve on a Select Committee. What do the Scottish people read from that? The Scottish Grand Committee has not met. During Scottish Question Time, the Government wheel in the Secretary of State's protection gang. If we have time, I shall reflect on the appearance of the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). I shall quote the kind of distasteful provocation that Conservative Members invite. Today's issue of The Scotsman states:
    "We want an end to Celtic featherbedding … I think that after steel and coal, British Scotland should be privatised."
    Then there is the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who couches ignorance, stupidity and insensitivity in the one body—a remarkable example of humanity.
    Mr. Bill Walker rose—
    Mr. McLeish: No offence is meant to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) because he has been ommitted from my comments.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire stated:
    "Spending on the health service per capita in Scotland is one-third as high as in England because of smoking, drinking and confectionery. Why should the English subsidise the bad habits of the Scots?"
    Why do Scottish people tend to be slightly angry?
    Mr. Walker rose—
    Mr. McLeish: I shall finish this point and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    In the so-called mother of Parliaments, the Government will consider major aspects of scrutinising the Executive. What do we find? Because Conservative Members are 400 miles from Scotland and because the
    356
    press is nowhere to be found during debates such as this, they say certain things and act in a certain manner, and their accountability is nil.
    Mr. Walker: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman was in the House yesterday when a ten-minute Bill dealing exclusively with English and Welsh Health Service facilities was presented. The hon. Gentleman would have noted, as I did, that 17 Scottish Members voted for the Bill. One either accepts this as a unitary Parliament or one does not. If one does not, one cannot make sense of why the 17 hon. Members voted in that way.
    Mr. McLeish: I support the United Kingdom, but I can do so only with a measure of sensible devolved opportunities.
    In relation to the news coverage in today's issue of The Scotsman, I ask the Minister to disown the offensive comments that were made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
    The fourth point that I want to stress is the general style of the Government. As I have mentioned, and as my hon. Friends have suggested—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has described "the goose-stepping tendency"—there is very little between the ears. The Government's distinctive style is to try to take the Scottishness out of anything that is essentially Scottish. That is a peculiar approach to humiliation at the polls. It is peculiar that they should seek to turn their backs on the nation and on the judgment of the people and suggest instead that Scotland is merely an aberration and an appendage of England and of English legislation. That is a highly dangerous strategy for the Government to pursue.
    My final point on the bad government of Scotland relates to the profoundly senseless tendencies of the Prime Minister and her Ministers. It seems hypocrisy writ large for the Government to extol the virtues of individual freedom, of setting people free and of the enterprise culture, but, at the same time, constantly to draw to themselves every conceivable power which matters and, as a consequence, merely reinforce the regional dimension, which is fairly unstable at present.
    I referred earlier to two forms of extremism. I have dealt with the Conservative Government, but there is another party in Scotland which seeks to comment on the question of government and to put forward different policies to us. Again, I feel confident enough to say that the Scottish National party learnt nothing from the election results. The fourth party in Scotland, increasingly working at the margin of Scottish politics, is so immersed in internal division, leadership policies and personalities, that it still maintains that the best posture for Scotland would be an independent Scotland even though that has been comprehensively rejected in subsequent elections.
    I want to highlight and put on the record an act of supreme hypocrisy on the part of that party in relation to the poll tax campaign. We have listened in the Chamber to hon. Members representing that party, and to ex-Members who lead the party in Scotland. They say that we must resist the poll tax and that Scotland's interests would not be served by it. However, at the same time that the leadership, although divided, advocates a policy of resistance, the only council in Scotland that is controlled by the Scottish National party, Angus district council, is willing not only to collect the tax for Tayside but to

    357
    advocate that Department of Health and Social Security payments should be deducted at source to make sure that the poor pay.
    Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will find that he will have to apologise to Angus district council because it does not advocate any such thing. Is he aware that Angus district council has agreed to collect the poll tax under blackmail from the Labour-controlled Tayside region, which said that unless Angus district collected the tax, Tayside region would send in its own collectors? Will the hon. Gentleman explain that?
    Mr. McLeish: Obviously, the record to which I am being referred is confused, as it has been conceded that Angus district council, under pressure from Tayside regional council, which does not have any powers to force a district council to collect, has decided to concede and to collect the tax. Is that the official SNP position or merely the local government dimension?
    Mr. Frank Doran: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I should like to correct him because his reference to Angus district council was mistaken. It was Grampian regional council, in which the SNP has a share of control. Indeed, it is the only authority in Scotland with which the SNP shares control. That council has refused to have anything to do with the calls and demands being made by the SNP.
    Mr. McLeish: We now have it from both sides, from the SNP and my own party, that the position is even worse than I thought. There are groups within groups. Councils that are controlled by the SNP are doing the Government's bidding.
    I have tried to suggest that there is no point in hon. Members suggesting that today's debate is not relevant to the Scottish people. There is an important case to be made for devolved government throughout the United Kingdom. We want an assembly in Scotland as a solution to our problems. The solution could be different in the north-east of England.
    I am also arguing that the Government's behaviour is leading to bad government in Scotland and to an increasingly unstable situation. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will address himself to those points because they are important, however abstract they may be considered. I shall support the Scotland Bill. If it is rejected, it will be a campaigning weapon for us between now and the next election. It would warn the Conservatives that if they want the death-wish theory of politics to apply at the next election, they should carry on as they are because I am sure that that would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    6.35 pm
    Mr. Ian Gow: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House this afternoon that in the referendum following the passing of the Scotland Act 1978, he had voted in favour of the proposed assembly in Edinburgh. I must make a similar confession to the House about my past misdeeds. I voted against the Scotland and Wales Bill on every occasion that I was able to do so and, indeed, I voted against the Scotland Bill on every occasion that I was able to do so.
    358
    If I had had a vote in the referendum—alas, I did not—I should have voted against the proposed assembly in Edinburgh.
    This debate is taking place in what is still the United Kingdom Parliament. I hope that Opposition Members will not think it inappropriate for an hon. Member who represents an English constituency to take part, especially one who is an emigré Scot. The debate is on the motion that was moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the proposed Scotland Bill "would strengthen the United Kingdom." I wish to challenge that proposition. In doing so, I regret that the amendment that was moved by my right hon. and learned Friend did not challenge that part of the Opposition motion.
    The proposals contained in the Scotland Bill would weaken the unity of the United Kingdom and the Union between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I understand and respect the views which have been put by Opposition Members, and I admired the speech of the hon. Member for Garscadden. However, part of the problem with the United Kingdom in recent years is that we have suffered not from too little government, but from too much. The proposals in the Bill will add one further tier of government, even in Scotland.
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Bill does not propose the creation of another tier of government. All that it proposes to do is to democratise a tier of government that already exists, namely the Scottish Office, which consists of 10,000 civil servants headed by this rubbishy team of Ministers who, as a group, are not elected by the people of Scotland, and who therefore are not accountable to the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Gow: I realise that I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer him."] I shall certainly answer him. The proposals in the Scotland Bill provide not only for a Scottish assembly but for a new chief executive. What would happen? At present there are 56 district councils and nine regional councils in Scotland. We already have a Parliament of the United Kingdom, and even the Labour party does not propose to diminish Scotland's representation in the United Kingdom Parliament. However, over and above those three existing tiers there is now—to my regret, we are noticing it with greater frequency—the growing power of the European Parliament, which the hon. Gentleman and I used to be able to describe properly as the European Assembly, although we can no longer do so.
    To each of those four elected bodies, to which those who live in Scotland, like those who live in Sussex, have the right to send Members, the Labour party proposes to add a fifth—
    Dr. Reid rose—
    Mr. Gow: No. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has destroyed the opportunity for Labour Members to make further interventions in my speech. If the hon. Gentleman had made a sensible intervention, I would have given way now. [Interruption.] Labour Members must not rebuke me; they must rebuke their hon. Friend.
    The hon. Gentleman's proposal for another assembly for those who, in effect, will be Ministers—my right hon. and learned Friend even suggested that one might be

    359
    called the Prime Minister of Scotland—will, as is self-evident, add to government and its cost. It is to that extra cost, and to the disruption and unworkability of the proposal, that the amendment refers. However, there is a further objection to the proposed measure, over and above the ground that it would add to the problems of governing a part of the kingdom that is already over-governed: that we should not start to govern one part of the kingdom even more differently from the way that we govern the rest.
    I concede that Scotland is already governed differently, with regional councils instead of county councils, and a different legal system. But the greatest difference in the way that we govern the four countries that make up the United Kingdom is not between the government of Scotland and the rest of the kingdom, but between that of Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom. I can tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that there are many marked differences—which are frequently not perceived in the House—between the rights now enjoyed by those who live in Scotland, England and Wales and the rights of those who live in Northern Ireland.
    Let me give the House a warning. Because we have chosen to govern Northern Ireland in a way so dramatically different from the way in which we govern the rest of the kingdom, we do not want to fall into the same trap with Scotland. I shall illustrate what I mean. Each of us has the opportunity to move an amendment to proposed legislation that affects our constituents in England, Scotland and Wales. However, the 17 hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland have no opportunity to move amendments to legislation that affects their constituencies, because we legislate for Northern Ireland almost exclusively by Order in Council. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is sympathetic to the view that it is unreasonable that Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland constituencies should be free to move amendments to proposed Scottish legislation, but unable to move amendments to legislation exclusively affecting Northern Ireland.
    There is another important difference. Broadly speaking, the powers enjoyed by regional councils in Scotland are similar to those enjoyed by county councils in England and Wales. Every one of our constituents—there is, alas, no Northern Ireland Member in the Chamber—has the opportunity to vote for a county or regional council. But, in Northern Ireland alone, there is no possibility for any citizen to vote for either a county or a regional council. In general, the powers enjoyed by district councils in Scotland are similar to those enjoyed in England and Wales; in Northern Ireland, however, there is a dramatic diminution of the powers enjoyed by the 26 district councils in the Province.
    The Labour party has a long history of misunderstanding the mood of Scotland. [Laughter.] Mercifully, I have evidence to support that proposition. Nearly 10 years ago, the House gave a Third Reading to the Scotland Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has only just arrived in the Chamber, and he would be wise to listen. He might learn something.
    When the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), then Secretary of State for Scotland, moved the Third Reading of the Scotland Bill on 22 February 1978
    360
    —I remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were in the Chamber then, and you may even have committed his words to memory—he said:
    "I believe that the debate now is moving out of this House and to the people of Scotland. I believe that when it goes there we shall have their support and the implementation of the Assembly."—[Official Report, 22 February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 1461.]
    However, when the provisions of what was once the famous clause 80, insisted upon by the House and endorsed in the other place, were put to the Scottish people—in my view, it was right to ask them whether they wished to be governed differently from the rest of the kingdom—they proved that the then Secretary of State was wrong. The test insisted on by Parliament was not met when the Scottish people voted.
    If the then Secretary of State was proved by subsequent events to have misread the mood of the people of Scotland, I assert that it is possible that the present shadow Secretary of State has done the same. That is why I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend was right to move his amendment, and I hope that the House will dismiss the absurd proposal in the new Scotland Bill.
    6.47 pm
    Mr. Frank Doran: The people of Scotland will, I am sure, be grateful to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) for giving us that perspective on Scottish politics. It is quite alien, however, to the reality on the ground, which is that 76 per cent. of the Scottish people voted for parties that offered devolution in various shapes as part of their election programmes. I think that the hon. Gentleman's points will be as readily dismissed as was the Tory party last June.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in introducing the motion, made a strong case, not only for the Labour party's position on devolution, but for the Scotland Bill. It is both practical and well thought out, and will be of considerable value in the improvement of the government, not only of Scotland, but of the United Kingdom. That point needs to be stressed, because there is tension in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State was, I accept, right in saying that his postbag was not bulging with demands from the Scottish people for devolution. However, the Scottish people are sophisticated. Their political activity is channelled through the ballot box, and, as I have said, they expressed their view on the issue in the votes that they cast in June 1987 in rejecting the position of the Conservative party—as they will reject it again in May, in the district elections.
    The Bill is an important measure. My colleagues have made the case for it and no doubt the serried ranks on the Conservative Benches will jump to attention and vote against the motion and the Bill, because that is what they have been ordered to do. Even those who previously stated a commitment to devolution, such as the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will do as they are told and vote against it. However, they will be voting against a measure that would add considerably to the government of the United Kingdom, and I stress the "United Kingdom".
    There is a firm and growing demand for a reversal of policy. Over the past eight years there has been a concentration of power in this House and in Whitehall, and a removal of power from local government across the

    361
    country, and from Scotland and the regions in particular. Indeed, there has been a concentration of wealth and power in the south-east. I believe that the demand for a reversal of policy is rising, and this demand must be met if the unity of the United Kingdom is to be preserved.
    I am not scaremongering. I am not preaching anything other than orderly opposition, by legal means. That is what the Opposition are doing by the presentation of the Scotland Bill.
    Mr. Giles Radice: My hon. Friend is aware that this morning the northern group of Labour Members published a Bill to establish a northern regional assembly. My hon. Friend is also aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was present to support us. We are present this evening, on behalf of the northern group, to support our Scottish colleagues in their initiative. This is a common move—although perhaps in a rather different form— towards decentralisation. We will unite the United Kingdom through a pluralistic decentralised approach.
    Mr. Doran: I agree with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has already welcomed the initiative taken by the northern group.
    My hon. Friends have referred to the reasons for the Bill, and they have placed it in its constitutional context. All hon. Members, even Conservative Members who oppose the measure, can give examples from their constituencies to show why this measure would be of value to them and their constituencies if it were implemented. I want to give two examples of issues that affect my constituency that have caused me grave concern. I want to explain why I believe that my fears and those of my constituents would be considerably alleviated if there were a Scottish assembly.
    My first example relates to the problems facing Aberdeen university. In four years' time the university will celebrate its 500th birthday. During that time it has been a centre of learning in the north-east of Scotland, providing a local and national resource. The university has expanded at a great rate and has become an important institution, playing a vital part in the social and educational life of, and the economic activity in, the northeast of Scotland.
    As a result of Government cuts imposed on the University Grants Committee, which were passed on to the university, last year the university struggled for its very survival. It has been through immense traumas while trying to come to terms with these considerable cuts. Its block grant is to be cut by £2·5 million. The net effect is that six departments are threatened with closure and 245 jobs are under threat. Almost 25 per cent. of the academic staff are included in that figure. These cuts will have a severe impact, not just on the university, but on the whole life of the north-east of Scotland, to which the university contributes so much.
    Schedule 1 to the Scotland Bill deals with universities. Under this schedule it is proposed to devolve control over the Scottish universities to the Scottish assembly. I cannot believe that a Scottish assembly, sensitive to the needs of Scotland, and particularly sensitive to the needs of the regions, would place Aberdeen university, the university of Dundee or any other Scottish university in that position.
    362
    The assembly would be aware of the vital importance of each university and its contribution to the locality. At present the University Grants Committee sits in London and does not take local factors into account. It ignores the wider contribution made by the universities and applies a simple accountant's rule to funding. A Scottish assembly would not allow that to happen.
    Although I could pick many examples to express my concern, I have chosen only two. My second example relates to BP's takeover bid for Britoil. Britoil is a very important company in Scotland. It is Scotland's largest company and is a significant employer in my constituency. In the Grampian region it employs 750 people. Its operations and explorations centre is in my constituency. Britoil is the world's largest purely exploration and production oil company, and it is the third largest operator in the North sea. It has been one of the most active drillers and the company most active in exploration in the North sea.
    Britoil brings considerable benefits to my constituency and to the whole of Scotland. It plays a very important part in the Scottish and United Kingdom economies.
    A total of 1,750 jobs in Scotland depend upon the continuing existence of Britoil. The company has taken a positive approach to its investment policy. Its policy is to maximise the Scottish element in its North sea operations. I have already said that its operations centre is in my constituency. Its headquarters are in Glasgow. All its North sea developments are managed, engineered, procured and, in the main, constructed in Scotland.
    There are justifiable fears that all that would change if BP were to take over Britoil. Would the Don, Amethyst and Ettrick field developments continue to be managed and engineered in Scotland if there were a takeover? I have already referred to the drilling activity. The company has participated in 172 of the 713 exploration and appraisal wells drilled in the United Kingdom sector. That makes it the most active company in that respect.
    Britoil has a drilling programme for the next two or three years, and British Petroleum has its own programme. I cannot accept that if the companies are merged the plans will remain intact. Exploration work is vital to my constituency and the Grampian region. If there is a merger, there will be a downturn in drilling activity in the North sea.
    Mr. Salmond: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of preserving Britoil as Scotland's largest independent company. Does he agree that there is nothing in the Labour party's assembly Bill that would allow a Scottish assembly to take the decision on Scotland's largest company out of the unsafe hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and place it with the assembly? Why is that power not in the Bill?
    Mr. Doran: I had expected that that point might be raised, and if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my comments I shall answer him in due course. In passing, I must stress that the hon. Gentleman believes in independence. That is quite a separate matter and has no part to play in my description of the Bill.
    I was referring to exploration in the North sea. Oil industries in the United Kingdom have just experienced a traumatic year. There has been a considerable downturn since the middle of 1986 because of the fall in oil prices. Exploration activity was affected most. If two of the

    363
    largest operators in the North sea, Britoil and BP, merge and there is a consequent reduction in exploration, I am concerned that we will face the prospect of another downturn. That downturn will have been created, not by circumstances outside our control, such as the world price of oil, but by something that we could have prevented—the merger of two companies.
    We must consider the jobs in Britoil and BP in Scotland that relate to exploration. BP employs about 3,000 people in Scotland. That excludes those employed in the refineries. However, we must acknowledge the knock-on effect on other jobs. Academic studies have shown that for every four jobs in the oil industry, three are dependent upon the oil industry. If there is any downturn in North sea oil activity as a result of the merger, there will be a considerable impact on jobs.
    The merger is preventable. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was right to point out that the Bill does not give the assembly specific powers to deal with such issues. The so-called golden share is not in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland, or even in those of Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry. It is held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, it is a United Kingdom Government activity.
    The Scotland Bill contains powers relating to the Industry Act 1980 and to various other Acts, and I cannot believe that a Scottish assembly would sit back and allow the potential impact of such a merger on the Scottish economy to pass idly by. I cannot accept that a Scottish assembly would sit back, as the Chancellor has done, and refuse to do anything more than say that the golden share will be operated, without specifying in what way, or without making it clear to BP that it is wasting its time by buying shares, as that will ultimately be ineffective. BP is calling the Chancellor's bluff. It is buying shares on the stock exchange and continuing with its takeover bid.
    The future independence of Britoil, which is crucial to the Scottish economy, is threatened by the merger. The Chancellor sits on his hands and does nothing. A Scottish assembly would not permit that to happen. Powers would be sought and pressure would be applied.
    However, we do not have that opportunity, as the government of Scotland is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who sits idly by and allows the Chancellor to do nothing, while a serious attack is being made on the Scottish economy.
    I have mentioned two specific points to illustrate the effect that the Bill would have on my constituency. I believe that it is an important measure for the constitutional government of Scotland and for the continuing well-being of the constitutional government of the United Kingdom, and I urge the House to accept it in due course.
    7.10 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Speaker —[Interruption.] It is unfortunate that the laird on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) does not like to hear the voice of a real Scot from the Highlands.
    The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) drew attention to the gulf between the Government and the governed. I shall speak on behalf of my constituents, who feel that they are governed at one level by Dundee, which is a long way from Rannoch. They feel that it is a "them
    364
    and us" situation. At district level, they are governed from Perth, which is a long way from Glen Shee. They feel that that, too, is a "them and us" situation.
    Then there is the problem of Edinburgh, which is where an assembly would be. Edinburgh often seems at least as far away from north Tayside as London, and often further. It is further away, not in geographical terms but in terms of understanding. It is possible to meet more people in London than in Edinburgh who know what happens on Rannoch moor. That may surprise Opposition Members, but I regularly meet in London people who have great understanding of what happens on grouse moors in my constituency.
    Grouse moors are not to be underrated; they provide work for people. I am amused by the fact that hon. Members, and particularly the laird on the Opposition Front Bench must have more direct knowledge of what actually happens on grouse moors than I do, because I have never been shooting on a grouse moor. I accept that the hon. Gentleman, with his antecedents and his background, would know more about it.
    When hon. Members talk about a "them" and "us" situation, they must understand that the further one gets away from the centres of administration, the more likely it is that such a situation will exist. People in my constituency in north-east Scotland feel that they have very little affinity with those in the west and central belt of Scotland. Indeed, the last thing that they want is to be governed by the west central belt of Scotland. That is not meant as an anti-Scottish statement. I merely place on record the views and feelings of my constituents.
    If one looks at the votes during the referendum about which we have heard so much, one sees that my constituency rejected the Scotland Bill, as did constituencies further north. That was the breakdown in Scotland. The further north people are, the less they want to be part of the Scottish assembly.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman correctly voiced the views of his constituents, but why does his majority keep going down?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. My majority has gone down only once, but it has gone up twice.
    The hon. Gentleman will be sorry that he intervened. The Scottish National party has to rely on lies and invention. I am speaking about the party, and not naming any hon. Members. The gentleman who opposed me at the general election is never likely to become a Member of the House if he continues to oppose me, because I will have exposed his lies and thrown them back in his face. One of those lies was that we would have nuclear dumping on Shiehallion. He gave us as his authority for that the Sunday Post. However, he forgot to tell the people in the western part of my constituency that he had given the story to the Sunday Post in the first place.
    I can substantiate everything I have said, as I have hard evidence to prove it. That gentleman who stood for the Scottish National party, a Mr. Smith, gave the story to the Sunday Post in May. The story alleged that certain areas in Scotland had been determined as suitable for nuclear dumping. In the last 10 days before the election, the SNP published a leaflet saying that the Sunday Post had said that there was to be nuclear dumping in Shiehallion. I kept the leaflet as valuable evidence. The SNP will never be able to use such lies again.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Nirex document, "The Way Forward", makes Scotland a prime candidate for the dumping of such nuclear waste. Moreover, a Minister in the hon. Gentleman's own Government said that no location in the United Kingdom was ruled out, and that would include Shiehallion. I look forward to receiving my SNP colleague in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Walker: I do not wish to go too far down that road, other than to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Nirex report looks nearer his constituency than mine. That is a splendid reward for any organisation which puts out such scurrilous, libellous and lying leaflets.
    The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said that the Labour party was looking for a pluralistic, decentralised Government. That is reputable. There is only one problem. In order to achieve that through legislation, one must capture a majority in the House. That is always the problem with getting legislation through. However one feels about it, one must capture the majority in the House.
    That means that one must convince those hon. Members who represent the 80 per cent., or thereabouts, of United Kingdom taxpayers who live in England that they should vote for something that will improve the government of the United Kingdom. It is because the Labour party has been unable to win the hearts and minds of that 80 per cent. that it has been unable to obtain the kind of legislation to which Scottish Labour Members aspire.
    It must be progress for Scottish Labour Members to have the support of some, if not all, of their northern colleagues. I do not know where they all are. They will well know that it was northern Members who torpedoed the previous attempt at legislation. However, they must still win the hearts and minds of those further south if they are to put legislation on the statute book.
    I have always been against the proposals that have been brought forward on this subject, because I am a Unionist. I never apologise for being a Unionist. I support this unitary Parliament, because it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom and its people. I have never believed that government could not be improved — everything that man makes can be improved—but I will not support measures that are designed to distort the whole.
    That is why I have consistently voted against the legislation that my Government have introduced for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made a telling intervention, and his points should be taken on board. The problems that we face in Northern Ireland today are the results of past attempts to buy off trouble by giving it a special kind of government and treating it differently.
    There are inherent dangers in doing that, and one is that a "them and us" situation is created. Today we see clearly, to our cost, how people in Northern Ireland do not see themselves as part of us. It does not matter on which side of the political fence the people are to whom one talks, they feel that they are "us" and we are "them". We in the United Kingdom do not understand and have never understood that, and that is rather sad. I worry deeply about the way in which we handle such matters north of the border.
    There is no question in my mind but that there are Labour Members who see their only opportunity of obtaining office in their parliamentary working life as
    366
    being in some kind of assembly in Edinburgh. Their policies have more to do with their political aspirations than with the good government of the United Kingdom.
    I am also opposed to the Bill because, as the Government's amendment says, an assembly such as it envisages will be disruptive. No one can imagine that that will not be the case when there are extreme differences of view on economic measures and on whether it is better to encourage people by reducing taxes, by giving companies greater opportunities or through privatisation. Of course one would have a disruptive assembly.
    In addition, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) said, we must have an answer to the West Lothian question. We must also have an answer to what he called the Perth and Kinross question. Both those questions must be answered to the satisfaction not of those Opposition Members who aspire to hold down jobs in the assembly, but to the satisfaction of Members from constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom. They are the people who have to be convinced. Unless they are, the Bill, or any Bill similarly based, has no hope of getting through the House.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) made a silly point about clause 2(3). If the hon. Gentleman was listening, he would have realised that I answered that. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to look at legislation and to place an order before the House. That is the answer to that question.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House long enough to realise that if we had an assembly in Edinburgh — [Interruption.] I am not being patronising. The hon. Gentleman referred to orders being placed before the House and how legislation is put through the House. Let me remind him that the basis of my argument is that for anything to work it must have the support of the majority of hon. Members.
    If we have an assembly based on the Bill and the Perth and Kinross question is not answered, and the Secretary of State brings before the House an order which does not have the support of the majority of hon. Members, that will be a recipe for disruption. There is no way in which that can be avoided.
    Northern Ireland had no assembly or vehicle for disruption, so its Members of Parliament left this Chamber. They could take only the negative step of departing. Anyone who imagines that an assembly based on the Bill will not be disruptive is living in an unreal world.
    Such an assembly is also unworkable because the relationship between the two Parliaments is designed to produce the very conflict that Opposition Members hope their Bill will remove. There will be a conflict of views and opinions on important economic matters. There is no way in which that can be side-stepped. All the gloss and good intentions have no bearing.
    If Opposition Members do not think that there are such disruptive people in their party, they should look below the Gangway. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) does things that I would not do and in a way that I would not do them, but I often admire —[Interruption.] He is now getting worried that I might discomfort him. I admire the fact that he stands up for what he believes in. He does not believe in many of the

    367
    things that his party is doing, and I admire his integrity in that respect. However, I do not admire the fact that he will not try to bring about change through the correct system, recognising that we have rules and conventions through which one can get things done.
    There is still evidence of the 40 per cent. equation that came about when Labour Members, during the passage of the previous ill-fated Scotland Bill, realised that they could bring about change by using the impoverished rules of the time to make sure that the people of Scotland were given the opportunity to show their wholehearted support. The result was that the legislation did not come to pass.
    I felt very sorry for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), because he realised that whatever one did with the Bill it contained nothing to help him with his arguments about Britoil. From his point of view, that was sad. He had to wriggle out of it, and he did it rather well.
    The fact is that the Bill, like so many others dealing with this matter, is flawed. Unless it dealt with the whole United Kingdom on the same basis, unless the whole United Kingdom were governed on the same basis, it would lead to disruption and be unworkable.
    More important, the Bill would be costly to implement. I remind Opposition Members that over 80 per cent. of taxpayers live in England. They will be asking, "Why should we pay more in taxes so that the Scots can have a say in our Health Service and our schools?"
    The answer given by Scottish National party members is that they would abstain from voting. That is credible only when it is said by members of a minority party. If they were sitting on the Treasury Bench, where Labour Members aspire to sit, they would need the votes of Scottish Members to get legislation through the House. I have already drawn attention to the fact that a Labour Government introduced legislation to abolish grammar schools in England. They did not have the vote of the majority of people in England at the time, and they did not have the majority of hon. Members in England, so the votes were pushed through by the lady who is now president of an obscure party—which has not sorted out what it is going to be or where it is going. It used to be called the Social Democratic party. I do not know what it is called today. In pushing through that legislation, for which she did not have a majority of English hon. Members, she relied—quite properly—on the votes of Scottish and Welsh Labour Members.
    The Labour argument is that a Government in a unitary Parliament cannot, or should not, put measures through the House because it relies on votes in the unitary Parliament. That means saying, "We cannot accept the results of the 1987 general election, so we want to change the rules; we want to get into office in Edinburgh so that we can be big fish in a small pond."
    I look at Labour Members and realise that daily they get older and daily they see their prospects of ever holding office slipping away. I think the quality of the new intake is much improved. The fellows sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now must be very worried, because all their jobs are on the line. They are all at risk, and I believe it will not be long before we see some of the new intake sitting there. I welcome that, because the quality of their debate thus far has been very good.
    If Labour Members continue to follow the false god of trying to find jobs for themselves and their colleagues simply because they had a majority vote in Scotland, they
    368
    are mistaken. I find it impossible to support the Scotland Bill, because, as the amendment says, it would have a destabilising effect on the United Kingdom.
    If Labour Members were honest, they would realise that there are three options. One is the status quo, with improvements. The second is a federal structure. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), has talked about a pluralistic, decentralised system. That would be viable only if the whole United Kingdom voted for it and accepted it, and its supporters do not have the hearts and minds either of the voters or of hon. Members. The third option is the one put forward by the Scottish National party. I do not support independence, but at least it is credible; it is a viable option. I have always said so. The fact that I am totally opposed to it in no way makes me fail to recognise that if all the Scots people wished to have independence it would come to pass. But we all know that that is not what the Scots people want.
    In its attempt to satisfy its craving for power, and to appease those who voted for it, the Labour party keeps bringing forward non-viable, unworkable, unacceptable Bills, such as the one referred to in the motion. As long as it does so, and as long as it is unable to command the support of the majority of hon. Members in the unitary Parliament, it can whistle in the wind. It will never see the Bill become an Act.
    7.25 pm
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I am still marvelling at the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) reading the obituary notice of the Labour Front Bench. I saw a shiver of fear on that Bench.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is not here to hear me say that he is right in saying that my hon. Friends and I will support the motion. He was less than charitable to attribute to us simply tactical motives, although I dare say tactics have a place in politics, and I am sure that the Labour party employs the odd political tactic from time to time. We shall support the motion for the simple reason that half a slice of bread is better than no loaf.
    I freely concede that there are aspects of Labour's devolution Bill that would bring about improvements in the government of Scotland by providing a forum in which we could address some major issues confronting the Scottish nation. It would articulate and represent Scottish opinion in a democratic fashion, as opposed to those on the Tory Front Bench, who misrepresent Scottish opinion in an undemocratic way. It would also have the potential for development, because I believe that once Scots have a whiff of power they will acquire the appetite for something a great deal stronger.
    The Bill does, however, have major deficiencies, to which I shall come later. First I want to turn to the essential question in the debate, that of sovereignty.
    What the Labour party will have to decide is whether it is advancing its devolution Bill just as a good idea, or as a concept for which it has a mandate from the people of Scotland. There is a world of difference between the two. If the Bill is being advanced as just a good idea from the Labour party, those on the Conservative Benches have every right to say, "We think it is a bad idea and we will use our majority to vote it down." On the other hand, if it is being advanced as a concept with the mandate of the

    369
    Scottish nation, the Labour party has the right to pursue that mandate, regardless of the result tonight, regardless of the opinion of the majority party in the House.
    The question is one of sovereignty. Some hon. Members at least are clear about where sovereignty lies. My hon. Friends and I — and, I believe, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—believe that sovereignty lies with the Scottish people and that it is for the Scottish people to decide what level of self-government they should have; whether it be no self-government, devolved government or full independence.
    The opposite opinion is put forward by the hon. Member for Garscadden, supported by the Secretary of State. They believe that sovereignty lies in the House of Commons, that it is for the House to decide what measure of self-government the Scottish people will or will not have and that it will do with us as it will.
    Over the past few years I have had great hopes that the argument for Scottish sovereignty, the sovereignty of the Scottish people, was gathering strength among Labour Members. Quite recently—on 30 June 1986—the hon. Member for Falkirk East (Mr. Ewing), said in Edinburgh, choosing his words carefully:
    "whatever happens at the next election, this building will become the home of the Scottish assembly." —[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 30 June 1986; c. 7.]
    At various times the hon. Member for Carrick, Comnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), both before and after the 1983 election, said that he would pursue the case for devolution and achieve it, regardless of the result of the election.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), admittedly before he was a Member, talked about playing Parnell with Westminster procedures to bring about a Scottish assembly. I have also had my disappointments. I had yet another one earlier in the debate when the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that no one on the Labour Benches was challenging the mandate of the Government to govern Scotland. I found that most interesting.
    Mr. McAllion: Again the hon. Gentleman seeks to misrepresent a point of view put forward by a Labour Member, as he always does. The hon. Gentleman should spend less time on cheap stunts and try to address the central questions. He knew that the election on 11 June 1987 was for a unitary Parliament. His party has never made clear on what it would claim a mandate for independence. Our mandate was that if we won the election and formed the United Kingdom Government we would create a Scottish assembly and give expression to the legitimate demands of the Scottish people. We failed to win the election. We will do everything in our power to win the next election and deliver to the Scottish people what they want—something which the hon. Gentleman's party is incapable of doing.
    Mr. Salmond: I am grateful to the hon. Member for clarifying what I said. Earlier, he said that no one on the Labour Benches was challenging the Government's mandate in Scotland. That surprised me, because an amendment to early-day motion 573, published this morning and signed by the hon. Gentleman and five of his colleagues, congratulates the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on his
    370
    "recent efforts to expose the lack of a Government mandate in Scotland."
    In our political careers we all engage in retreat, but what the hon. Gentleman has said in the debate is a remarkable retreat from the amendment to the early-day motion. He challenged the Government's lack of a mandate by signing the amendment, but in the debate he said that no one on the Labour Benches was challenging that position.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a difference between a legal mandate and a moral mandate?
    Mr. Salmond: I am arguing that the mandate issue is the key to the debate. Until Labour Members clarify their position on whether the Government have a mandate in Scotland, they will emasculate themselves in terms of any opposition.
    Mr. McAllion rose—
    Mr. Salmond: No, I am not giving way again. I have already given way twice.
    Unless Labour Members are prepared to challenge the Government's mandate, they are condemning themselves to a long period of futile opposition. It is correct that, for the time being at least, Labour dominates Scottish politics, but its domination of Scottish politics is as nothing compared with the Conservative party's domination of politics in the south of England. In the south-east of England there are 108 seats outside London: 107 are held by the Conservative party, and Labour holds one seat. South of Birmingham, outside London, Labour holds three seats. That is the reality of the political balance within the United Kingdom. It is almost inconceivable that over a generation Labour could achieve the United Kingdom mandate which the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that Labour holds only three seats in the south-east of England and therefore in a generation cannot achieve political power throughout the United Kingdom. His party holds only three seats in the whole of Scotland. Will it be a generation before his party can achieve political power in Scotland? If so, he is lying to the Scottish people when he says that the choice at the next election is independence or Thatcher.
    Mr. Salmond: I have great hope that many people in Scotland who voted Labour and who share our constitutional position — a total of 30 per cent. according to one opinion poll—will swing to our party when it becomes clear that devolution is not on offer. Because the hon. Gentleman wishes for victory within the United Kingdom, I have real hopes that Labour voters will swing in substantial numbers to the Scottish National party.
    As for the deficiencies of the Bill, perhaps the most important aspect of United Kingdom economic policy at present is the imbalance between the south of England and the regions of England and the nations of Scotland and Wales. The problem with the Scotland Bill is that it will not affect that one iota. Hon. Members representing the regions of England and the nations of Scotland and Wales have to endure a position where the Treasury is cautioned not to overheat the economy because inflation might build up in the south of England. Because of that, we have restrictive monetary policy and a fiscal policy that calls for a tight public sector borrowing requirement. The

    371
    Government's view that the economy must not overheat is a deep irony for the English regions and for Scotland and Wales, when our economies are in deep freeze.
    On the critical test of what it would do for the Scottish economy, the Bill fails. It includes no monetary powers. Labour's Scottish assembly could not alter monetary policy within Scotland. The fiscal powers are restricted to raising additional taxation. The Scottish assembly could not reflate the Scottish economy; it could increase public expenditure only marginally by increasing Scottish personal taxation.
    As for industry, a Scottish assembly could not intervene to save the steel industry, which would remain in the hands of the Department of Trade and Industry and the EEC. Labour's Scottish assembly could not save a single pit or shipyard in Scotland. It would not have any effect on the electronics industry, which is still struggling to achieve a critical mass in Scotland. It could not help the Scottish financial sector by establishing a taxation incentive to build on the comparative advantage that Edinburgh already has.
    Worst of all, a Labour Scottish assembly would have had to stand by over the last two years and watch the oil industry decline, but have no access to Scottish oil resources. Indeed, it would have had to watch Government policy—a highly inappropriate, cheap oil policy—cost 25,000 jobs in Scotland.
    Dr. Reid: It is fair for the hon. Gentleman to take a view of politics which says that the only way of recovery for the Scottish economy is to have an independent Parliament. However, it is entirely unfair to take that view and then to suppose that that is what the devolution Bill is all about. The people who drew up the Bill are not separatists. We have never claimed that a Scottish assembly would do the things that the hon. Gentleman claims it could not do. We have always argued that it is not a substitute for good United Kingdom government. It is a complementary or integral part of the United Kingdom Government. At the same time, if we want to save the Scottish economy and deal with the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, we need a Labour Government at Westminster.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that, for some of the reasons that I have outlined, the economic case for an independent Scotland within the EEC is vastly superior to that for devolution. Even in the context of devolution we could still build more economic powers into the devolution Bill. The point I make is that the Bill has limited economic powers, and that it puts forward a minimalist position.
    To give two examples, we could build into a Scottish assembly powers to control mergers and acquisitions in Scotland, and then we would not have to stand idly by, as we would under Labour's terms of reference, and watch Guinness take over Distillers. Earlier today the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) said, rightly, that the future of Britoil was most important for the Scottish economy. Therefore, why should there not be in Labour's proposed legislation power to enable a Scottish assembly to stop the takeover of Britoil and defend Scotland's most important company? On the critical test of economic power, Labour's devolution Bill fails.
    I bear no ill will for the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who, unhappily, is not here. If he were with us in a Scottish Parliament he would be a fringe figure. He
    372
    would put an eccentric Right-wing point of view against the Scottish consensus position which the other Members of that Parliament would hold. In an assembly he would perhaps provide a welcome challenge to established ideas, but, in the present ridiculous situation, this extreme figure in Scottish politics is in charge of Scottish education and the Scottish Health Service and is causing a great deal of chaos to both.
    What is the argument in defence of the hon. Gentleman's entitlement to be the Minister responsible for health and education in Scotland? It was expressed clearly by the Secretary of State for Scotland in "Radical Scotland" in December 1986. He stated that the Conservative right to govern Scotland was based on the following argument:
    "I think that as long as the vast majority of Scots vote for unionist parties, and by that I mean Conservatives, Labour, Liberal or SDP, anything other than the Nationalists—and thereby express a clear political desire to remain part of the United Kingdom—then the only mandate that matters is the UK mandate".
    This is a development in Conservative party thinking. At the time of the referendum, the Tories were pressing only non-voters into their cause. Now, in support of the mandate, they press into service Labour, SDP and Liberal voters. Labour voters and supporters are being used to reinforce the Tory mandate in Scotland. To challenge the Government effectively, we must challenge their mandate.
    The Labour motion will fall this evening, and the Labour Bill which follows it will fall or be frozen, but the case for Scottish self-government will live on. It will become clear that devolution, right or wrong, weak or strong, is not on the political agenda. It is not on offer from Westminster. It is not available. On that basis, the clear choice facing the people of Scotland is either a continuation of English Tory rule, or independence within the European Community, as advocated by the Scottish National party.
    7.41 pm
    Mr. John Marshall: This has been a most interesting debate. One of the more interesting things about it has been the absence of some speakers. We have not seen the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Of course, he may have one or two things on his mind at present. We have not seen the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who spoke frequently about devolution when the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill were going through the House in the 1970s. After all, it is only a few years since the hon. Member for Linlithgow said that devolution is
    "not a stable resting place for five or 10 years, let alone centuries."—[Official Report, 14 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 122.]
    The most interesting point is that the Leader of the Opposition, whose name appears on the motion, has not been here to take part in the debate or even to listen. We all know why. Ten years ago, he described devolution as "ridiculous and wasteful duplication." He described the debates on devolution as being
    "as interesting and productive as fishing for tuna in the Taff."
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
    "anyone who regards the Bill as meaningful devolution, an attempt to convey real power to the people, to safeguard their interests or to advance democracy or an encouragement to vigilant supervision of elected government at any level, is reading the wrong Bill." —[Official Report, 15 November 1977; Vol. 939, c 465–67.]

    373
    More recently, the right hon. Gentleman said that devolution reform will not provide a factory, a machine or jobs. Why is the Leader of the Opposition not here to restate those fundamental truths about which he spoke with such eloquence in the past?
    Mr. Fallon: Has my hon. Friend asked himself not only why the Leader of the Opposition is not here, but why the Scottish Labour party is not here, if it is so keen on devolution? There are only seven hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, yet we are told that the Scottish Labour party wholeheartedly supports devolution.
    Mr. Marshall: The enthusiasm of the Scottish Labour party for devolution is as great as the enthusiasm of the Scottish people when they were asked that specific question in 1979. As my hon. Friend knows, only 32 per cent. of the Scottish people voted for devolution in the referendum.
    Let us consider the regional breakdown of that figure. There were a number of areas where the debate was against devolution. In Tayside, 50·5 per cent. of those who voted, voted against devolution. In the Grampian region, which used to be represented by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the figure was 51·7 per cent. In Dumfries and Galloway, the figure was 59·7 per cent. In Orkney and Shetland, it was over 70 per cent. In the Highlands, the figure for devolution was only 51 per cent., and in Lothian it was only 50·1 per cent. My hon. Friend is quite right. The enthusiasm of the Scottish Labour party for the Bill is as muted as the Scottish people's enthusiasm was in 1979.
    It is clear that the economic effects of the Bill could be quite traumatic. The Scottish economy seeks to attract industry from outside Scotland and to encourage it to put its roots down in Scotland. I should like to pay tribute to the success of the Secretary of State in attracting so much new industry to Scotland. What incentive would it be to go to an incoming industrialist and say, "Come to Scotland. Your taxes on your employees and on your managers may well be higher than they would be if you stayed in England or went to Wales, but come to Scotland and run the risk of higher taxes."? No one would come to Scotland in those circumstances.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if people coming to Scotland could be assured that they would have higher standards of education for their children and higher standards of National Health provision, they might be prepared to pay additional taxes for that purpose?
    Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman should consider the figures for education in Scotland and the results from Strathclyde regional council, which give a good guide of how a devolved Scotland would work. No doubt he has seen the written answer, given on 27 October 1987, which shows that 27·6 per cent. of children leaving Strathclyde schools do so without any SCE qualifications. Given the high levels of expenditure in that part of Scotland, I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can say that higher expenditure necessarily leads to better standards. One could not, therefore, go to an incoming industrialist and promise better standards through higher taxation.
    Let us consider the record of Labour councils in Scotland.
    Mr. Galbraith: What school did the hon. Gentleman go to?
    Mr. Marshall: I went to that same school as the hon. Member for Garscadden. His parents and mine exercised freedom of choice. I am sorry that he and his colleagues do not believe in the same freedom of choice today. The hon. Member for Garscadden and I left Aberdeen in the 1970s, but I did so somewhat more willingly than he did.
    Labour Members make it clear that they oppose all steps to improve efficiency and government by competitive tendering. This afternoon, we heard them condemn competitive tendering in the National Health Service. They would say to the industrialist, "Come to Scotland. We shall not have competitive tendering in the Health Service, and that will lead to better service for the same expenditure." It will not. It will lead to worse service. Labour Members make it clear that they want higher expenditure for a whole range of services which, if the Bill were enacted, would lead to higher taxation in Scotland. There is no doubt that the consequence of the Bill would be an over-governed and over-taxed Scotland. The influence of the Secretary of State and of the Cabinet would be reduced.
    Mr. Galbraith: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Marshall: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, but I am sorry that he welcomes the fact that under the Bill the influence of the Secretary of State will be reduced. His influence is for the good of Scotland as a whole.
    Dr. Reid: Given that the hon. Gentleman is greatly concerned about corporate and industrial taxation, for the enlightenment of the House will he mention one clause that empowers the assembly to make such taxation charges?
    Mr. Marshall: I thought that I had made it clear that I was talking about taxation on individual employees and managers. Individual managers will decide whether to locate their factory in Scotland. How will one encourage a manager to locate his factory in Scotland by saying, "Come to Scotland and run the risk of higher taxation."? That threat will frighten away industrialists and discourage them from coming to Scotland.
    Mr. Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Marshall: I have given way generously and my hon. Friends have given way several times to the hon. Gentleman, so he must wait to make his speech in his own time.
    I am concerned also about what is known as the West Lothian question—perhaps there is also the Linlithgow question—to which the Opposition have not given an adequate answer. Everyone knows that, on grounds of population, Scotland is over-represented in the House of Commons. We know the good geographical reasons for that—constituencies such as Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland need smaller electorates and could not be lumped with another constituency. It is inevitable, for geographical reasons, that, given the current unitary system of government, Scotland should remain overrepresented in the House. If we had a system whereby Scottish matters were devolved to an assembly, how could we justify Scotland still being over-represented in the

    375
    House? How could we justify Scottish Members voting on English issues but English Members not being able to vote on Scottish issues?
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I do not vote on English issues.
    Mr. Marshall: It may he true that the hon. Lady, who is currently the hon. Member for Moray but was previously the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East, does not vote on English issues. Let us look at some of the voting records in the House. In the last Parliament there was a debate on the shops legislation, which sought to give shoppers in England and Wales the same privileges as are given to shoppers in Scotland. Did Scottish Labour Members say, "How wonderful it is that England and Wales are to have the same privileges as shoppers in Scotland."? Of course not. They voted against the Bill.
    I should not have thought that any Opposition Member would say that the abolition of the Greater London council was an issue affecting Scotland, but Scottish Labour Members were willing man after man to vote against it. I believe that the Labour party has been willing to put Scottish Members on the Committee that is considering legislation on the community charge for England and Wales. It may be all right for the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) to say that she will not vote on English matters, but a large number of Scottish Labour Members will vote time after time on English matters to try to impose their will on English constituents such as mine.
    The Government want genuine devolution rather than administrative devolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We believe in real devolution to real people.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend referred to Scottish Labour Members on the Committee on the English community charge legislation. He will have noted the anxiety of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Gabraith) to intervene earlier. My hon. Friend may be as curious as I am about the relevance to the hon. Gentleman's constituents of the hon. Gentleman serving on the Committee on the Duchy of Lancaster Bill.
    Mr. Marshall: I find it as difficult to understand as my right hon. and learned Friend. No doubt strange things happen in the House from time to time.
    Mr. Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Marshall: I have already once refused to give way.
    Mr. Galbraith: Give way briefly.
    Mr. Marshall: Briefly.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Duchy of Lancaster Bill is in some way related to Bonnie Prince Charlie and is therefore relevant to my constituents?
    Mr. Marshall: My sister tells me that the hon. Gentleman is a very good doctor. Having heard that observation, I wish that he would go back to doctoring instead of coming to the House.
    We believe in giving real devolution to real people. The Government have done so, for example, by giving trade unionists the right to vote on strikes and to elect union leaders in secret ballots. They have given real devolution to real people to make real decisions affecting their lives. We heard this afternoon how tenants in Castlemilk
    376
    preferred not to be subject to the Glasgow housing authority, but wanted to transfer to Scottish Homes. We are giving parents in England and Wales the right to make decisions about their children's education. We believe in giving individuals the right to decide how to spend their money rather than have it taken away by the tax collector.
    Those who seek devolution should devolve ownership to individuals. We look forward to devolving to individuals the ownership of the Scottish electricity industry as shareholders rather than by proxy, as taxpayers. We heard this afternoon's statement about the future of the Scottish Bus Group. I am sure that its employees will have heard with interest the reply by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to my question about giving priority to the employees when the industry is privatised.
    If the Scotland Bill were passed, it would be the first step towards the break-up of the United Kingdom. A group of northern Labour Members has presented a Bill to have a similar assembly for the north of England. No doubt these proposals would mushroom quickly. The problem is that once we have gone down the assembly road and it has failed to produce the goods, there would be further pressure from the hon. Member for Moray and others to go down the separatist road. We would find that, in the words of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, devolution
    "is not a stable resting place for five or 10 years, let alone centuries."—[Official Report, 14 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 122.]
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with a point made earlier, that, on the basic principle of assessing the needs and desires of the Scottish people for freedom, the bounds of freedom should be set by the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and not by this establishment?
    Mr. Marshall: I feel that the people of Scotland do not want the Bill. They do not want narrow-minded nationalism or self-centred separatism.
    Mrs. Ewing: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
    Mr. Marshall: When the question was put to the people of Scotland in 1979—
    Mrs. Ewing: They said yes.
    Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Lady knows, 32 per cent. said yes; the others voted against or abstained. As the hon. Lady well knows, it was made clear that, as a result of the amendment moved by a Labour Member, Mr. George Cunningham, if there were not a 40 per cent. vote in favour, the devolution proposal could fall. Everyone who was against devolution had either to vote against it or to abstain. An abstention was as good as a vote against. The hon. Member for Moray is well aware that leaflets were distributed telling people that they did not need to vote against devolution but could abstain if they did riot support the proposals. When the question was put to the Scottish people, they decisively rejected—
    Mrs. Ewing: They said yes.
    Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Lady regards one in three as a majority, she has strange mathematics.
    This Bill would result in an over—
    Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. Gentleman regard our entry into the Common Market as invalid, because the same arithmetic applies to the referendum on that matter?
    Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we joined the European Community in 1973 and the referendum that was conducted under a Labour Government did not have a percentage attached to it. As he also knows, it was an advisory referendum. He may well scoff at the term used, but it is not my term; it is the term of the then Labour Prime Minister, now Lord Wilson. If he regarded it as right—and it was the Labour party in this House that voted for it—it ill behoves him to scoff at the proposal put forward by his own party.
    The hon. Gentleman and I went to the same school. He may regret the fact that he went to a public school or that it is brought to the attention of his colleagues; but I feel that he ought to produce a better argument than that.
    This Bill would lead to a Scotland that was over-taxed and over-governed. It would put at risk the economic development of Scotland, and would, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, be as
    "interesting and productive as fishing for tuna in the Taff."—[Official Report, 15 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 465.]
    8.2 pm
    Mr. John McAllion: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), and having done so, I am more than ever convinced of the necessity for a Scottish assembly to be established, so that the people of Scotland may deal with their own affairs. His disgraceful contribution, showing his vast ignorance of matters Scottish, was beyond belief.
    The irony of our debating this subject here tonight lies not so much in the fact that we are having the debate; given that 76 per cent. of Scottish voters voted in the last general election for some form of devolved assembly, it would be incredible had there been no debate of this kind early in the life of this Parliament. The irony is the fact that we know, before the debate starts, what its outcome will be: we know the result of the vote.
    We know, for example, that a motion endorsing a Bill to establish a Scottish assembly, an assembly with a wide range of responsibilities for education, housing, transport and local government, an assembly which will have tax-raising and economic powers, the kind of assembly which voters in 50 out of 72 Scottish constituencies voted for last June, will be defeated in the House tonight by what is, in effect, a Tory rump in Scotland.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the hon. Member not agree that it is particularly appalling that there are so few people here on the Government Benches—only one Member representing a Scottish constituency and five Members representing English constituencies — listening to this vital debate which the people of Scotland see as so serious?
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Lady makes a valid point: it is appalling. But it is not surprising; it is par for the course, given the way in which Ministers and Tory Back Benchers in Scotland treat the affairs of Scotland as something insignificant. One of the things that has affronted me since coming here is the number of Scottish Members on the Government Benches who time and again say that they do not wish to be thought of as Scottish Members but as United Kingdom Members. I am fiercely proud to be thought of as a Scottish Member and I only wish that the same pride was shown by those on the Government Benches as well.
    378
    So the motion will be defeated by a Tory rump. I see that the Secretary of State is now scuttling out; he has had enough already. It is a shame, because I have a few remarks to make about him later on.
    It is shameful that a handful of Ministers and a few Back Benchers—a rag-bag of Scottish Back Benchers—in alliance with a huge majority of English Members, who know little of Scotland and care even less, will ensure that the motion and its proposal for an assembly will be defeated tonight. It shows not only that they do not care about the needs of the Scottish nation, but that they are determined to trample the needs of that nation underfoot in their desire to show the supremacy of their numbers here. That is entirely regrettable.
    Government Members must recognise that Scotland is a nation. There is no doubt whatever about that. It is something that they seem incapable of recognising. They seem to think that Scotland is just like a region of one nation, like the north-east, the north-west or the south-east of England. It is nothing of the kind — it is a nation, and it must be recognised as such by this United Kingdom Parliament, or it will be to Parliament's regret.
    Scotland is a nation which chooses to join, along with other nations certainly, in a partnership of equals which we know as the United Kingdom. We choose to belong; we are not trapped inside it. We can equally choose not to belong to it, and Government Members should remember that as well. We have had a lot of talk from those same Members about the reality of the unitary nature of this Parliament and the way in which it considers legislation, such as Bills of this kind. I accept that that is the case: the House operates as a unitary Parliament.
    All hon. Members who stood for election last June were fully aware of the nature of the elections in which they took part. They were elections to a unitary Parliament. They were elections which, if we were to win them, we would have to win under a first-past-the-post electoral system.
    It is only fair for Opposition Members to concede that, had any of the major political parties achieved 42·4 per cent. of the vote in the United Kingdom elections, and if we had won more than 370 seats in this House, we would naturally have been hailing that as a marvellous victory and would have seen it as a mandate to go ahead and implement our policies. I concede that the Conservative party in the United Kingdom elections won such a victory and, while I believe that to be a tragedy, not only for the Scottish people but for the people of the whole kingdom, I accept that the Conservative party won and, under the existing constitutional arrangements, legitimately formed the Government of the United Kingdom.
    But with victory, and with the power that comes in the wake of victory, comes also responsibility. It is the acceptance of that responsibility which has been so sadly missing in the conduct of Scottish affairs by the Government since they were returned to power on 11 June. What they must recognise is that the particular needs and desires of Scotland, within the framework of the United Kingdom, must be recognised by any responsible Government. If the Government aspire to be a responsible Government, they must recognise the legitimate needs of the people of Scotland. If they do not, the unity of the United Kingdom will be put at risk.
    The United Kingdom framework is not a trap within which Scotland is confined and rendered incapable of giving expression to its democratic wishes and desires,

    379
    because Scottish democracy must be given freedom to express itself—not only must but will be given freedom to do so, because there is no force in this or any other Parliament which can deny the Scottish people once they have decided on a course of action. Sooner or later, Ministers will have to recognise that fact.
    The reality in Scotland is that its people want a devolved assembly to run exclusively Scottish affairs—housing, education, transport and so on. The more I listen to English Members, the more I see the validity of that argument. At Question Time, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave a very unsatisfactory answer to a Question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who asked him about evidence of the demand for a devolved assembly.
    The Secretary of State gave a response which was very similar to the answer given by the Prime Minister who was asked the same question in 1986, when she appeared on Scottish television. I have a press cutting here from The Scotsman which refers to the occasion:
    "Eighty per cent. of Scots interviewed in a Scottish Television-MORI opinion poll are in favour of a Scottish Assembly, it was revealed last night on the programme Scottish Questions. MORI questioned 1,012 Scots in September after Mrs. Thatcher said on Scottish Television that she did not believe there was sufficient demand for an Assembly".
    How can the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister look that kind of evidence in the face–80 per cent. of people questioned in an opinion poll—and then turn round and say that they cannot see any evidence of a demand in Scotland for a devolved Scottish assembly? The Minister may say that they do not take opinion polls seriously. If that is the case, they should, because opinion polls are more often right than wrong, as we have learnt to our cost in recent elections.
    All the opinion polls conducted of the views of Scottish people in relation to a Scottish assembly have consistently shown that the huge majority of Scots support the idea. Such evidence must be taken seriously by the Secretary of State for Scotland and by Conservative Members.
    If the Government will not accept the evidence of polls, perhaps they will accept the evidence of general election results. I do not wish to labour the point, but in the last general election three out of four Scots voted for parties offering some form of devolved assembly in Scotland.
    If the Secretary of State and his Ministers will not take election results seriously—it would appear from their response that they do not—one must ask what they will take seriously. Would they take a referendum of the Scottish people seriously? The Secretary of State denied that when he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West during Scottish questions today.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would take a referendum of the Scottish people. Is he aware that there are more Scots living outside Scotland than there are inside it? What about their views?
    Mr. McAllion: Scots who decide to live outside Scotland must accept that in so doing they lose any influence over what might go on in the country that they have chosen to leave. It is the people who live in Scotland who matter most, not expatriate Scots.
    Dr. Reid: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr.
    380
    Stewart) was merely a ploy to give people of Scottish origin living in the south-east a vote in Scottish elections? It is the only way in which the Government will have a Tory Member of Parliament elected.
    Mr. McAllion: If we return to the referendum that was held in 1979, it must be remembered that the financial and professional campaigning advantage lay entirely with the "no" campaign. We must remember that leading Conservatives were urging people not to vote for an assembly, not because they are opposed to devolution but because the Conservatives intended to introduce an improved form of Scottish assembly, with tax-raising powers. Even in those peculiar circumstances, the Scots voted by a clear majority for a Scottish assembly. Yet to this day it is denied them.
    All the available evidence, whatever criterion is applied, tells the Government that the Scottish people want a Scottish assembly, yet they refuse to listen.
    If the Secretary of State is a genuine democrat and is concerned to give the Scottish people what they want, he must concede the assembly that they have voted for on so many occasions.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned Councillors Meek and Stevenson. For the benefit of hon. Members who were not present, they are Tory councillors in Scotland who remain sympathetic to the devolution case. They recognise that the interests of Scotland and the Conservative party in Scotland lie in the establishment of a Scottish assembly.
    That must be emphasised, because Ministers have not yet grasped that the position of the Tory party in Scotland is drastic. In the election last year, its performance was pathetic. It went from holding 21 seats in Scotland to only 10. If it had not been for the intervention of the SNIP in Stirling and Ayr, a further two Conservative Members would not have been elected. The Conservative party's support plummeted to 24 per cent. of the Scottish electorate.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland hoped for a much better result in the last election. About 15 months ago, The Scotsman —admittedly in pre-general election circumstances—said that the Secretary of State believed that the Conservatives
    "can still win almost one-third of the vote in Scotland at the General Election … The Government's privatisation programme will be one of the key factors in boosting their flagging support."
    He could not have predicted the result more wrongly.
    The Secretary of State compounded the felony in the same interview. When asked what he thought the likely impact of the poll tax would be on the general election, he said:
    "I have yet to find a single MP or candidate who tells me other than it is one of the best assets we have. They say, 'It is very popular … Don't listen to the press and don't listen to the comments made. If you drop it, it will be disastrous. We are getting a marvellous reception among the ratepayers in our areas.'"
    The Conservative party was given a marvellous reception — not for the Secretary of State for Scotland but for Labour Members. I suspect that Messrs A ncram, MacKay, Fletcher, McQuarrie and the rest have since changed their opinion.
    It is not only a matter of the last general election results. Over the past five general elections in Scotland, the average vote for the Conservative party has plummeted to a mere 28 per cent. of the vote. If we compare that with

    381
    the five previous general elections, when support for the Conservative party stood at 43 per cent., one can see the perilous position into which it has fallen. That decline in support is directly related to the Conservative party's inability to listen to what the people of Scotland want.
    The case for an assembly has more depth than election results or the position of political parties in Scotland. The vital interests of the Scottish people would be better served by the establishment of a Scottish assembly and by the Scots taking control of their exclusive affairs.
    Earlier, the Secretary of State mentioned what he thought was an economic case against the establishment of a Scottish assembly. He expressed it in terms of the relative tax burden between England and Scotland for managers of companies. There is an outstandingly strong economic case for a devolved assembly, as has been made clear in the press in Scotland:
    Following a debate on the place of Scotland in a changing world, at the international forum of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) at Gleneagles, the Glasgow Herald, which is not considered a Left-wing paper, commented on the problem of de-industrialisation in Scotland:
    "The decline of manufacturing industry in Scotland in the past decade is well known and not disputed".
    It is well known and not disputed by everyone in Scotland outside the ranks of the Conservative party.
    In the same interview in The Scotsman, the Secretary of State said:
    "Increased output … enabled investment in modern technology to be combined with the retention of the same number of employees"—
    significantly, he added—
    "as last week's £62 million investment programme in Caterpillar's, Uddingston plant has demonstrated."
    The Secretary of State held up the announcement by Caterpillar that the Government would invest £62 million as an economic success of the Government. We all know what has happened since.
    The Glasgow Herald commented on a paper that had been put forward by a Dr. Buxton, who had addressed the problem of Scottish industries and what was needed. He was arguing for an increase in regional aid, which again is a problem from which we have suffered since the election. He said that a solution for Scotland's problems would be a Scottish assembly with economic powers. He further said:
    "This is an idea … whose time has come."
    I do not wish to offend Liberal Members by repeating the phrase, "This is an idea whose time has come." A Scottish assembly is an idea whose time has come.
    The Glasgow Herald is considered to be a Right-wing paper in Scotland. In the same article, it said:
    "But the case for an Assembly does seem overwhelming, if only as a means of arresting the movement South of decision-making and key services, to the great detriment of the Scottish economy. It is extremely doubtful if the Scottish interest would have been treated with such contempt in the recent takeover of DCL if there had been a Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh."
    The editor of the Glasgow Herald summed it up by saying:
    "Only the Conservatives now stand against an Assembly and it is unlikely that they will recover the esteem of most Scottish people until they change their minds."
    This is the occasion when Conservatives in Scotland should begin to change their minds about their attitude to the Scottish Assembly.
    382
    The Secretary of State and his Ministers may be content that the Conservative party should stand between the people of Scotland and what they want. If that is so, that is his affair. However, if he and his friends persist in that course, it will no doubt be to their political cost in terms of seats in Scotland. The Conservative party cannot be complacent about this. As we heard, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) had close-run results in the last general election. They and other Scottish Conservative Members will be vulnerable at the next general election. The people of Scotland will make them pay the price of ignoring what the people of Scotland are continually telling them by every available means — that they should set up a Scottish assembly.
    The lack of such an assembly has cost Scotland dear. This week, I am serving on the Committee dealing with the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and it is becoming increasingly clear that it is doing nothing for the real housing needs of the people of Scotland. For example, in Committee attention was drawn to the plight of the homeless. There are 31,000 families and individuals homeless in Scotland, but there is not a scrap, a word, a dot or a comma in that Bill which does anything for the homeless. In the whole legislative process, from the consultative document, through to the Green and White Papers and now to the Bill, only one paragraph is devoted to the needs of the homeless, and that says that no specific action is needed to deal with the homeless. That shows the ignorance of Conservative Members, and their contempt for the needs of Scottish people.
    It has been said that a Scottish assembly would push us down the slippery slope to separatism. I do not agree. If anything, it is the denial of the Scottish Assembly which is pushing us down that slope. The Conservative party seems to be intent on pushing the people of Scotland in that direction. This measure affects more than Scotland, because this has been one of the most centralising and authoritarian Governments in the post-war period of the United Kingdom's history.
    Let me take one example. The poll tax has nothing to do with improving the accountability of local councillors, and everything to do with a direct attack on local government and democracy. For a start, only 20 per cent. of local government funds will be directly under local government control. There is a built-in escalator for the poll tax because, by freezing the business rate and linking it to the rate of inflation, the Government are ensuring that the poll tax demands will increase enormously if the legislation ever comes into place in Scotland.
    The Government hope that the increase in the poll tax will bring the local electors into conflict with local councils, and will lead to people doubting the wisdom of spending money on good local services. That will open the way for the Government to undermine local authorities, and they will attempt to do away with local democracy altogether.
    The Scotland Bill, which will set up a Scottish assembly, will be of great benefit to the Scottish people and to the people of the rest of the United Kingdom, because it will show them the way to go and the way in which to fight back against centralisation and authoritarianism. It is a beacon to everyone in Britain, and it should be supported by every hon. Member.
    8.22 pm
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Having sat through most of the debate, I have more respect for the position of the Scottish National party than I do for that of the Labour party. If the Scots really want devolution, the Labour party is a poor advocate for it. We had a halfhearted speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), and throughout this debate he has not managed to muster more than half a football team to support him.
    Dr. Reid: How many Tories are present?
    Mr. Fallon: It is not our Bill. It is a Scottish Labour party Bill and it is a tribute to the lack of interest and enthusiasm for the Bill that the party has not been able to muster many Members here in support of it.
    I do not agree with the Scottish National party's theory of the inexorable logic of devolution. If one wants to see Scotland as an independent Socialist state, one is entitled to argue for a Scottish assembly. Already in Scotland we see something approaching a Socialist state. Some 48 per cent. of the gross domestic product in Scotland is consumed by public expenditure. Half of all Scottish housing is public housing. Half of all Scottish taxpayers receive some kind of benefit. Some 25 per cent. of Scottish adults work for either local or central Government in Scotland. The nationalised industries of shipbuilding, steel and coal are a major part of the Scottish industrial economy. There are well-endowed publicly funded agencies, such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency. A Socialist system already exists in Scotland. Conservative Members will vote against the motion in support of the Bill because an assembly would preserve all that.
    It was Enoch Powell who correctly said, in the different context of Northern Ireland, that powers devolved are powers retained. The establishment of an assembly would formalise the development of this kind of Socialist centralism. It would perpetuate the long-standing tradition in Scotland of political interference in economic and social decisions that would otherwise be left to the marketplace. We would see in the assembly, as we see already on the Opposition Benches, micro-politicians from micro-constituencies with a micro-Scottish outlook. The assembly, if it ever came into being, would entrench the policies to which the Labour party is committed —policies of public ownership, higher subsidy of public spending and protection from competition.
    The assembly would be bound to reflect the obsession that we have seen with the Scottish ownership of particular industries. We would see preserved, year after year, the coal, steel and shipbuilding sectors of the Scottish economy that have been its most significant failures over the past 10 to 15 years, and, by contrast, we would see little support for the private sector of the Scottish economy, with the newer industries such as electronics.
    Secondly, we would see in the assembly ever-increasing encouragement for higher rates of public subsidy and higher levels of public spending. We would doubtless see fresh calls for subsidy from every assembly constituency. Public spending in Scotland is already over 26 per cent. higher per capita than in England. At Question Time today we hard that spending on industry and employment in Scotland is 97 per cent. higher than it is in England, and that spending on housing is 113 per cent. higher per capita
    384
    than in England. Some £2,500 is spent on every Scottish man, woman and child, and less than £2,000 is spent in the same way in England.
    Thirdly, a Scottish assembly—the hon. Member for Garscadden specifically based the need for a Scottish assembly on what he called the Scottish psychology — would inevitably be far more insular than anything that we have seen before. It would lead to increasing calls for protection from competition. We have already seen the obsession with preserving a few jobs at Ravenscraig, [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I say "a few jobs at Ravenscraig" because it employs 3,100 people, which is a small proportion of those who are employed in many of the newer and more important energy industries offshore.
    Dr. Reid: About 3,500 people are employed at Ravenscraig, and the spin-off effect on outside contractors means that 20,000 jobs are involved. Would the hon. Gentleman say that 20,000 jobs lost in an area with male unemployment of almost 22 per cent. was an insignificant figure?
    Mr. Fallon: I was contrasting the number employed directly at the Ravenscraig works with the number employed in many more recent and successful industries, such as the development of offshore oil. One of the lessons that we have learnt in some of the areas of highest unemployment is that where a particular process is outdated and in decline — I cast no aspersions on Ravenscraig — and therefore unable to compete, the longer one perpetuates it, the more difficult the task of re-employing and retraining becomes.
    Miss Mowlam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Fallon: No, I must get on.
    After Ravenscraig, we saw the same obsession with preserving administrative head office jobs at Britoil. We heard nothing of that when BP was allowed to take over one of the largest companies in the United States. Tragically, some years ago the Labour party showed a similar obsession when the Royal Bank of Scotland had the chance of going into venture with the Hong Kong and Shanghai bank. We are learning the lessons from that as we watch that bank divesting itself of certain interest because of the changes taking place in Hong Kong— interest that would otherwise have accrued to the United Kingdom economy.
    A Scottish assembly would crystallise all that. Which company thinking of investing in Scotland would not be deterred by the prospect of being locked into the Scottish economy and being told by assemblyman after assemblyman, "Your company must not be allowed ever to remove its head office from Scotland."? Of course that would deter potential investors.
    A Scottish assembly in the form in which it has been presented today represents a colossal red herring for the future development of the Scottish economy. In pursuing the idea of increased devolution in Scotland, the Scottish Labour party is ducking the question of where the Scottish economy should be going. If Opposition Members believe that the policies of the past eight or nine years have been successful, clearly the credit should go to the Government. If they believe that the policies on the Scottish economy have been a failure, why are they asking for more of the same—more public ownership, more subsidy, and more

    385
    protection from competition? They must make up their minds, and they cannot plead the case for an assembly simply by asking for more of the same.
    It was not until my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made his speech that we got to the heart of the issue. For the Scottish economy, the heart of the issue is that Scotland already has too much government. It does not need more. If we believe that free enterprise and the free society are premised in Scotland, as in England, on freedom of government, we must accept that they are equally premised on freedom from government.
    Instead of wasting our time on an issue that was disposed of in the 1970s, we should consider ways in which we can genuinely devolve power to Scotland — as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) suggested — not to assemblies and assemblymen and all the bureaucracy that would accompany them, but into the hands of ordinary people. We could achieve that by promoting policies of private ownership, private housing, and private enterprise, rather than by creating a talking shop.
    Miss Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on private housing and private ownership, can he explain why Darlington has had 70-plus grants of £25,000 or more—through regional development grants and regional selective assistance—since 1979? If it is not good enough for Scotland, why is it good enough for Darlington? If he thinks that we can lose 3,000 jobs at Ravenscraig, would he adopt a similar attitude to the loss of 3,000 jobs at British Steel on Teeside, where some of his constituents live?
    Mr. Fallon: Let me deal with those points in order. I have dealt with the first already in my speech and we dealt with it at Question Time. Industrial subsidy is so much higher in Scotland than it is in England that areas such as the north-east are put at a significant disadvantage. The hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) should join me in asking for more equal treatment. If regional assistance is available, it should be equally and fairly distributed between equivalent areas of high unemployment.
    With regard to the 3,000 jobs at Ravenscraig, it is my belief that the British Steel Corporation would have been in a much better position if some years ago it had made the tougher decisions that it is now having to make. Had it done so, the hon. Lady's constituents would now be enjoying the benefits of owning shares in a successful private British Steel Corporation. As I understand that most of her constituents are in favour of the privatisation of British Steel, all of us on Teesside look forward to seeing how she votes on the legislation later in the Session.
    I was arguing the case for real devolution, into the hands of ordinary people. There are other Bills before the House that accomplish that aim: for example, the Government's proposals to put real power into the hands of Scottish housing tenants and Scottish parents, and real and effective power into the hands of the users of Scottish local government services.
    This afternoon my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced the first step towards privatising the large nationalised industry sector in Scotland. I hope that the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group will soon be followed by equal and popular
    386
    privatisations of other nationalised industries. I hope that my hon. Friends will move on and examine the work of some of the development bodies and agencies to see which of them might be privatised and turned into successful investment institutions. There is no reason why those south of the border should subsidise development bodies that have outlived their natural purpose.
    It is clear that the Scottish Labour party has lost interest in the Bill. Opposition Members may have been enthusiastic when they first arrived in the House, and we understand the pressures between Left and Centre, Right, soft Left and soft Scottish Left and so on. Some Labour Members want an independent Socialist state in Scotland. Others are determined to remain Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. They must take this discussion away from the Floor of the House and settle it at meetings of the Scottish Labour party.
    8.36 pm
    Mr. Sam Galbraith: The speech of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) was one of the most disgraceful contributions that I have heard in this place. If anything highlights the need for devolution, it is his contribution. He is nothing more than a political Contra; as the Tory party in Scotland cannot muster any of its troops, it pays people such as the hon. Member for Darlington in kind to come here and hurl abuse at us about something of which he knows nothing. He is nothing more than a little primary school boy masquerading as a Member of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not a primary school boy."] I am doing him a service. He is a nursery school boy, then.
    The hon. Gentleman pretends to know something about the people of Scotland. He has given us a classic example of what is happening in the Tory party in Scotland. Conservative Members tell us that they know best, just as the hon. Member for Darlington told us that he knew best. He cannot get a seat in Scotland and has to come down south because the people up north will reject him. He tells us what will happen if there is a Scottish assembly. He says that the Scottish people will want this, that, and the other, but are not to have them because this political Contra—this little schoolboy from Darlington—happens to know what is best for the people of Scotland.
    I do not want to follow Conservative Members' example in harking back to the arguments of 10 or 15 years ago, when I was not a Member. The world moves on, and I would have hoped that Conservative Members would move on. Indeed, I wish that some of them would move on and move out.
    Let me deal with a few of the points raised about a Scottish assembly. I do not wish to get into the mandate argument because, as I said to the SNP hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), there are political, constitutional, legal and moral mandates, and they are all different. One of the most important reasons for devolution in Scotland is the need to improve the government of Scotland. We already have a devolved administrative structure, but it is not accountable to the people of Scotland, and that is one of the arguments in favour of an assembly.
    The hon. Member for Darlington talked about devolution as Socialist centralisation. That seems to be absolutely incredible—a contradiction in terms. The whole basis of devolution is decentralisation of power.

    387
    Over the past few years, the Government have concentrated more and more power in their own hands. We wish to reverse that process, decentralise power, and return it to the people in whose name we exercise power.
    Conservative Members always seem to get uptight about the West Lothian question.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman should ask Tam. He will tell him.
    Mr. Galbraith: Good gracious, that was a significant contribution from the hon. Gentleman.
    It is a constitutional anomaly. There are numerous anomalies, but they do not mean that the constitutional edifice will come crashing down. Normally, we could accept that and learn to live with it.
    Conservative Members always talk about what happened when Labour had a majority in Scotland. They will agree that there was rough equivalence. We did not have the present position in Scotland in which there is a rump of Conservative Members. English Tory Members forced legislation on Scotland. That is a different matter. Scottish Labour hon. Members did not vote for things that they did not believe in or did not want.
    In contrast, let us examine the poll tax. It is the Westminster question. English Tory hon. Members were happy to force legislation on to the Scottish people. When they themselves considered it, they suddenly found that they did not want it. We did not do that. We must address that matter.
    The other issue relates to the number of Scottish Members who believe that we should continue to have the same number of Scottish Members. I agree with the present Secretary of State for Scotland. During the debate on the Scotland Bill on 31 January 1978, he said:
    "However, there are powerful arguments that a reduction of Scottish representation, although it might appear superficially to be a reasonable proposal, would be damaging to the unity of the United Kingdom."
    Later, he said:
    "Therefore, to suggest in that context that there is an overall case for reducing Scottish representation is misguided."
    Later still, he said:
    "For this reason I believe that Scottish representation at its present level can be justified and that it should continue irrespective of the implementation of the Bill."—[Official Report, 31 January 1978; Vol. 943, c. 344, 348, 349.]
    Let us hear no more from the Secretary of State for Scotland about that matter.
    For some Conservative Members, taxation seems to be the crux of the matter. I shall deal briefly with the nonsense that we hear about companies not locating in Scotland simply because income tax might or might not be a penny more. There is no evidence for that. The Government were always concerned about rates — they are a form of taxation—and variable rates and how they would stop various industries going to Scotland. The Government set up a study at the university of Cambridge, which showed that the level of rates had no bearing whatever on whether industries located in a particular area. The reasons depend on such things as infrastructure, education, roads, ports, the amount of labour and whether it is qualified. Such factors, not the level of taxation, determine where a company will locate.
    The Government's thinking seems to be confused. I was interested in the Secretary of State's contribution. His complaint seems to be that, somehow, taxation is not high
    388
    enough and that we have not advocated more and more taxes. That confusion is highlighted by two conflicting reports in the Glasgow Herald of 14 January 1988. On one page, an article reports Lord Goold as stating:
    "an assembly with tax-raising powers would he dangerous".
    On another page, I find the Tory Reform Group in Scotland advocating that we should have an assembly that should not only raise its own taxes but be able to introduce new taxes and abolish old ones. Another part of the same report states:
    "I cannot believe that it will mean reduced taxation, so we have to look at a possible extra tax burden on individuals".
    That is totally contrary to what is said in other areas. The Conservative party is totally and utterly confused. The tax powers within the assembly Bill represent the ability to vary taxation—nothing more, nothing less. Let us have none of the nonsense scare stories about corporation tax. For Conservative Members to say that there will always be an increase in taxation is a tacit admission that they will never again achieve power in Scotland. We understand why they take that view.
    A Scottish assembly is not a panacea for the ills of Scotland. It is not some short-term solution to long-term infrastructure problems. But it would introduce a dynamism in Scotland and reform the structural, social, economic and cultural base. Such a base will provide an environment and an entity in which we can start to solve the long-term problems of Scotland.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: Earlier, the Secretary of State repeated his claim that there is little if any demand for devolution in Scotland. If he believes that, he must have his head in the sand. If he gets his head out of the sand, he will see that there is overwhelming demand for devolution in Scotland. If there is a lack of demand for anything among the people of Scotland, it is a lack of demand for the disastrous policies of the Tory Government, who were rejected by 76 per cent. of Scottish voters at the last general election. This Government can never, by any stretch of the imagination or by any definition of mandate, argue that they received a mandate from the people of Scotland.
    When I put that point to her shortly after the general election, the Prime Minister reminded me that four out of the past five Labour Governments did not receive a majority of seats in England. Therefore, she said, by my logic, four out of the past five Labour Governments received no mandate to govern Britain. No party, potential Government or Government have ever sought or received a mandate for home rule for the people of England in the sense of setting up an all-England devolved assembly. If there were such a demand among the people of England, I would not stand in their way. I am grateful to my hon. Friends from the northern region of England for publishing their Bill to bring about an element of decentralisation for at least one region of England.
    The situation in Scotland is quite clear. The negative side of the coin is that the Government were rejected by 76 per cent. of the people of Scotland. Therefore, they received no mandate from the people of Scotland. The positive side of the coin, as I said to the Secretary of State this afternoon, is that 76 per cent. of the people of Scotland voted for parties with a commitment to set up some form of Scottish assembly or Parliament.

    389
    How, then, can the Secretary of State continue to parrot the absurd claim that there is little if any demand for devolution in Scotland? He does not believe the result of the general election, in which he himself was a candidate and many of his former colleagues were failed candidates. The general election result is confirmed by opinion poll after an opinion poll showing a significant majority in favour of devolution. For example, the last System 3 opinion poll that was done for Channel 4 on the subject showed that a total of 76 per cent. of people in Scotland wanted some form of Scottish assembly or parliament. Sixty-two per cent. of the sample considered the matter to be either very important or quite important.
    If the Secretary of State does not believe the general election result or the opinion polls, why is he afraid of having another referendum? His answer to me this afternoon was, "Well, we had one in 1979 and look at the result." I advise him that the 1979 referendum was nearly nine years ago and there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then and much damage done to the people of Scotland as a result of the Government who were elected in in 1979.
    Let us look at that referendum result in 1979. Of those who took the trouble to turn out to vote, 52 per cent. voted in favour of a Scottish assembly and 48 per cent. voted against. Probably for the first time in British constitutional history, and probably in the constitutional histories of many countries, the majority of the people who turned out to vote for something were denied their democratic wish. Bearing in mind what has happened during the past nine years, I suggest that if we had another referendum now there would be a much bigger majority—an absolutely thumping majority — in favour of a devolved Scottish assembly or Parliament.
    Among those who voted "yes" in the 1979 referendum was the Secretary of State. At that time I considered him a brave man because, from memory, I believe that he lost his shadow ministerial position and a great deal of favour among his own party for taking that courageous stance. However, his courage now seems sadly to have deserted him. He now seems to be putting his own political career and the interests of his party before the interests of his country. This is despite the signs that some people in his party are speaking out and taking actions which suggest not only a disillusionment with general Government policies, but also the desire for a greater say for the people of Scotland in the running of their own affairs.
    Shortly after the general election, for example, the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) had the courage to stand up and say, "Enough is enough: I am not joining this discredited Government," or words to that effect. I suggest that that was partly because of the way in which the needs of the people of Scotland have been ignored by the Government.
    Last autumn, a leaked Tory party document suggested that some Tory activists, including some in the higher echelons of the party in Scotland, were in favour of some form of devolution. More recently, Michael Fry, a former Tory party parliamentary candidate, prepared a paper which was submitted to the Scottish Tory Constitutional Reform Group, calling for what even I would consider to be fairly radical proposals for setting up a Scottish assembly with economic powers, including taxation, as well as legislative powers.
    390
    Sadly, despite the fact that some Tory party members in Scotland are speaking out against Government policy in such matters, there has been no response so far from the Tory Government. That is part of the reason why the parliamentary Labour party, especially the Scottish group, has taken the initiative of introducing the Scotland Bill referred to in the motion. Basically we are proposing that the power of the Scottish Office, which is at present the subject of administrative devolution, should also be the subject of legislative devolution.
    It is worth reminding hon. Members who represent English constituencies—some do not seem to realise this —of the plethora of powers of the Scottish Office in matters such as housing, health, education, public transport, agriculture, the provision of social work services for the elderly, sick and disabled and, indeed, aspects of industry and the economy.
    At present, that machinery of government consists of 10,000 civil servants, who are headed by a Secretary of State and four assistant Ministers, whose party represents and received the support of less than one quarter of the people of Scotland. How on earth can we describe that as democracy? How on earth can we describe as democratic a system in which the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is part of the ministerial team? Having scraped home by the skin of his teeth in his own constituency he has found himself catapulted into being Minister for education, health, sport and the arts.
    Is it any wonder that with people like that in charge — look at the team collectively and where they draw their support—we have such unpopular policies foisted undemocratically on the people of Scotland in matters such as housing, in which the Government are threatening to move back to the days of private landlordism; and in education, in which the Minister's proposals were recently rejected by teachers and parents?
    There is also the poll tax, the iniquities of which are perceived by all the people of Scotland. We do not even need a debate in this place, or in the country, to convince the people of Scotland of the evils of the poll tax. Indeed, the people of Scotland, who are normally renowned for their discipline and obedience to law and order, are threatening a non-payment campaign throughout Scotland.
    I do not suppose that anybody resorts to tactics of civil disobedience as a first resort. Certainly, from speaking to people in Scotland, I think that the majority would start on such a road with great reluctance. However, it is still a possibility. Therefore, I advise the Minister and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench that we are trying the parliamentary road by introducing the Bill. However, if the parliamentary road does not work because of the obstruction and intransigence of the Government, the Government risk a head-on constitutional clash.
    I for one will do all that I can in this place, and outside this place, to provoke, and indeed encourage, a constitutional crisis, because I believe that my loyalty and the loyalty of any Member of Parliament ought to be not to this place—an institution of the British state—but to the people whom we represent. Until such time as the British constitution is successfully challenged and changed, this place will be incapable of responding to the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people of Scotland, including the necessary constitutional changes which involve setting up a Scottish assembly or Parliament.
    8.57 pm
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I want to turn the attention of the House to an aspect of bringing about a Scottish assembly which has not had its attention during the many hours that we have spent discussing it. In many ways, the running of an assembly in Scotland could show this House some improved ways of conducting business. I am quite sure, for example, that when a Scottish assembly is formed, its Members will be full-time and will not be doing this work as a pastime for a gentleman. I am sure that the democratic attitudes of the people of Scotland would not tolerate such an approach to running the country.
    A Scottish assembly might even keep sensible hours, and start work at the same time as everyone else. It strikes me as quite amusing that this House is referred to as the mother of Parliaments. If a real mother conducted herself as this Parliament does, she would come to the attention of the social workers, what with keeping her children up late at night and giving them access to food and drink in quantities that are bad for their systems.
    One aspect of the Scottish assembly is the democratic participation of women in government. In all the years in which this House has existed, there have been only a handful of women Members, and only a tiny handful of those have been from Scotland. All the parties have something to be ashamed of in that respect. It so happens that I am only the tenth woman Member in the history of the Labour party in Scotland, and I can say freely that the other parties have a record even more susceptible of improvement.
    It is not merely a matter of the House being such a gentlemen's club—or, perhaps, public school. It is not very feasible for a woman with family responsibilities to travel here from Scotland to be a Member of Parliament. That is simply not on for the vast majority of ordinary women who, unlike the Prime Minister, do not have nannies and home helps to leave them free to conduct business.
    In a Scottish assembly, I would expect a much larger participation by women in the affairs of Scotland, and that could only be to the good. I am not arguing that because I believe that women are kinder or nicer. Anyone who thinks of the Prime Minister will know that that is not true. But it is the women who tend to go to the doctor when the kids are ill; it is the woman of the household who is likely to visit the local councillor if the drains need unblocking, or if she wants a transfer. Her husband's name may be on the tenancy certificate, but it is she who takes up the problems. When so much Scottish assembly business will relate to local government and the Health Service, I believe that women will express a strong wish to participate. When Labour brings forward its manifesto for the Scottish assembly, we shall make a strong point of our wish for a Ministry for women.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Lady is labouring under a dreadful misapprehension. An assembly in Edinburgh will be just as difficult for someone representing, for instance, the Western Isles to attend as is Parliament in London. If the hon. Lady thinks that an assembly in Edinburgh will open up opportunities for women in far-flung constituencies, she is entirely wrong.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I shall be brief, because one thing that women are taught is not to talk for too long. The hon.
    392
    Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is talking nonsense. Of course there are areas in Scotland from which it is difficult to travel to Edinburgh, but a Glaswegian, for example, can be in Edinburgh in an hour, whereas it takes three hours to get to London. That makes all the difference to someone who is trying to look after a family and a home. The lack of common sense among Conservative Members demonstrates — if nothing else does—how little they have to teach us about how to run an assembly, or anything else.
    Another democratic aspect of the assembly will be that, instead of only attending occasional Scottish Questions in the House, Members of the assembly will find that they conduct the daily business. The Scottish people will be able to come into the public gallery every day and hear what the likes of Conservative Members in the House are saying. Conservative reputations should go down even further after that. Moreover, the press, and the media generally, will be able to pay close attention to all matters affecting Scotland.
    I look forward to that day very much — if only because it will do a great deal for women in Scotland.
    9.2 pm
    Dr. John Reid: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) demeaned the debate, and, I think, some of the participants, by branding what we have heard today as micro-politicians talking about micro-politics. In all humility, I am prepared to consider myself a micro-politician. However, if that is the case, I wonder how we should brand my Tory opponent, who came 25,000 votes behind me in the last election.
    To some extent, the debate has also been demeaned by a singular lack of attendance by Scottish Tory Members. While I appreciate that there is more chance of meeting Lord Lucan in the House than of meeting a Scottish Tory, I had thought that they might be able to muster slightly more than, on one occasion, one Scottish Member—the Minister.
    Today's debate is about not only the good government of Scotland, but the better government of Britain. Like my hon. Friends, I should like to clarify at the outset the question raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his colleagues in the Scottish National party about the mandate. I accept the constitutional mandate of the Government to govern the United Kingdom, because I accept the unity of the United Kingdom. However, people's lives are rarely ruled by the dry, dusty pages of constitutional textbooks. Their perceptions, feelings and support are far more firmly rooted in the reality of their everyday lives and, in particular, on whether they perceive that they are governed in a manner that is responsive to their needs and consistent with their priorities and aspirations. By that standard only a fool would claim — and the Secretary of State for Scotland, whatever else he may be, is no fool—that the Government have either a political or moral mandate to govern Scotland in the way in which they have been governing that sorry country.
    That need not be the case. The Government could respond to the demand for greater self-government for Scotland. As we have stressed consistently throughout the debate, the Secretary of State in a previous political incarnation responded to that demand for devolution. Of course, he has now changed his mind. Burdened with promotion to high office, borne down with honours

    393
    bestowed on him by his leader and bought and sold for Treasury gold, he has sold out his conscience. He has turned his face against devolution and his back on the Scottish people and their demand for it.
    In an almost bizarre refusal this afternoon to accept any of the volumes of objective evidence, the Secretary of State even refused to accept the fact that there might be a demand for devolution. He told us that the demand does not exist. He says: "It does not exist because I say it does not exist." He almost reminds me of the small boy running about telling every adult who will listen that he is not afraid of the bogy man. I must tell Conservative Members that this particular bogy man will not disappear, despite all the Secretary of State's scare stories. Indeed, the very volume of rumours, scare stories and propaganda emanating from the Scottish Office is the best testimony to the fact that the Secretary of State is only too well aware that the demand for devolution exists and is growing in Scotland.
    Central to the propaganda is the contention that there is no demand for devolution. As I have said, that flies in the face of every known fact and every objective opinion poll. I raised the evidence from one opinion poll with the Secretary of State this afternoon, but he chose to ignore it. I referred to the Scottish assembly poll undertaken in 1987, the results of which correspond exactly with the System 3 poll referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). Question 6 of the Scottish assembly poll asked:
    "How will the Government's plans make life in Scotland?"
    In reply, 10 per cent. answered "better"; 27 per cent. answered "no different" and 61 per cent. said "worse". Question 7 asked:
    "Do you think that the Government cares about Scotland?"
    Mr. Ernie Ross: No.
    Dr. Reid: In answer to that, 20 per cent. said "yes" and 80 per cent. agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and said "no". They believed that the Government would make things worse. So bereft are the Government of a response to those statistics that, if they are not actually lying, they are involved in the manufacture of malicious and inaccurate facts.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Reid: No; I do not have much time.
    The biggest, most malicious and most inaccurate of those facts is the Government's claim that the devolution of power would necessarily and inevitably be accompanied by a whole battery of additional taxes. Ministers have constantly argued that, but when they are asked to come to the Dispatch Box and state one item within the devolution Bill that would affect taxes, other than the right to vary the rates of income tax, they singularly fail to come forward. [Interruption.] I have been listening very carefully to the debate. Unlike some Conservative Members, I have been here from the beginning of the debate, and I shall stay here to the end.
    The absence of devolution has allowed the imposition on Scotland of a whole range of policies and measures that are completely alien to the values of our countrymen and women. The classic example is the poll tax. While I am on this subject, I repeat my challenge to the Minister to deny
    394
    the figures produced by the House of Commons Library, which show that within three years the poll tax, for an average family, will be running at £450 a head, which is equivalent to £2,000 per annum. I have repeatedly challenged the Government on that, but they have refused to answer. The poll tax and education have already been mentioned.
    We now have a crisis in the National Health Service. A most devoted and committed work force has been brought out on strike at Hartswood hospital and others throughout Scotland. Why has a work force that is absolutely committed to the care of patients and that has never countenanced industrial action, a work force composed mainly of nurses and professionals who for 100 years eschewed militancy, been brought to what it considers to be extreme action? It is because we have been recruiting callous and indifferent people into the Health Service, or is it because they care a damn sight more about the Health Service than Ministers? It is easy for us to make up our minds about that.
    We have heard tonight about what has been called "genuine" devolution. The Government do not want our form of devolution; they want genuine devolution. Yet the only example that they could clock up was a vote by 1,000 SSHA tenants at Castlemilk. If the Government think that that is such a good thing, why do they not instigate their brand of genuine devolution and give all SSHA tenants a chance to vote on whether they want the Scottish Homes document to go ahead? If the Government are prepared to meet that request, or that challenge, there may be something in genuine devolution.
    The Health Service, education, local government and law — complete sections of Scottish life — have been misgoverned by the Conservative party, which does not, or will not, sympathise with or represent the wishes of the people of Scotland. That is why we have put the motion before Parliament tonight.
    Devolution is not the shallow argument that the Government portray it to be. It has nothing to do with running away from nationalism. The fact is that, as the nationalist vote has steeply declined in Scotland, support for devolution has increased. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, a Scottish assembly would not be the panacea for all Scotland's ills. In itself, it would not be sufficient to save the steel industry and other industries in Scotland. We do not claim that a Scottish assembly will do everything, but because an assembly cannot do everything that does not mean that it cannot assist in many ways.
    A Scottish assembly can assert a Scottish cultural and national identity. The values of Scottish people in some cases are markedly different from those of people in other parts of the country. That argument becomes stronger every day that the Government are in power. Since 1979, the north-south divide has caused unemployment in Scotland to increase by 105 per cent. Manufacturing output has fallen by 4·2 per cent. and total output has grown at an annual rate of only 1·3 per cent. compared with the national average of 2 per cent. In response to such statistics, and to the fact that the number of people living below the official poverty line in Scotland has increased by 140 per cent., the demand for devolution seems eminently sensible and reasonable.
    The democratic road to devolution outlined in the Bill recognises the centuries of mutual dependence between the English and Scottish economies. That is why we are

    395
    arguing that the main levers of power should be retained at Westminister. The Government's dogmatic insistence on free-market policies has created one magic circle based in the south-east and an outer circle of poverty throughout Wales, the north of England and Scotland. The Government recognise that.
    The wider implications are beginning to be seen. I welcome the new strident voices from the north of England, and later from Wales, demanding their own forms of decentralisation, because they have been marginalised for far too long in the politics of the Conservative party.
    In my maiden speech I finished with a quote from the father of our party, Keir Hardie. He said that countries, like individuals, at some stages of their lives come to a crossroads, and woe betide them if they take the wrong path. In my maiden speech I pointed out that the road along which the Government were travelling was a far greater danger to the unity of the United Kingdom than any speeches that this micro-politician can make on this micro-political argument tonight. I give the same warning as other hon. Members have given. Pray that we are wrong. If hon. Members ignore the voices of rationality in the House, because they think that they are supporting the United Kingdom in all its unity, the irony is that it is they who will break up the unity of the United Kingdom.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. John Maxton: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), suggested that the Scotland Bill was being introduced because we thought that we would never again gain power in Westminster; that we were seeking power in Scotland because Opposition Members saw themselves as Ministers only in that context.
    It is interesting that the previous devolution Bill—this one is not that different — was introduced by a Labour Government. The previous Labour Government were prepared to give the people of Scotland their assembly; to give the people of Scotland the democracy that they still seek.
    The chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland, Lord Goold, listened briefly to the debate. He did not stay long, and I am not surprised. He must have felt a great sense of despair as he listened to Conservative Members. The message that came through loud and clear from the Secretary of State and from every other Conservative Member was that the Tory party will never again manage to obtain a majority of parliamentary seats in Scotland. That is the assumption behind all that Conservative Members have said.
    It is now assumed that the Labour party has always had a majority in Scotland, but that is not true. Since the second world war only one party has had a majority of votes in Scotland, and that is the Tory party. In almost every general election until 1970, the party with the majority of seats in Scotland was exactly the same as the party with the majority of seats in the United Kingdom. It is only in the last 18 years that there has been a divergence of political opinion within the United Kingdom.
    At the end of the day, this debate is about democracy. The core of the debate is the Scottish people's demand for
    396
    a greater say within the United Kingdom and the demand that the parties—or party—for whom they vote should be allowed to administer and legislate for them.
    Since 1979, the Scottish people have made it clear at every national and local election, and at nearly every by-election and in every opinion poll, that they want neither the narrow nationalism and cheap populism of the SNP, nor the free market philosphy and dictatorial centralism of the Tory party. The way in which the Secretary of State dismissed in a cavalier fashion yet again the Scottish people's demands is an insult to the House, and, more important, to the Scottish people.
    I had written down that the Secretary of State made a clever speech. I have to say that it was not. It was probably the worst speech that I have ever heard him make. It was, as usual, slick, and there were a few cheap jibes, but it was all over the place. He had no rational arguments and his speech lacked intellectual honesty and analysis.
    I am glad to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman coming into the Chamber. Anyone who has read his speeches in the devolution debate in the 1970s knows that he has never managed to convince us, and probably never even managed to convince himself, of the reasons why he threw the principles that he held then out of the window.
    The only conclusion is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew that he would hold no office under the present Prime Minister while he remained a devolutionist, and high office — his car, his residence in Edinburgh castle, his Dover house appointment — is more important to him than the people of Scotland, whom supposedly he represents.
    The first—and really the only—argument that the Secretary of State advanced against our Bill and devolution was that he believed there was no support for it in Scotland. Elections prove him wrong. The last general election proved him wrong, as we can see from a comparison between what happened in his constituency and what happened in mine. His majority went down, and mine went up by 7,000 on a pro-devolution stance.
    If the Secretary of State genuinely believes that the people of Scotland do not want devolution, he should test the matter by putting it to a referendum. Let the people of Scotland speak. We on the Labour Benches will accept the decision of the referendum. If the people of Scotland say no to devolution, we will drop our devolution plans. The Secretary of State is far too much of a coward to go down that road.
    The second argument is that the United Kingdom is a unitary state and that if we have a Scottish assembly the whole unitary state will fall apart. Many countries are not unitary; they are not unitary states in the sense of everything being controlled by one legislature and one Administration. There is no reason why we should not be the same.
    What Conservative hon. Members are doing, for their own purposes, is to confuse "unitary" with "centralised". There is a very big difference. We believe in the unitary state; they believe in the centralised state.
    Conservative hon. Members, including the Secretary of State, have not always held the view that devolution is wrong. During the 1970s—between 1974 and 1979—the right hon. and learned Gentleman stood firmly behind the manifesto on which the people of Edinburgh, Pentlands elected him. It was the other Tory hon. Members who became turncoats and refused to accept what they themselves believed in.

    397
    The October 1974 election manifesto is very dear to Conservative hon. Members, because it was the last manifesto, until June last year, in which they said they would abolish the rating system. They keep returning to that manifesto, saying, "That is why we have a mandate to get rid of the rating system." If it is true that they are using that manifesto to abolish the rates, they might use it for other purposes as well.
    That United Kingdom manifesto said:
    "A recurring theme in our programme is the need to recognise that people want more freedom and more control over their own lives. This is what has shaped our policies for Scotland …
    In Scotland we will: set up a Scottish Assembly; give the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting with the Scottish Assembly, the power to decide how to spend Scotland's share of the UK budget; establish"—
    this makes nonsense of the Secretary of State's argument about taxation—
    "a Scottish Development Fund … to provide substantial help with both the new problems created by oil, and with Scotland's old deprived areas; transfer the Oil Division of the Department of Energy to Scotland."
    Those ideas were amplified in the Scottish supplement to the manifesto. With regard to the assembly it said:
    "Devolution is our policy."
    The word that the Secretary of State described as cold and unfeeling is the word that the Tory party used in its manifesto. It went on to say:
    "Devolution … can free Scotland from the frustrations of centralisation. Scottish Conservatives have a good record of devolution in the creation of departments at the Scottish Office free to take their own administrative decisions over a wide range of functions."
    The Secretary of State may not like the last bit so much:
    "we have long recognised the need for matching devolution in the legislative and political field."
    On the proposal for a Scottish development fund, the manifesto said:
    "Income from North sea oil will be used to create a Scottish development fund. This fund will be used to ensure that every part of Scotland derives the fullest benefit from oil."
    It said that the fund would be used in oil areas to carry out essential infrastructural changes. It then said:
    "The fund will also be devoted to making good any damage to the Scottish countryside resulting from oil development. And it will make possible a major programme of renovation and replacement of out-of-date housing and obsolete industry."
    When I read that passage to some of my colleagues recently, they suggested that it had been written, not by the Scottish Tories, but by Mr. Jim Sillars of the Scottish National party. It makes nonsense of the argument that Scotland cannot have its own finance. If the Secretary of State was prepared to say, "We will give them an assembly; it will not levy income tax, but it will have an oil development fund," I think that my hon. Friends might be prepared to accept that.
    It is worth remembering that it was not only devolutionists such as the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) who stood at that election on that manifesto. So did the other four Members who were elected in 1974 and who are still on the Tory Benches. So did the hon. Member for Tayside, North. I accept that he did not win in Dundee, East, but he stood on the basis of that manifesto, as did the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr.
    398
    Lang), who stood in Glasgow, Pollok. So eight of the existing 10 Conservative Members in Scotland supported that manifesto in 1974.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that my position was the same as that of many members of his party at that time. I was opposed to devolution. I made that clear to the selection committee that selected me, and I stood on that platform. Of course, I did not get elected.
    Mr. Maxton: That is the point. The hon. Member did not get elected.
    Not only did the hon. Member for Tayside, North stand on the terms of that manifesto, but so did the right hon. Lady who is now Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. When she became leader of the Tory party in 1975, she was still supporting the policy of devolution. I understand that, in a speech in the city halls in Glasgow not long after she became Tory party leader, she said:
    "An assembly must be a top priority to ensure that more decisions affecting Scotland are taken in Scotland by Scotsmen."
    Even in the referendum of 1979, of which so much has been made by the Tory party, the Tories refused to campaign against devolution. What they campaigned against was the Scotland Act 1978. They left their options open. In mid-February 1979, Lord Home said at Edinburgh university:
    "I should hesitate to vote no if I did not think that the parties will keep the devolution issue at the top of their priorities."
    He went on to say that he would vote no because he wanted an assembly with tax powers, proportional representation and a well-defined formula for separating Scottish and English business.
    To reinforce that view on the electorate of Scotland the Tory party chairman, Lord Thorneycroft, twisted the arm of BBC Scotland to reschedule its programmes to screen an interview with Lord Home two days before the referendum. Not only that, but on the eve of the poll the Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, put out a message through the press which started:
    "A No vote does not mean that the devolution question will be buried."
    So there is no principle whatever in the argument that has been put up against devolution. It is pure political self-seeking. It is a refusal to give Scotland the voice that its people want. It acknowledges that the Tories know that they cannot win control of a Scottish assembly and that they do not want to see any part of the United Kingdom coming under the control of any other political party.
    What is most worrying is the refusal to recognise Scottish nationality. There is a Scottish national feeling. We are all aware of it. We see it in sport, in the arts and culture and in the media. There is a recognition of Scotland as a separate, national part of the United Kingdom. Before Scottish National party members start jumping up and down, let me say that does not mean that although people feel that they are Scottish, they want to be part of an independent nation. They want to feel that their national identity is properly recognised within the United Kingdom and that they have a greater say over their own affairs.
    We have devolution. It can be seen in the Secretary of State, his Ministers and the 95 per cent. of civil servants who operate in Scotland, not in England, at Westminster

    399
    or Whitehall. We deal with separate Scottish legislation in this place. We have a separate Scottish Administration. All this means that we have devolution. The Secretary of State is devolution. He is part and parcel of devolution, whether he likes it or not. When he introduces a Bill on education, he speaks as Secretary of State for Scotland, not as Secretary of State for Education. When he reforms Scottish law, he acts as Secretary of State for Scotland, not as Home Secretary. When he imposes privatisation on the Health Service, or imposes the poll tax on local government, it is on the Scottish Health Service and on Scottish local government that he imposes it. He, the Governmennt, the House of Commons and the constitution of the United Kingdom recognise that Scotland is entitled to its own legal system, education system, transport system and Health Service.
    If we recognise the right to that level of self-government, it is patently absurd to make the contents of Scottish law dependent on English votes and to give control of the Scottish Office to a politician whose twin qualifications are that he represents a Scottish constituency and is acceptable to English Members, however unacceptable he is to the mass of his fellow Scots. That is the present situation.
    If the Tories were honest in their denial of devolution, they would demand the abolition of the Scottish Office and the full integration of separate Scottish institutions into United Kingdom Government Departments. It is open to conjecture whether the Secretary of State would keep his place in the Cabinet. His three junior colleagues would disappear into the obscurity of the Back Benches from which they were plucked. They and all the other Scottish Tory Members would lose their seats at the next general election and the drive towards independence would be irresistible, but at least it would be an honest line to take. It is the present line of having, on the one hand, devolution and having, on the other hand, no legislative and democratic control over it that is so patently wrong and to which the Scottish people object.
    I wish to give one short quotation in respect of the mandate argument:
    "I would never adopt the view that Scotland should be forced into the serfdom of socialism as a result of a vote in the House of Commons."
    I have not heard a better argument for the mandate than that. That was Mr. Winston Churchill at the Usher hall in Edinburgh in 1950. I do not go as far as that. I do not claim that the Government do not have a mandate in the United Kingdom; they do, on matters relating to the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State for Scotland has no moral mandate in Scotland. That is where the mandate argument comes in.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Maxton: I shall not give way.
    The Government's case is absurd and, unfortunately, very dangerous. They boast that they are the Unionists, but the Union is put at risk by their blind, stupid, stubborn refusal to accept the democratic rights of the Scottish people. The people of Scotland say, "We do not want to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, but we want our national status to be recognised and we want to control our own affairs in our own way."
    The Union between England and Scotland is like a marriage, freely entered into for the benefit of both partners. For most of the time since 1707 there has been
    400
    benefit for both sides. That has clearly been the case in Scotland, and England has not been out of line politically. Once one partner is not allowed to act freely within the marriage and one partner orders and instructs the other to do what he or she does not want to do, strains are placed on the marriage and divorce becomes a possibility. That is what we are facing in Scotland.
    If the Government continue to act as they have done, they will put the union of the United Kingdom at risk. Except for the trivial trio of the Scottish National party, the Opposition do not wish that divorce to take place. We believe in the Union. We want to keep the United Kingdom together. If the Government constantly deny democracy to the Scottish people, resentment will rise. So far, it has not reached the point of demands that we separate, but if the Government continue down that road it will.
    If English Members believe in democracy and the Union between Scotland and England, and if they who now object so much to the poll tax being imposed on their constituents accept that it should not be imposed on the people of Scotland either, I call on them to join us in the defence of the United Kingdom by joining us in the Division Lobby. If they do not, I assure them that they will not have heard the end of devolution. The Scottish people have a right to be heard. We will use all legitimate means to ensure that their voice is heard and their will carried out.
    9.36 pm
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): The last remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) came as a great disappointment to me. I had hoped that if the debate were to have any distinction, it might be the distinction of being the last that we would have on this subject. The play has been running a long time. It is time to ring down the curtain. It is taking on a certain period charm, but it is not filling the theatres. Before long, it will have to be relegated to the music hall.
    What a changed climate has characterised our debate. What a contrast it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, from the high days of summer when all the fresh-faced, new Labour Members strode into Westminster in the mistaken belief that Labour had won the election. They know differently now.
    Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall press on. I have not said anything controversial so far.
    Still Labour Members parade the unsustainable devolution case and offer the same wild assertions, the same weak arguments and the same woolly slogans. In every repetition, those arguments become less credible. I believe that Labour Members find them less and less convincing.
    The speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was distinctly defensive and edgy, possibly because he is used on these occasions to being wrongfooted by the Liberal party. This seems to happen increasingly to the official Opposition. Twice before Christmas, the Labour party was wrongfooted by the Liberals on devolution.
    More interesting is the continuing evidence that emerges of the lack of enthusiasm in the Labour party for devolution. When we voted on the Scottish Parliament

    401
    Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 25 November, only 33 Scottish Labour Members and only 44 English Labour Members voted in support of it. I know that there are not many more than that among the English Labour party, but it does not show much enthusiasm.
    Ms. Armstrong: The Minister does not seem to realise that there is a momentum for devolution not just in Scotland but throughout many English regions. Those of us from the northern region want to say to the Government that we believe in giving power to the regions and to all the people in England as well as in Scotland. How can the Minister say that the momentum is in the past? He has not been listening to what has been going on.
    Mr. Lang: I can tell the hon. Lady about the views of English Labour Members from the regions. On 4 March 1986, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) introduced a ten-minute Bill to set up a Scottish assembly. The Bill was opposed not by a Conservative Member, but by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon).
    A year before that, on 5 March 1985, the hon. Member for Cathcart introduced a Bill very similar in purpose, and that was opposed, not by a Scottish Conservative Member, or even an English Conservative Member, but by the then hon. Member for City of Durham, Dr. Mark Hughes.
    But perhaps they were following the guidance of the Leader of the Opposition, who, in 1978, said:
    "The irony of devolution is that it will smash beyond healing the unity of Britain … These devolution proposals offer a maximum of risk with a minimum of gain to the Scots people".
    Opposition Members may say that this is history, but more recently the Leader of the Opposition reaffirmed those views, as reported in the South Wales Echo of 1 November 1985, when he said:
    "Devolution reform will not provide a factory, a machine or jobs."
    It is no wonder that, when in the last general election campaign he came to Scotland, he preferred to talk about what he was pleased to call "the real issues" — health, education and jobs.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), in what I acknowledge was a sincere speech, was right when he conceded that devolution was not an issue at the 1987 election. Many of the opinion polls of that time prove him right. As he will know, an opinion poll published in The Scotsman of 13 March 1987 rated devolution as having 2 per cent. support as one of the most important election issues; by the election itself, a couple of months later, that 2 per cent. had increased to 4 per cent.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden convened his great festival of democracy last autumn on Glasgow Green, which some 50,000 people were expected to attend, to celebrate the importance of devolution. In the event, 5,000 people turned up. That is the evidence of support for devolution in the country at large.
    The Liberals at least have a measure of intellectual integrity in their arguments, which are smoother, slicker, better packaged — what one might call "designer devolution". They are also honest enough to concede the inevitable consequences of devolution — the disappearance of the Secretary of State and the resulting
    402
    reduction in the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster. They are honest, but not very responsible, because they argue for federalism, which, of course, provides the comfortable position that Liberals like of favouring something for which a theoretical case can be made but which nobody actually wants and which cannot, therefore, be introduced.
    I disagree with proportional representation, and also with federalism, but the nonsense of proportional representation particularly undermines the Liberals. It is no accident that one Thomas Hare, who in 1857 devised one of the first PR schemes, gave his name to posterity with the word "hare-brained".
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) quoted Gladstone, but, of course, Gladstone was opposed to proportional representation. Lloyd George, the other great god of the Liberal party, denounced it as a device for defeating democracy. But when the hon. Gentleman complains about the absence of proportional representation because, in Labour's plans, there is no representation for rural areas and so the assembly would be dominated by Labour, I disagree with him because I believe that proportional representation is what breaks the territorial link and damages the representation of rural areas.
    The kind of Scottish assembly proposed by the Labour party would be dominated by the central belt, and centralisation within Scotland could be every bit as damaging to the diverse interests of the Scottish people as any kind of centralisation at Westminster. That would be even more the case, when, as the Opposition propose, the assembly would be of the single-chamber kind and would carry with it the Labour party's commitment to abolish one tier of local government.
    When we ponder the essence of the Labour party's policies, we must turn to the report of the debate on 23 November last year, when the hon. Member for Cathcart said:
    "Scotland is largely administered separately from the remainder of the United Kingdom. However, what Scotland does not have—and it is not the West Lothian question, or perhaps the Cathcart question; I do not care what it is called — is the bureaucratic structure required by that level of administrative devolution so that the views of the Scottish people can be represented and so that they can control their affairs."—[Official Report, 23 November 1987; Vol. 123, c.49.]
    That is what it is all about — more bureaucracy. There can be no doubt at all that if the proposals of the hon. Member for Garscadden and his party were implemented, bureaucracy would be something that we would have in plenty. My reasons for opposing proportional representation are the same as my reasons for opposing the Labour party's Scottish assembly proposals. Proportional representation would destabilise the Government and weaken Westminster—the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
    I raise the topic not to debate its merits in detail but because, as an issue, it reveals very clearly the motivation of the Labour party in bringing forward its proposals—it blows its cover. When, last November, my right hon. and learned Friend asked the hon. Member for Garscadden, if offered the choice between having no assembly and one based on proportional representation, which one he would choose, the hon. Gentleman would not answer the question. He said that it was a false choice and that once the Labour party had achieved an assembly the Scots

    403
    would consider the other matters involved. In other words, "Let us get Labour bottoms on to the leather benches of the Royal high school and then sort out the details."
    Self-interest is the guiding principle behind the Scottish Labour party's conversion to devolution. The Labour party will support a Scottish assembly only if there is no proportional representation, and the Liberals will support it only if there is. So much for the high-principled concern for Scotland's interest.
    A more important issue was raised in the debate, and it was recently introduced by the Labour party. It is one of the slightly newer ingredients of a tired old subject—taxation. In this regard, a dramatic extension of power is proposed in the Labour party's Scotland Bill. In the past, we argued that a Scottish assembly would leave us at the top of a slippery slope. We are no longer at the top of the slippery slope. With these new, stronger powers, we are already half way down it. Nothing could more clearly illustrate the way in which an assembly would go if it came into being.
    Clause 11 of the Labour party's Scotland Bill includes a power to vary personal income tax. "Vary" is a very subtly chosen word, but "vary" equals "raise". The Labour party has opposed all our tax reductions over the past few years. Tax reductions are alien to the Labour party's philosophy. If it were to reduce taxation—let us give it the benefit of the doubt—there would be no gain to Scotland because the United Kingdom Chancellor recoups any reduction in taxation from the Scottish block. Indeed, the Bill provides for that. That would be inevitable. Otherwise the Scots would be asking the rest of the United Kingdom to pay for their self-voted tax reductions.
    All that would be achieved is a switch of resources from the public to the private sector, which is not an obvious goal of Socialism. There would be a temptation for the United Kingdom Chancellor to reduce the Scottish block by the same percentage as any tax cut that the assembly might choose rather than by the cash amount. Thus, Scotland would be penalised. The benefits of any reduction in taxation by the assembly would be nonexistent for the Scottish people. The Scottish Chancellor would not be master in his own house. Scotland would be irresistibly linked to the decisions of Westminster.
    Given all the cries of Labour Members for increased spending on housing, education, health and industrial assistance, what is obvious to everyone is that the purpose of clause 11 is to vary taxation upwards. Having taken the power, it is inconceivable that it would not be used. One has only to recall the Labour party's £28 billion-worth of promises of extra expenditure throughout the United Kingdom at the last election.
    In that regard, we have the view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the Glasgow Herald of 24 November 1986 he was quoted as saying:
    "We know in Scotland people will be willing to pay more for better services, and want the chance to pay more for the better services which the whole Tory approach to national government prevents them from doing."
    That goes a long way to explaining his behaviour as Chancellor. It conjures up a remarkable picture of the Scots straining at the leash to pay more in taxation. Under these proposals, they would get their chance more than they know.
    404
    I am grateful for the intervention of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) at the beginning of the debate, which clarified the position. Clause 11 relates to personal income tax, not to corporate taxation.
    The tax base in Scotland, for income tax only, in the last year for which figures are available, 1985–86—
    Mr. John Home Robertson: What about the poll tax?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should listen; he might find it quite informative.
    In 1985–86, the tax base was £3·4 billion, but the spending on the block of the Secretary of State for Scotland was £6·5 billion. If, for example, the Opposition wanted to spend an extra 10 per cent. — a modest enough ambition—in Scotland, which is £650 million, the income tax that they would need to raise would be £650 million, but, because of the gearing effect, the tax would rise not by 10 per cent. but by 19 per cent.
    That may sound bad enough, but what would happen if the United Kingdom were to decide to reassess Scotland's demands on the United Kingdom Treasury? After all, there would be no Secretary of State for Scotland and there would be fewer Scottish Members of Parliament to try to stop it. It would be reasonable to say that Scotland has its own differential tax-raising powers and therefore can decide its own level of differential help. People would ask why England should go on subsidising Scotland. Alternatively, the Chancellor might take a macro-economic view and, taking account of his obligations to control public expenditure, which has delivered such fine economic benefits, for every increase in taxation he might decide to reduce the Scottish block in proportion. [Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like this, because it undermines their case.
    For every £1 spent in England, £1·22 is spent in Scotland. That is hardly neglect by a remote central Government. As the United Kingdom Chancellor evens out disparities and controls overall public spending, Scottish spending would have to rise by 20 per cent. just to stand still. To meet that, revenue from income tax would have to rise by 38 per cent. just to keep spending at the £6·5 billion level promulgated by the Opposition. If the Opposition sought to improve services on top of that, they would need a further increase of 19 per cent. in tax, giving a total increase of 57 per cent.
    Let us suppose that we have got income tax down to 25p in the pound by then. A 57 per cent. increase would be 14p in the pound extra in income tax for Scotland, leading to an income tax level of 39p. [Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like it, but those, albeit rough and ready, assumptions leave the inescapable message that the Opposition have not thought out their tax proposals. They want to give up the best of both worlds in favour of the worst of both worlds. The central plank of their policy is one of muddle-headed, half-baked lunacy, which would ruin Scotland and its people.
    Mr. Salmond: I compliment the Minister's researcher on having produced these ingenious arguments. My calculation would be that Scotland had a budget surplus of revenue over expenditure of about £3·5 billion. Can we not use some of those funds?
    Mr. Lang: I understand that the hon. Gentleman used to work in a bank before he came here. He is not a very fine example of that bank if that is his view of the position.
    We have said that business would suffer if the proposals were implemented, and the Opposition have criticised us on the grounds that the proposals affect income tax only. We know the cost of income tax increases. However, Opposition Members forget that people work in companies and demand pay rises, and they would want substantial increases to meet the kind of increased tax that they would be paying to a Scottish assembly. They might take industrial action to secure those pay rises, and that would lead to loss of competitiveness, loss of production and a brain drain from Scotland. It is self-evident that companies would not expand in Scotland if they had a choice of going to another, low-tax area.
    The effect of inward investment, on which we have been so substantially successful as we have reduced taxation, would be devastating. We have brought over 300 companies into Scotland over the past seven or eight years, investing £1·6 billion in the Scottish economy and creating tens of thousands of jobs, but the need for greater enticements that would result from the Labour party policy of higher taxation of individuals, or the Liberal party's policy of slashing corporate tax and consequently also burdening individuals, is easy to predict. How long can we expect regional assistance to stay at the same favourable basis in Scotland after we had our own tax-raising powers? At the moment, we have 10 per cent. of the population, but 30 per cent. of the assistance. We would be on a vicious circle of industrial decline. It is no wonder —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was listened to in silence. The same courtesy should be extended to the Minister.
    Mr. Lang: It is no wonder that the business community in Scotland is united in opposition to the proposals. The chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Scottish Financial Enterprise Group are all against it. I meet a large number of Scottish industrialists, and I have never yet met one who favours devolution of this kind.
    Mr. Douglas: The Government have plans for changes in Scottish education, housing, industry and commerce and a whole range of other activities in Scotland. After this debate, we are entitled to know whether the Government have any plans whatever for changes in the constitutional relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lang: I see nothing wrong with the present constitutional arrangements, which provide for the full, substantial and separate debate of Scottish legislative programmes in this Parliament. We are willing to improve the administration of Scotland in any way that can be achieved without undermining the integrity of the United Kingdom.
    The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that devolution was necessary for Labour because it could never win power without it. However, one cannot help wondering why the Scottish National party supports devolution. Devolution is the very antithesis of separation, which is what SNP Members seek. The quintessence of genuine devolution is that it is within the
    406
    unity of a sovereign state. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) was right to quote Mr. Enoch Powell who said that powers devolved are powers retained. The truth is that the SNP wants a Scottish assembly not for the better government of Scotland but for the more turbulent government of Scotland—as a springboard to separation. I would be more inclined to seek the advice of a fox on the design of a hen-run than to seek the advice of the SNP on the construction of an assembly.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington was right to say that real devolution is the kind of devolution that we have given to parents, home-owners, the self-employed, small businesses and the owners of shares in Scotland by cutting state ownership and control. That kind of dispersal of power around the people of this country is a worthwhile form of devolution.
    The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said that a unitary state can retain cohesion only if it recognises the diverse interests of all its constituent parts. I would say to him that a unitary state can survive only if it recognises, above all, the sovereignty of Parliament.
    Mr. McLeish: No Opposition Member has questioned the sovereignty of Parliament. We are talking about bad government in Scotland and the fact that the Government are treating the people of Scotland with contempt. The unity of the United Kingdom could be under threat if that behaviour persists.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman does not understand that it is precisely the sovereignty of Parliament that would be most seriously undermined by the Labour party's proposals.
    We rightly hear repeated reference to the unanswered West Lothian question: how does one justify Scottish Members of Parliament voting on English matters at Westminster while English Members cannot vote on such matters in Scotland? The Liberals and the Labour party both leave that question unanswered. However, it is still central to the debate, and to ignore it is the height of irresponsibility.
    There is another question—the Westminster question. Do Labour Members believe in the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom? The self-deluding nonsense that we hear about their mandate and their claims that they won in Scotland suggest that they do not. They must choose. We know that Labour Governments have governed Britain without a majority in England. Members of the Labour party stood at the general election for election to this Westminster Parliament, and they lost. Scottish Labour Members must either accept the will of this Parliament and the right of this Government to govern or they must face the logic of their position and join the separatists. There is no middle ground.
    The truth is that the Scotland Bill is not a principled measure of constitutional reform. It is about power; it is not about the better government of Scotland. One guiding principle underlies it—brazen self-interest. It is not good for Scotland; it is good for Labour. The Labour party seeks power at all costs and at any price. Labour has abandoned all hope of power in the United Kingdom, so Scottish Labour Members will settle for power in Scotland and dish their English colleagues into the bargain. Members of the Labour party in Scotland who won 70 per cent. of the seats on 42 per cent. of the vote were elected to this Parliament of the United Kingdom and they do not

    407
    command a majority here. I ask this Parliament to protect the unity of the United Kingdom and to protect the people of Scotland from these damaging and cynical proposals.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 316.

    Division No. 155]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Fearn, Ronald

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Allen, Graham

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

    Alton, David

    Fisher, Mark

    Anderson, Donald

    Flannery, Martin

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Flynn, Paul

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Foster, Derek

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Foulkes, George

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Fraser, John

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Barron, Kevin

    Galloway, George

    Battle, John

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Beckett, Margaret

    George, Bruce

    Beggs, Roy

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Beith, A. J.

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Golding, Mrs Llin

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

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Blair, Tony

    Grocott, Bruce

    Blunkett, David

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Boateng, Paul

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Haynes, Frank

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Henderson, Douglas

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Buchan, Norman

    Holland, Stuart

    Buckley, George

    Home Robertson, John

    Caborn, Richard

    Hood, James

    Callaghan, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Howells, Geraint

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hoyle, Doug

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Clay, Bob

    Illsley, Eric

    Clelland, David

    Ingram, Adam

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Janner, Greville

    Cohen, Harry

    John, Brynmor

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Cousins, Jim

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Crowther, Stan

    Kennedy, Charles

    Cryer, Bob

    Kilfedder, James

    Cummings, J.

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Lamond, James

    Darling, Alastair

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Leighton, Ron

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lewis, Terry

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

    Livsey, Richard

    Dewar, Donald

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dixon, Don

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Dobson, Frank

    Loyden, Eddie

    Doran, Frank

    McAllion, John

    Douglas, Dick

    McAvoy, Tom

    Dunnachie, James

    McCartney, Ian

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Macdonald, Calum

    Eadie, Alexander

    McFall, John

    Eastham, Ken

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McKelvey, William

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    McLeish, Henry

    Fatchett, Derek

    McTaggart, Bob

    Faulds, Andrew

    McWilliam, John

    408

    Madden, Max

    Rowlands, Ted

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Salmond, Alex

    Marek, Dr John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Martin, Michael (Springburn)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Martlew, Eric

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Maxton, John

    Short, Clare

    Meacher, Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Snape, Peter

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Soley, Clive

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Spearing, Nigel

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Morley, Elliott

    Steinberg, Gerald

    Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

    Stott, Roger

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

    Strang, Gavin

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Straw, Jack

    Mullin, Chris

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Murphy, Paul

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Nellist, Dave

    Thomas, Dafydd Elis

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Turner, Dennis

    O'Brien, William

    Vaz, Keith

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wall, Pat

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wallace, James

    Patchett, Terry

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Pendry, Tom

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Pike, Peter

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Prescott, John

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

    Radice, Giles

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Randall, Stuart

    Wilson, Brian

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Winnick, David

    Reid, John

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Worthington, Anthony

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Wray, James

    Robertson, George

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Rogers, Allan

    Rooker, Jeff

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Mr. Frank Cook and

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Mr. Alun Michael.

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Alexander, Richard

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Allason, Rupert

    Bright, Graham

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Amess, David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Amos, Alan

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

    Arbuthnot, James

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Ashby, David

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Burns, Simon

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Burt, Alistair

    Baldry, Tony

    Butcher, John

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Butler, Chris

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Butterfill, John

    Bellingham, Henry

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Benyon, W.

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Cash, William

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Chope, Christopher

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Churchill, Mr

    Body, Sir Richard

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

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Boswell, Tim

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Colvin, Michael

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bowis, John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Cope, John

    409

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hunter, Andrew

    Couchman, James

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cran, James

    Irvine, Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Irving, Charles

    Curry, David

    Jack, Michael

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

    Jackson, Robert

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Janman, Timothy

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Devlin, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dover, Den

    Key, Robert

    Dunn, Bob

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Durant, Tony

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Eggar, Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Knowles, Michael

    Evennett, David

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lang, Ian

    Fallon, Michael

    Latham, Michael

    Farr, Sir John

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Favell, Tony

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Forman, Nigel

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lightbown, David

    Forth, Eric

    Lilley, Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Franks, Cecil

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Freeman, Roger

    McCrindle, Robert

    French, Douglas

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Gill, Christopher

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Maclean, David

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Malins, Humfrey

    Gorst, John

    Mans, Keith

    Gow, Ian

    Maples, John

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Marlow, Tony

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Mates, Michael

    Gregory, Conal

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Grist, Ian

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Ground, Patrick

    Mellor, David

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Miller, Hal

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mills, Iain

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hannam, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Moate, Roger

    Harris, David

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hayward, Robert

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Mudd, David

    Heddle, John

    Needham, Richard

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Neubert, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hind, Kenneth

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Holt, Richard

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Howard, Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

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

    Page, Richard

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Paice, James

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Patnick, Irvine

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    410

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Sumberg, David

    Portillo, Michael

    Summerson, Hugo

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Price, Sir David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Raffan, Keith

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Redwood, John

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Renton, Tim

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Riddick, Graham

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thorne, Neil

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Thurnham, Peter

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Tracey, Richard

    Rost, Peter

    Tredinnick, David

    Rowe, Andrew

    Trippier, David

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Trotter, Neville

    Ryder, Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Walden, George

    Scott, Nicholas

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waller, Gary

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Walters, Dennis

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Ward, John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Shersby, Michael

    Watts, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wells, Bowen

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wheeler, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Whitney, Ray

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wilshire, David

    Squire, Robin

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Woodcock, Mike

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Yeo, Tim

    Steen, Anthony

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stern, Michael

    Stevens, Lewis

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on Amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 227.

    Division No. 156]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Alexander, Richard

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Body, Sir Richard

    Allason, Rupert

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Boswell, Tim

    Amess, David

    Bottomley, Peter

    Amos, Alan

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bowis, John

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Ashby, David

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Baldry, Tony

    Bright, Graham

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Bellingham, Henry

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Bendall, Vivian

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

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Benyon, W.

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Burns, Simon

    411

    Burt, Alistair

    Hayes, Jerry

    Butcher, John

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Butler, Chris

    Hayward, Robert

    Butterfill, John

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Heddle, John

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Cash, William

    Hind, Kenneth

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Holt, Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Churchill, Mr

    Howard, Michael

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

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

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Cope, John

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hunter, Andrew

    Couchman, James

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cran, James

    Irvine, Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Irving, Charles

    Curry, David

    Jack, Michael

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

    Jackson, Robert

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Janman, Timothy

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Devlin, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dover, Den

    Key, Robert

    Dunn, Bob

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Durant, Tony

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Eggar, Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Knowles, Michael

    Evennett, David

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lang, Ian

    Fallon, Michael

    Latham, Michael

    Farr, Sir John

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Favell, Tony

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Forman, Nigel

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lightbown, David

    Forth, Eric

    Lilley, Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Franks, Cecil

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Freeman, Roger

    McCrindle, Robert

    French, Douglas

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Gill, Christopher

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Maclean, David

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Malins, Humfrey

    Gorst, John

    Mans, Keith

    Gow, Ian

    Maples, John

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Marlow, Tony

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Mates, Michael

    Gregory, Conal

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Grist, Ian

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Ground, Patrick

    Mellor, David

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Miller, Hal

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mills, Iain

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hannam, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Moate, Roger

    Harris, David

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    412

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Squire, Robin

    Mudd, David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Needham, Richard

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stern, Michael

    Neubert, Michael

    Stevens, Lewis

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Sumberg, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Summerson, Hugo

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Page, Richard

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Paice, James

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Thorne, Neil

    Portillo, Michael

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Price, Sir David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Raffan, Keith

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Tracey, Richard

    Redwood, John

    Tredinnick, David

    Renton, Tim

    Trippier, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Trotter, Neville

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Riddick, Graham

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Walden, George

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Waller, Gary

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Walters, Dennis

    Rost, Peter

    Ward, John

    Rowe, Andrew

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Warren, Kenneth

    Ryder, Richard

    Watts, John

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Wells, Bowen

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Wheeler, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Whitney, Ray

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wilshire, David

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Woodcock, Mike

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Yeo, Tim

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Shersby, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mr. Robert Boscawcn and

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Blunkett, David

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Boateng, Paul

    Allen, Graham

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Alton, David

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Anderson, Donald

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Buchan, Norman

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Buckley, George

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Caborn, Richard

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Barron, Kevin

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Battle, John

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Beckett, Margaret

    Canavan, Dennis

    Beggs, Roy

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Beith, A. J.

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

    Clay, Bob

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clelland, David

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Blair, Tony

    Cohen, Harry

    413

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hood, James

    Corbett, Robin

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Cousins, Jim

    Howells, Geraint

    Crowther, Stan

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cryer, Bob

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Cummings, J.

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Darling, Alastair

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Illsley, Eric

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Ingram, Adam

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

    Janner, Greville

    Dewar, Donald

    John, Brynmor

    Dixon, Don

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Dobson, Frank

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Douglas, Dick

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dunnachie, James

    Kennedy, Charles

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Kilfedder, James

    Eadie, Alexander

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Eastham, Ken

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Lamond, James

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Fatchett, Derek

    Leighton, Ron

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lewis, Terry

    Fearn, Ronald

    Livsey, Richard

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Fisher, Mark

    Loyden, Eddie

    Flannery, Martin

    McAllion, John

    Flynn, Paul

    McAvoy, Tom

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    McCartney, Ian

    Foster, Derek

    Macdonald, Calum

    Foulkes, George

    McFall, John

    Fraser, John

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    McKelvey, William

    Galbraith, Samuel

    McLeish, Henry

    Galloway, George

    McTaggart, Bob

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    McWilliam, John

    George, Bruce

    Madden, Max

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Marek, Dr John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Martin, Michael (Springburn)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Maxton, John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Meacher, Michael

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Meale, Alan

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Haynes, Frank

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Henderson, Douglas

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hinchliffe, David

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Holland, Stuart

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Home Robertson, John

    Morley, Elliott

    414

    Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

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

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

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

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Mullin, Chris

    Snape, Peter

    Murphy, Paul

    Soley, Clive

    Nellist, Dave

    Spearing, Nigel

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    O'Brien, William

    Steinberg, Gerald

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stott, Roger

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Strang, Gavin

    Patchett, Terry

    Straw, Jack

    Pendry, Tom

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Pike, Peter

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Thomas, Dafydd Elis

    Prescott, John

    Turner, Dennis

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Vaz, Keith

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Wall, Pat

    Radice, Giles

    Wallace, James

    Randall, Stuart

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Reid, John

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Robertson, George

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rogers, Allan

    Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

    Rooker, Jeff

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wilson, Brian

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Winnick, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Salmond, Alex

    Worthington, Anthony

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wray, James

    Sheerman, Barry

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Short, Clare

    Mr. Frank Cook and

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. A. W. Michael.

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House rejects the arguments for constitutional change that would be disruptive, unworkable, costly to implement and destabilising in their effect; and in particular rejects the added tax burden that would fall on the people of Scotland from a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Immigration Rules
10.29 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1987–88, No. 208), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th December 1987, be disapproved.
We tabled the motion opposing the rules for reasons which I shall describe as briefly as possible in the restricted time at my disposal. I know very well that the Government have promised that in the not-too-distant future there will be a debate on the rules, which will enable the House to discuss the procedures in general and the changes before the House tonight, which must be approved by the House if they are to be in place by 1 February and therefore passed into administrative law. But we wished to take the opportunity of debating the proposed changes tonight because it seemed to us that every opportunity should be seized to deal with something that is wrong in principle and in our judgment will be catastrophic in practice.
I have no doubt that the Minister of State will describe the changes proposed by the Government almost entirely in administrative terms, and suggest, as the Home Secretary suggested at the beginning of his speech on Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, that the only purpose and intention of the changes is to improve the administrative efficiency of immigration control.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether more people will benefit or more will suffer by the rules?
Mr. Hattersley: My entire speech will be devoted to the proposition that more people will suffer than will benefit.
I was delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I had hoped I would have an opportunity to remind him that last time we debated these matters, after much passing of notes from the Front Bench, he announced, reading the Minister of State's note, that the primary purpose rule, as at present constituted, was invented by the Labour Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to check up on that, and that he will correct himself during the evening.
I was saying that the Minister of State will no doubt argue, as the Home Secretary argued, when he dealt with this subject, slightly inappropriately, on the Immigration Bill, that the purpose of these administrative changes is to improve the efficiency of the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office. No Opposition hon. Member, certainly nobody who deals with immigration matters in his or her constituency, doubts that there is a desperate necessity for administrative changes in the Home Office.
The fact is that the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office is in absolute chaos. Men and women who do no more than to apply to exercise their legal rights wait for months, sometimes years, to receive the vouchers and the visas which should be theirs automatically. Letters remain unopened in Lunar house for months. Indeed, checking up today I discovered that, on the latest information, in late December the department was opening—not reading, but opening—letters received during the early weeks of October. That is ludicrous. It is
416
within the experience of all hon. Members who deal with such questions that people who want and need immediate attention from the Home Office are unable to obtain it.
The absurdity to end all absurdities is that many visitors to this country who want to leave at the end of their prescribed period are now unable to do so because the Home Office has their passports; they are lost at Lunar house and the Home Office cannot return them in time for the visitors to leave by the prescribed date.
In fact, the Home Office immigration and nationality department is in a shambles, for reasons for which the Government are largely responsible. Over the past eight years, this Government have complicated and extended the immigration rules. Over the past eight years, they have allowed to exist a shortage of staff in the department, which has made the delays and the late replies inevitable. Over the past eight years, the Government have built up a number of extra barriers outside the official regulations, which are in themselves time-consuming.
I give as my example the third and fourth interview. Everybody with immigrants in his or her constituency will have seen applications from genuine husbands and fiancés to join their wife or fiancee in this country, in response to which there has been a letter from the Home Office saying that an interview is necessary. When the applicants have written to the Home Office and said that there has been an interview, they have been told that a second or a third interview is necessary. Everybody knows that those extended interviews are intended to inhibit and deter legitimate immigrants from entering this country.
The position is further complicated by the subjective tests that the Government have invented. The family admitted for settlement, after careful scrutiny by an embassy or a high commission abroad, is required to submit itself to futher scrutiny after a year in Britain. That is intolerable in terms of civil rights and is an additional burden for the Home Office. Most of all, there is the problem of the primary purpose rule, to which I shall return in a moment.
Most of the administrative hurdles which have caused the chaos were created with the specific intention of inhibiting and curtailing legitimate and legal immigration. The immigration and nationality department of the Home Office and the administration of immigration will remain in chaos until the Government change their ways.
The proposals before us barely touch the problem. What is more, they could be —and I fear, with this Government's record, will be — interpreted in a way which further damages the rights of immigrants, prospective immigrants and the families of immigrants. That is only one reason why we shall vote against the proposal tonight.
We will also vote against the immigration rules, and amendments to them, whenever there is an opportunity for as long as they contain the unacceptable features which characterise them. I give as the obvious example the primary purpose rule — the obligation on the man or woman who wishes to come to this country for marriage to accept the onus of proof that the marriage is the primary, indeed the only, purpose of the application to come into the country. That rule discriminates against the black and Asian British. It disrupts and destroys genuine marriages, and it panders, as it is intended to do, to racial prejudice. The Minister of State should tell the Home

417
Secretary that we will take every opportunity—tonight is one opportunity — to demonstrate our distaste for such rules while they remain in force.
The rules were instituted with the idea of delaying immigration. The regulations place an obligation on a junior civil servant to read the mind of a fiancé and on someone in a high commission or an embassy to try to guess the true intention of an applicant. All these things cause delay and chaos.
The vote tonight is meant to send a second message to the Government. We will not accept the exclusion of Members of Parliament from the consideration of immigration applications by constituents. The Minister of State has developed the habit, in his bland way, of saying in the final sentence of his letter to hon. Members about legitimate cases that he will notify the constituent direct when he has made up his mind about that person's future. That is meant to prevent the Member of Parliament from fulfilling his or her proper function of arguing the case of the constituent. The intention is to remove from the Member of Parliament the right to protect his or her constituent.
Now that the Home Secretary has replied to my complaint on the matter, 12 weeks after receiving my original letter, I want to tell the Minister of State that those of us with constituency cases to argue on the immigration rules will go on arguing them; we will not abandon the rights of our constituents to junior officials at the Home Office, and certainly not to the Minister of State.
I welcome the fact that we are to debate the rules in their entirety next month. As for the specific changes that the Minister of State will put forward, I have nothing to say about au pairs, although I suspect that the Minister may feel that it is a subject worthy of his attention. I will not argue with him about that. The proposal for fiancés is sensible. We welcome it. I hope that it will be implemented in the spirit in which the rules are drafted.
We are told that visitors will normally be allowed to remain in this country for six months, as distinct from what happens under the present rule, which allows— some White Papers imply that it is a normal rule—for a year. In fact, the six-month period in the new regulations is more or less what the present rule says. A period of six months will "normally be appropriate." The present rule says that that is the period that should be granted and normally it will not be reduced below six months, unless there is a special reason. In the experience of many Opposition Members, there are innumerable special reasons for visitors which result in visas or permits being granted for less than six months. One special reason which I encounter every Saturday morning is that the visitor comes from Bangladesh, Pakistan or India.
I want the Minister of State to be categoric. He has seen the tables; he knows the figures. He knows that a visitor from Bangladesh has a worse chance of getting a visa, permit or entry voucher than a visitor from any other country. He knows that it is almost as bad for people from Pakistan and that it is nearly as bad for those from India. I want the Minister to tell us categorically whether the Government mean what the regulations say.
Can we be told, clearly and loudly enough for the immigration officers to hear and understand, that six months will he the general rule for all legitimate visitors? To convince us that that is really his intention, and that
418
it is not his intention to reduce the maximum period and then issue visas for much shorter periods within the six-month maximum, will the Minister of State consider publishing the instructions which he will issue to immigration officers telling them now to apply the six-month rule?
Those of us who have dealt with the Department and have telephoned and argued with duty officers on Saturdays and Sundays know that there is something called the code 3 procedure. It is a technique by which immigration officers who have no evidence which justifies the exclusion of a visitor or the limiting of a visitor's permit impose a limitation because they feel uncertain about the visitor. That is absolutely unacceptable and intolerable. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the six months is the six-month norm, the six-month rule, and that six months will be the period allowed except when there is hard evidence to justify an alternative.
Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he means by a legitimate visitor?
Mr. Hattersley: It is a visitor against whom there is no evidence to suggest that he or she will not leave at the end of the period of his or her visit. I think that I have in my constituency probably 20, 30 or 40 applications a month for a visitor's permit. Some are granted willingly by the Home Office, some are granted grudgingly after intervention, and a few are not granted at all. I cannot recall the last occasion when the Home Office wrote to me and said that a legitimate visitor, approved after my intervention, had remained in the United Kingdom longer than the period of his or her visit; yet the rumour—I am sure that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has spread it in his time—is that visitors come here and disappear into the inner cities. I cannot recall when that last happened in Birmingham.
Mr. Carlisle: Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore say that his judgment on legitimacy is to be followed rather than the judgment of Home Office officials or Home Office Ministers?
Mr. Hattersley: The rule which I want to see applied is that a visitor should be allowed into this country for the six-month period unless there is hard evidence to demonstrate why that should not happen. The hon. Gentleman should support that rule because, if a white South African comes here, that is exactly the rule that will be applied to him. Unfortunately, it is not the rule that will be applied to a citizen of Pakistan, India or Bangladesh.
It is our view, as I think it is of everyone who has examined the proposals, that this will not end the administrative chaos in the Home Office. That will only come about by radical changes which, in the interests of the immigration and nationality department's reputation and in the interests of prospective immigrants and their families, ought to be brought about. I offer the Minister of State four proposals for change which would end the backlog, the waiting, the unopened letters and the chaos.
First, there ought to be an independent inquiry into the administration of the department and into the staff levels of the Home Office where immigration matters are considered. I concede that the Rayner inquiry into some aspects of Government efficiency brought some benefits.

419
If Lord Rayner could be persuaded to do such a job for the immigration department of the Home Office, I would welcome it. In any event, somebody should.
Secondly, we should abolish the probationary period for people who are already here, who have come here with visas after they have been vetted, scrutinised, cross-examined, interviewed in the subcontinent or elsewhere. The idea of double jeopardy— the interview before one comes and another complicated process after one has got here—is preposterous.
Thirdly, we need the removal of subjective tests, which are wrong in principle and time-wasting in practice. By that I mean the reading of visitors' minds, trying to determine their intention, and also the primary purpose rule, with the onus on the spouse to prove that he or she comes here for no other purpose than marriage.
Fourthly, the six-month period should be the normal practice save where there are exceptional reasons why it should not he. Instead of that, we will get additional complications. We will get them from the Immigration Bill now going through the House of Commons. All the Bill will do to the regulations is make them more difficult to apply and increase the length of the queues.
But I do not believe for a moment that the Minister of State will accept our advice. Not only is he not empowered to do so, but our advice would bring into the system something that the Government would not accept—an honest, objective and fair test of the real and honest immigrant; whereas the Government's regulations are meant to deter and inhibit even the honest and legitimate immigrant. That is why the Home Office is in the chaos that it is tonight, and that is why it will remain in that chaos until the Government take an honest and honourable view about these matters.
10.47 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I have listened with astonishment, almost with disbelief, to what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said. He lectures us about the delays at Lunar house, and he is right—they are excessive. One reason is the great number of applications that we received for registration for British citizenship before the end of last year.
Mr. Robin Corbett: The delays are too long.
Mr. Renton: I suggest that the hon. Member listens for a moment.
We received a great number of applications. This is a once-for-all problem. The matter is now over and the applications are in, but they have to be dealt with. I fully agree with the hon. Member that the delays are far too great, and I will come to that later. But when we come forward with constructive proposals in this statement to deal with the delay, suggesting that we should ease the entry time limits for businessmen, au pairs, fiancés and visitors and, in this manner, as I shall shortly explain, substantially reduce the caseload at Lunar house on mechanistic, routine work in order that the immigration and nationality department can spend its time on more complex matters—including the representations made by hon. Members — the right hon. Gentleman says that Opposition Members will vote against them on principle.
What a ludicrous contradiction there is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
Mr. David Winnickrose—
Mr. Keith Vaz rose—
Mr. Renton: No, I will not give way just at the moment; the debate is a short one and I hope that both hon. Members will have time to make their own contributions.
What a contradiction there is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. We have come forward with these proposals. I find it impossible to believe that the Labour party will oppose them, because they would achieve precisely one of the objectives on which hon. Members are lecturing us.
Then the right hon. Gentleman complains about the proposals that we may have in mind for changes in the handling of hon. Members' representations in immigration cases. We are not debating those tonight, and it would be out of order to do so, but let me repeat something, because I want to make certain that the right hon. Gentleman is not confused about this. He talked about a full debate next month on the regulations. The debate next month will be on the Report and Third Reading of the Immigration Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
Mr. Hattersley rose—
Mr. Renton: I should like to make this point, and 'then I shall give way.
We are still working on changes, along the lines that my right hon. Friend announced on Second Reading, in the handling of Members' representations on immigration cases. [Interruption.] It would be helpful if the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would listen. I am trying to set him right, because he appeared to be in ignorance in his earlier remarks.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined our ideas on this matter in a letter to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on 20 January. I should like to read one paragraph of it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not object to this, but I know that he has distributed this letter widely to his colleagues. It says:
"We have no intention of removing the rights of an MP to write to Tim Renton or myself about individual cases. The review which we have undertaken is intended, within the balance to which I have referred above, to produce proposals for dealing more efficiently with this vast amount of correspondence. Indeed, I hope that as a result we shall be able to offer an improved service to Members and their constituents."
On both points — these modest proposals and our thoughts about how to deal with changes in the handling of Members' representations—the right hon. Gentle:man is leading the Labour party into blind opposition. We are trying to do precisely what he requests to make the system better.
Mr. Hattersley: The Minister graciously informs us that the Home Secretary has no intention of preventing us from writing to him. That is not much of a concession. The idea that the Home Secretary might have any view on whether I should write to him is, at best, impertinent and, at worst, something more authoritarian. The question is not whether I or my right hon. and hon. Friends can write to the Home Secretary; it is whether he replies to us. The evidence of the past six months is that he has chosen not to write to us but to deal with our constituents without telling us how he is dealing with them. That is the question, and I should be grateful for an answer.
Mr. Renton: How gloriously pompous the right hon. Gentleman manages to sound. It brings back the worst moments when he was shadow Chancellor.
It is annoying to be lectured about delays in immigration procedures and in tackling immigration cases and at the same time be told, when we look for ways of making the procedures work more efficiently to help hon. Members, that the Labour party will oppose everything we suggest.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The Minister has been kind enough to say that my right hon. Friend's question was irrelevant, but he has not answered it. He has written to me on more than one occasion saying that he will reply to my constituents, but not to me, about representations that I have made. That is a matter of privilege for this House and has implications in every Department of the Executive, which has the power to decide whether to answer Members of Parliament. There is no point in anybody coming to a Member of Parliament because the answer can be given by a junior clerk, who would have dealt with the case even if the representations are made by a Member of Parliament. Will the Minister now answer my right hon. Friend's question and not make pompous and silly observations?
Mr. Renton: No, I shall not be led down that path, for the simple reason that, providing the business managers can agree, we shall have a debate on these proposals. We do not wish to ram our suggestions through the House; we shall have a debate about what the hon. Lady has said. This not a matter of privilege; that suggestion has already been raised.
What we wish—the hon. Lady must take my word for it—is to have a procedure that will enable officials and Ministers, whoever they are, to deal efficiently and effectively with the complex and difficult cases that concern hon. Members. I suggest to the hon. Lady—I know the correspondence to which she is referring—that she waits until she hears our proposals and we shall then debate them. If she still finds them wrong, she can tell us so.
Let me move on to these modest rules changes. What we are debating tonight implements the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 16 November during Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, and which were laid before the House on 14 December. I hope that the confusion of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has been clarified. These rules are totally separate from the Immigration Bill and from any rule changes consequent upon the passage of the Bill.
I stress again to the House that the purpose of these is to prove the effectiveness of the immigration control and to provide a better service to the genuine applicant. We are introducing them now rather than waiting until after the passage of the Bill, because we believe that these improvements are urgent in view of the current pressures on immigration control.
Here I come back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on 16 November that the immigration and nationality department's backlog of work at the end of 1986 was some 47,000 cases. At the end of 1987, it was about 77,000 cases, the equivalent of seven months' work. I find no comfort in that, and that is why I am suggesting some changes. If the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook
422
were not so blind, and such a mixture of obduracy and apathy, he would support rather than vote against them tonight.
It is common ground that the present position is unsatisfactory, both for the applicants and for the staff seeking to deal with this volume of work. To give hon. Members who might not have as many immigration cases as others an idea of the scale involved, I point out that the immigration and nationality department received over 250,000 new cases last year, an increase of 10 per cent. over the position three years earlier.
Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Renton: No; the hon. Gentleman may have a chance to catch your eye during the debate, Madame Deputy Speaker.
The Department received about 750,000 pieces of correspondence last year. The public inquiry office alone dealt in 1987 with a record number of 192,000 personal callers, an increase of over a quarter in one year, and 162,000 telephone inquiries. The problem is not the result of any lack of commitment on the part of the staff in the Department. They have given excellent service in maintaining immigration control to Governments of all parties. At the root of this is the fact that some 2·5 million members of the ethnic minorities live in the United Kingdom, and there is continuing immigration of work permit holders, business men and others, and continuing family reunion. Understandably, this gives rise to an increase in the number of visitors to this country, which will continue.
Hon. Members have no doubt witnessed this increase themselves in their constituencies and surgeries. Within the Department, the speed at which applications can be resolved is itself influenced by increasing complexity in case law, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) will know, and a diversion of work caused by dealing with inquiries about unresolved cases. Against that background, we need to ensure that our procedures represent the most effective and efficient means of conducting fair but firm immigration controls. It is against that background that we are bringing in these changes.
What is at the heart of what we are proposing? One of the principles underlying the present immigration control is that a person is granted a period of leave on arrival and further periods of leave in this country. These together allow him to stay, if he so chooses, either until he completes the maximum period allowed or until he reaches the point at which he is eligible to apply for settlement. This has been a sensible principle and it is one which in some cases will need to be maintained. For example, students on long-term courses are usually admitted for the duration of their course. On the other hand, a student embarking on a series of short courses may not always be clear whether he will continue his studies in the United Kingdom, or for how long. The immigration and nationality department will need to be satisfied that he or she continues to attend classes, and to have sufficient money to pay his fees and support himself and any dependants.
The rule changes establish the new principle that, once a person has been given entry into a particular category, he should normally be given the maximum period allowed in that category up to the point at which he or she would have to leave the country or seek to remain on a

423
completely different basis. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook gave the impression that the changes would be trifling and would have very little effect. I have to tell him that he is wrong. I certainly hope that he is wrong; I believe that he will be wrong. The proposal will remove the need for extensions of stay within the same category and will take about 40,000 cases annually from the total completed workload at Lunar house, which in 1987 was some 233,000 cases. That is a reduction of nearly 20 per cent.
There will he a number of benefits from this approach. Many people who now have to apply to the department for an extension of stay will not in future have to do so at all. Others will have to do so much less often. The resources of the department — hon. Members on both sides of the House should approve of this—will be able to be deployed to deal more quickly with non-routine applications, thereby improving both the effectiveness of immigration control and the service to the genuine customer and, I hope, to hon. Members. That is the principle behind the rules changes, and that is why I find it incomprehensible that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not advising his hon. Friends to vote for them.
I shall now deal with the effect for particular categories. Au pairs are currently admitted to the United Kingdom for 12 months and they may apply at the end of that period for a further 12 months' stay, bringing them to the two-year maximum permitted. The rule changes will enable the immigration officer to admit an au pair on first arrival for the full two-year period of her stay here.
Business men and self-employed persons are currently admitted for an initial 12 months, with subsequent extensions of stay of 12 months at a time up to four years, at which point they are eligible to apply for settlement. We are keeping the requirement that business men and self-employed persons are first admitted for 12 months only. This will enable us to ascertain at the end of the initial year that the person has set up or entered into the business for which he was admitted. Provided we are satisfied of this, the person will normally then receive a single extension of three years to bring him to the four-year point.
We believe that these changes will be widely welcomed by foreign business men wishing to establish businesses and create jobs in this country. They will particularly benefit business men from the ethnic communities, as Indian business men, for example, represented some 10 per cent. of all business men receiving an extension of stay in 1986.
The present provisions for persons of independent means, sole representatives of overseas firms as defined in the new paragraph 32, writers and artists are the same as those for business men, except that, after an initial 12 months, a sole representative may be granted a three-year extension of stay. The rules changes will accord the same treatment to all four categories and will permit them to be admitted for up to the four-year maximum on arrival.
For visitors, we propose two changes, one in the rules themselves and one in procedure. The rules change is that the maximum length of a visit will be reduced from 12 months to six months. The procedural change—I repeat this to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—is that, with very few exceptions, all visitors will be admitted for six months on entry. This contrasts with the present
424
practice, whereby, although many visitors are admitted for six months, a sizeable minority are admitted for shorter periods but may apply for an extension.
I believe that this reduction to six months is entirely justified on its merits. Six months is an adequate — indeed, very generous—provision for a visit. It will meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of non-EEC visitors, who totalled about 5·4 million in 1986. In fact, less than 0·5 per cent. of all visitors apply for an extension beyond six months. It will nevertheless reduce the scope of abuse by that small minority who use the present period of 12 months to establish a more permanent basis of stay. Moreover, it will benefit the genuine visitor who will no longer have to come to the immigration and nationality department to seek an extension of stay, and remove a large number of applications for the department itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) was absolutely right to point out that the winners under these proposals far outnumber the losers.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell rose—
Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way. I wish to make haste and finish my remarks. Many other hon. Members wish to speak, and time for the debate is short.
The effect of the changes is that more visitors will potentially benefit from the procedural change of admitting them for six months than will lose from the reduction to six months. In fact, there will be about eight times as many winners as losers. Taking 1986 as the most recent example for which figures are available, about 280,000 visitors were admitted for less than six months, while less than 10 per cent. of that number — about 25,000 — were granted an extension of stay for more than six months. That shows the degree to which more will benefit than will lose. It does not apply just to visitors from countries such as the United States and Australia, although they will benefit too. Nearly 24,000 visitors from India were admitted to the United Kingdom in 1986 for less than six months, while only 5,000 were granted an extension of stay for longer than six months.
The United Kingdom is virtually alone in its generosity to visitors to stay for 12 months. Most west European countries—for example, France and West Germany — require all visitors to obtain a visa if they intend to stay more than three months. Some countries—for example, the Nordic countries—limit a visit to, say, three months in any six-month period. Some countries, such as Canada, limit a visit to a short initial period on entry, with the possibility of an extension of stay. Our proposal has none of that bureaucracy. For most visitors, it will do away with the need to seek an extension of stay. Six months will also be no less a period than that permitted to a British person wishing to visit many other countries—for example, a British visitor to India.
On Second Reading, some anxiety was expressed that a six-month maximum for a visit would not properly take account of compassionate reasons for a longer stay. As my right hon. Friend then said, it will always be possible on compassionate grounds to allow visitors to stay for longer than six months. The same situation arises now, when there are compassionate reasons for a visitor wishing to stay more than 12 months. Discretion will, however, continue to be exercised only very sparingly and in genuinely deserving cases.

425
Finally, I should also mention that affianced people of both sexes will be admitted for six months, instead of three months at present. This will reduce the need for a fiancé to apply for an extension of stay if, for example, through illness, a marriage has to be postponed.
The changes relate only to time limits and to the length of extensions of stay. They have nothing to do with primary purpose. They have nothing to do with third or fourth visit interviews for those seeking settlement in this country. The criteria for entry into such categories remain unaltered, as do those for extentions of stay. The changes that we are introducing for au pairs, business men, visitors and others will enable us to give them—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way.
Mr. Faulds: It is a perfectly valid point.
Mr. Renton: I know the hon. Gentleman well. His points are always valid. I hope that he will be able to make them in his own speech.
The changes will enable us to give more generous periods of stay than at present. Therefore, transitional provisions are not needed. This is the last point that I have to make to the House.
We shall start to implement the changes with immediate effect from 1 February. There will, however, be certain visitors already in this country, or who will arrive before 1 February, who will be among that 0·5 per cent. annually who wish to stay longer than six months. For those people, paragraph 18 of the statement of changes will enable them to seek an extension of stay as a visitor for up to the 12 month maximum.
My hon. Friends and, I hope, Opposition Members will see that the rule changes represent a sensible and balanced new approach to immigration control. They will cut bureaucracy and red tape in just the way that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook urged. They will improve service to the genuine customer, and they will enhance the effectiveness of immigration control. I commend them to the House.
11.9 pm
Mr. Max Madden: This debate is taking place a few days after a meeting between the Minister of State and a group of black religious leaders. After that meeting they issued a statement, which said:
"we have sought to impress on Mr. Renton our vigorous opposition to the present immigration policies of the British Government. The effect of these policies time and again, for the communities that we represent, is that families are divided, individuals are restricted or even prevented from visiting their relations here, people are deported and losing homes, jobs and even families, others are being detained for days, weeks and months as they seek to get into Britain. This must lead us to the conclusion that even current legislation and the way it is put into effect is racist. New legislation like the current Bill deepens the frustrations and anger already present in the black community — something which could have consequences undesirable to us all."
Those black leaders pressed four specific points on the Minister of State, urging him to take note of their representations and, when we reach Report stage of the
426
Immigration Bill, to withdraw grotesquely offensive clauses which will create considerable difficulties as far as black and Asian communities are concerned.
That delegation was made up of Canon Ivor Smith-Cameron of the General Synod of the Church of England—
Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a meeting which took place at the Home Office and which has nothing at all to do with the motion before the House—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I have understood the hon. Gentleman's point of order. It is for me to decide what is relevant.
Mr. Madden: The delegation consisted also of Rev. Barry Thorley, vicar of St. Matthew's, Brixton; Pastor Io Smith, co-chair of the Conference for Christian Partnership; Mr. Ivan Weekes JP, secretary for community relations, Methodist division of Social Responsibility; Rev. Kennedy Bedford, executive secretary of the community and race relations unit of the British Council of Churches; Ms. Leela Ramdeen, chair of the Cardinal's Continuing Committee for the Caribbean Community—[Interruption.]—Sheikh Gamal Solaiman, head imam of the Islamic cultural centre, Regent's park mosque—[Interruption.]—and Dr. Gurdeep Singh Sethi, Sikh author and journalist.
One benefit of televising the proceedings of this House would be that black and Asian citizens of this country could see and hear the derision with which the names that I have just read to the House have been greeted by Conservative Members.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has produced, as always, an excellent briefing document, which states:
"The main aim of the new rules is to reduce casework, and thus reduce the chronic and growing delays in dealing with applications, in the immigration division of the Home Office at Lunar House. In the briefing, we argue that the new rules will not, of themselves, produce the administrative benefits claimed for them and that their only certain result will be a restriction on visitors' rights which will particularly affect family visitors. We put forward alternative proposals … for improving administrative efficiency while protecting the interests of applicants."
The joint council has produced the booklet "Out of Sight" which is a useful commentary on the effects of the introduction of the new visa control system. I recall the Home Secretary, before the introduction of visa control, telling the public that those of us who were extremely sceptical about the effects of the new visa controls were scaremongers. I remember the notorious letter from the Home Secretary to Piers Merchant, the failed Conservative candidate for one of the Newcastle constituencies in the general election, that those of us who criticised the introduction of visas were troublemakers and professional pessimists. I object strongly to the fact that the Home Secretary — the architect of the present administrative shambles at Lunar house—has not even seen fit to attend the House tonight, still less to speak in the debate. I believe that the senior Minister, rather than the Minister of State, should take responsibility for that administrative shambles, which now pervades the Home Office, and be called to account to explain to the House what he is doing to resolve the crisis.

427
To my surprise, the one thing that we did not receive from the Minister of State, although we were often treated to it in the Standing Committee on the Immigration Bill, was the delivery of third-rate poems and fifth-rate limericks. Rather than the laid-back nonchalance and apathy with which the Minister has treated the serious criticisms made of the administrative shambles over which he now presides, the House would have benefited from some real information on what he intends to do about it.
If the Minister thinks that the new rules will reduce case work in the Home Office by the 25 per cent. that he has claimed, he is seriously mistaken. What will he do for the many people who come here genuinely and legitimately, particularly elderly people, who wish to stay with relatives and friends? Many of them will want to stay for far longer than six months, but tonight we are discussing the reduction of the legal limit from 12 to six months. Under Government pressure, the Immigration Bill has removed rights of appeal in such cases. Will the Minister seek to deport elderly people who wish to spend longer than six months with their relatives and will he stop us from being able to represent their cases in compassionate terms? If he thinks that he will then see a reduction in the number of representations and letters to the Home Office, he is again seriously mistaken.
What will the Minister do about other genuine and legitimate visitors who come to be with a sick relative, or a woman who is having a baby? They will often want more than six months here, and we shall doubtless be asked to make representations applying for extensions of leave. Will the Minister deport those people? Is he really going to say that Members of Parliament will be powerless to make representations on their behalf? He is entirely wrong if he thinks that the new rules will result in the benefits that he has mentioned.
Let us not be under any misapprehension. In the Home Office, there are now 150,000 unopened letters; it takes a month for the letters even to be sifted into categories. In B2, the work has reached a level of seven cases per officer. One poor officer has 69 case files on his desk. There is an 18-month backlog in case work inquiries. It is indeed a shambles. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the only responsible action that the House can take is to press for an independent inquiry into the administrative chaos that now grips all sections of the Home Office.
I remember the previous Minister of State, previous Home Secretaries and the present Home Secretary, among others, telling us that the introduction of visas would resolve all the problems: they were being introduced only to reduce the queues and the inconvenience at Heathrow and other ports of entry. What has been the reality? I am told that, on Home Office figures, 17,000 people have been refused visits to this country; Foreign Office figures show that 34,000 have been refused visits. All are black or Asian. If the Minister is to reply, I ask him to apologise to me and to other critics of the visa control system. We have been proved right, and he has been proved wrong.
I want to refer to a very disturbing and worrying case. Sylvian Laurent, a 19-year-old Dominican girl, arrived at Gatwick airport recently at 10 am. She had come here for a two-month holiday in my constituency with her grandmother. She carried with her a visa, issued by the British authorities, valid for six months. She also had a letter from her grandmother inviting her for the two-month holiday. In addition, she had a letter from an
428
employer, who happens to be her uncle, who owns a firm based in Dominica, confirming that after the holiday she would return to Dominica to take up a job. She also carried a letter from the Labour Commissioner at the office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Immigration and Labour in Dominica stating:
"Sylvian's grandmother was pleased with her performance at high school, and decided to reward her with a two months vacation commencing on 14 January. She is expected to take up employment … on 14 March.
I have known the applicant and her prospective employer for quite some time now and would be grateful for the issuance of the relevant visa to facilitate her travels, since, to my mind, she is a genuine visitor."
Immigration officers questioned that girl from 10 am until 5 pm. They refused the grandmother access to Sylvian throughout the day. She was tired, frightened and anxious, and it is not surprising that she refused all offers of refreshment. Finally, she was refused entry. She was allowed in to be removed within a few days. Had she not contacted my office and had I not stopped her removal and made representations to the Minister, she would be on her way back to Dominica within days of this debate.
How could immigration officers have suspected that she was coming here as a student, when she was travelling with her school certificates which she wanted to show her grandmother, because she was very proud of them, or that she was coming here to work, when she had a letter stating clearly — had the officers read the letters they would have known this—that she had a job to return to with a firm in Dominica? I cannot understand that. If my powers to intervene had been removed, that girl would have been sent back within a few days of this debate.
I delivered a letter to the Minister's office today asking for a full explanation why the immigration officers were not prepared to accept that Sylvian was a genuine visitor. I stated that Sylvian and her family were so distressed that she was asking that the six-month stay to which her visa entitles her should be granted and that she should have a personal apology from the Minister.
That young woman came here with a visa. I believe that she was treated most disgracefully. I am also aware, from the many cases that are referred to me, that many others who are entitled to come here are also refused visas. Those people are genuine and legitimate visitors. Unless the Minister gives a categoric assurance tonight that the overwhelming number of applicants will be given a six-month visa, black and Asian people will treat these rules with the same contempt as they treat all our laws, procedures and rules concerning immigration. They d o not believe the Minister or the Government.
Since 1971, claims about abuse have been the traditional excuse for introducing more and more restrictions on entry to this country. The rules will do nothing to resolve the administrative difficulties that they are supposed to put right. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the chaos is dealt with and that all legitimate and genuine visitors to this country, especially black and Asian visitors, will be treated properly, fairly and equally.
11.24 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I cannot answer the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) in the voice of passion and indignation that he adopted throughout his speech. However, I doubt whether he represents the true voice of the Asian and black people in this country.

429
There is a pleasant irony in this debate. These small measures are liberalising measures which are brought forward for two main reasons. The first is to try, as usual, to assuage the criticisms of the Labour party. The second is to try to reduce the administrative chaos.
I reflect, as one who has taken an interest in these affairs for some time, that if, for instance, Mr. Whitelaw, as he then was, had been introducing these measures a few years ago, there would have been the usual Tory pantomime. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) would have been going round the Tory party with an offensive early-day motion and we would have got about 100 signatures to a motion saying that we did not want these liberalising measures.
There would have been a much-publicised meeting of the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Whitelaw would have come out sweating and swearing. Later in the week, on advice, the Daily Mail would have wondered whether the Prime Minister supported Mr. Whitelaw in his time of travail. We would then have voted against the liberalising measures.
But here we are about to go into the Lobby in support of liberalising measures which might have been brought forward by any Administration — perhaps not by a Labour Administration, because Labour Administrations are so often tougher on immigration than Tory Administrations—and we shall agree to them.
Yet my hon. Friend the Minister said that he was surprised that the Labour party intended to vote against these small but liberalising measures. I cannot say that I am surprised. The Labour party has always huffed and puffed about any proposals which have any effect of controlling immigration. In doing that they reflect the view that was so passionately, but I would suggest so mistakenly, put forward by the hon. Member for Bradford, West.
I would contend that the hon. Gentleman does not represent the voice of the Asians and the blacks in Britain at the present time. I have some small credentials for claiming to know their voice. The first parliamentary election in which I took part was in 1970, when I unsuccessfully opposed the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). There were a number of immigrants in Small Heath in the late 1960s and 1970s. Immigration was certainly an important issue when I first contested Wolverhampton, South-West in 1974.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke in rather proud terms of having had to deal with 20, 30 or 40 cases a month. If we are swopping the number of immigration cases with which we have had to deal, my recollection is that when I was dealing with those cases in the days before the introduction of visas—I have checked my recollection with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who was the Minister who had to deal with them — I was dealing with 30 or 40 cases a week.
It may be that my views on immigration are not widely shared on the Labour Benches, but I did have, and do have, widespread contacts with a cross-section of the black and Asian community in the west midlands. All I can say is that I have not received many representations to the effect that the new visa system is unfair, racist or authoritarian.
430
Constituents come to me and ask me whether I can help them with individual problems, but as far as I can judge the visa system is in general supported by the immigrant community. I suggest to the Labour party, with all decent diffidence, that if it continues to adopt the tone that is adopted by the hon. Member for Bradford, West it will be to its electoral disadvantage.
It is certainly noted by the white community that the Labour party votes against all reasonable changes in the immigration rules, even if they are of a liberalising nature. The tone that the hon. Member for Bradford, West adopts is increasingly the tone that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook adopts. I am not surprised that the Labour party adopts this tone, but it is not the tone that is adopted by the broad mass of the immigrant community. It is adopted by those gentlemen who are employed by the race relations industry and by those Asians and blacks who wish to become Labour party candidates, but it is not the voice of the broad mass of the immigrant community who are now happily settled in this country.
I enjoy the irony of this debate. I dare say that if those of us who wish to keep a strict control on immigration had observed these liberalising rules we might have objected to them. We shall not object to them, but I suggest that it is extraordinarily unwise of the Labour party to oppose these rules on the grounds that they do.
11.31 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: Although the Minister has been in his present job for but a few months, I know that he appreciates all too well that the immigration rules are not only a creature of the law, but a rather peculiar creature of the law. They are not a statute but they have the effect of a statute. They probably have a more direct effect on the everyday lives of people, and on their hopes and aspirations, than many Acts of Parliament, but they are not subject to the same law-making process of statutes, or to the same process of amendment.
I am sure that the Minister recognises that there has been a great deal of litigation, much of it entirely fruitless, because of the way in which these rules are created and amended. I am sure that he recognises, as a realist, that parts of these rules bring United Kingdom law into disrepute — and nothing more so than the primary purpose rule; although I am bound to concede that the production of a wholly objective test to replace the primary purpose rule would be extremely difficult. Nevertheless, surely something better than the primary purpose rule can be devised.
There are some welcome parts in these rule changes, but at first sight they seem to be largely another set of gratuitous and unnecessary restrictions. However, what we have heard so far tonight from the Labour party has been no more than the beating of breasts. Indeed, I feel bound to say that we have heard them beating their breasts so hard that I can hear the echo of the Labour party's conscience from its period in government.
I should like to put to the Minister a number of questions that are put in a genuine spirit of inquiry, so that we can hear his answers on issues that are the subject of this debate, and so that I can decide how to vote tonight and advise my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Will the Minister tell us exactly what is the reason for reducing the visitors' leave period? Will he confirm that

431
visitors whose maximum stay is reduced from 12 months to six will be able to apply while still here for variation of leave for special reasons?
Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: No, because I do not want to take too long.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government have no plans to change the rules so that in future visitors will be unable to apply for variation of leave for special reasons while they are still in the United Kingdom? Will the Minister also confirm that visitors will still have a right of appeal if they are refused variation of leave for special reasons? Will he also tell us whether he really believes that the immigration and nationality department will be saved a great deal of time by this change? Or is it not more likely that the Department will be faced by a huge number of applications for leave to remain, and possibly appeals thereafter?
I ask the Minister to confirm that the reduction to six months is an attempt to produce a standard, to standardise entry leave for visitors, and that generally six months will be the period that is permitted.
Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: No, I shall not give way. I wish to proceed with my speech and thereby give other hon. Members the opportunity to participate in the debate.
Will the Minister confirm that there will not be discrimination against visitors because they come from Bangladesh or other parts of the Indian subcontinent? Will he confirm that visitors will not have their period of leave determined by reason of the country whence they come? [Interruption.] If the Minister can hear me above the braying from Labour Members sitting behind me who are not prepared to take their chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will he confirm that the reduced maximum stay for visitors will not result in a worsening position at entry clearance posts abroad? Will entry clearance officers at British posts abroad issue visas more readily to persons wishing to travel to the United Kingdom for personal and family reasons? I trust that he will understand that this is an especially important consideration in the Indian subcontinent.
The proposed changes place a limit of four years' stay on persons of independent means, writers and artists unless they apply for permanent settlement. Will the Minister explain why this change is taking place? These people are not a drain on public funds and they may do a great deal of good in enhancing the reputation of the United Kingdom abroad, without ever intending to settle here permanently. With the restrictions proposed to paragraphs 121 and 122 of the rules, many of those who are admitted as persons of independent means, writers and artists may lose the right to seek settlement if they have been abroad for lengthy periods during their four years in this country. Will the Minister confirm that those persons will not be handicapped because, for good reason, during the course of their work they have been abroad for lengthy periods during their four-year stay?
Finally, will the Minister explain why there is such a differentiation between business men and ministers of religion, missionaries, members of religious orders,
432
journalists and representatives of broadcasting organisations? Why are the Government choosing to discriminate in favour of business men as opposed to foreign correspondents, for example?
I ask the Minister to demonstrate that the Government are seeking to follow a logical strategy that makes the immigration rules, House of Commons 169, as amended, appear to be a coherent code for immigration officers to administer and for those who are seeking to understand the rules. I hope that we shall hear an answer from the Minister that will enable us to take the view that such a coherent policy is being applied. As I read the proposed changes, it appears that is not the position.
11.38 pm
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: My comments will be shorter than I had intended them to be, because of the time constraint that has been placed upon the House, but I hope that they will reflect clearly the speech that I had prepared.
It was fascinating listening to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). During the consideration of the Immigration Bill in Committee he talked about the immigration rules, and throughout this evening's discussion of the rules he talked about the Bill. He read out long quotations from various sources. The hon. Gentleman makes Senator Biden seem like an original thinker.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spa rkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a dishonest statement—perhaps I should say an inaccurate statement—when he said that when I intervened on 16 November during the consideration of the Immigration Bill I said that the primary purpose rule — he stressed "as currently instituted"—was introduced by the Labour Government on 22 March 1977. I said no such thing, and the record bears me out. It is a fact that the primary purpose rule was originated under the Labour Government on 22 March 1977. My hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that, and added that the rule dealt specifically with marriages of convenience. On the record is the honest case.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that it is total hypocrisy and humbug to vote against the rule changes which will help those who are trying to visit this country and stay here some time longer. A total of 40,000 cases a year will be saved by the introduction of the rules. There are 7 million visitors to this country. I have been to Lunar house and seen the extent of the documentation there. It is not always possible to introduce new technology there, when the documentation must be kept in original form, when the documentation of personal interviews is, by its very nature, copious and detailed. I believe that the rule changes are wholly desirable. For my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to admit that the changes are liberalising and that he will vote for them gives added confidence to all of us on the Government Benches.
We have been through the figures, which show that five times more visitors from India will benefit than will lose; from Pakistan, five times more; from Bangladesh, over twice as many.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mr. Hanley: I have no time to give way. I shall speak to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber later.

433
To say that the rules are racist is blatantly dishonest, because more than 10 times more visitors will now receive six months on entry than will be limited by the six-month maximum. Moreover, as my hon. Friend said about business men, the rules will apply irrespective of nationality. Business men from India, representing more than 10 per cent. of all business men, will receive an extension of stay; indeed, they received extensions in 1986. The business men from India who will benefit from the rule changes number more than the total from the United States, Australia and Hong Kong.
I wish now to comment on some of the quotations from the brief from the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, which was quoted at length—including the joke, which did not go down very well—by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I shall be selective in a different way. UKIAS said:
"The reduction to 6 months is not of itself objectionable and visitors will still be able to apply for variation of their leave for special reasons, and they will have a right of appeal if refused."
That is from UKIAS's brief, which Opposition hon. Members—and I—approve of so much.
It is no wonder that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not want to talk about the change with regard to au pairs, because UKIAS said, "This is welcome." It is also no wonder that Opposition hon. Members did not choose to quote the statement that the change proposed for writers and artists
"is a change for the better."
In other words, UKIAS welcomes these changes. I am glad to say that.
If UKIAS is not good enough for Opposition hon. Members, may I quote the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants?
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Mr. Hanley: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way.
If Opposition hon. Members are not happy with UKIAS, they will certainly be happy with the JCWI, which tends to take a line that is against the Government's views on immigration. I wish to quote from the brief, which has been selectively quoted by Opposition hon. Members, the following passage:
"JCWI welcomes the more realistic period to be granted to fiances and fiancees. We also welcome the move towards giving people the length of stay for which they are eligible and which they want: the present system creates unnecessary bureaucracy and is very unsettling to applicants, who cannot be certain how long they will be able to stay."
In other words, JCWI welcomes the changes in substance.
Since the JCWI and the UKIAS seem to approve of the changes, since the changes will benefit vastly more people than they will harm and since they will get rid of 40,000 cases a year from Lunar house, everybody—not just on the Government Benches—should welcome them. But there should be an urgent review of staffing levels and administrative systems throughout the immigration and nationality department. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that. He is also man enough to admit it. Therefore, I hope that during the year ahead we will see even further changes for the better.
11.44 pm
Mr. Stuart Randall: Some of the changes to the immigration rules, especially those which refer to au pairs, fiancés, people of independent means, writers, artists, business people and the self-employed, are broadly to be welcomed, though they are long overdue. These changes and those for visitors are aimed essentially at reducing the number of times an overseas national must apply for his stay to be extended while he is in the United Kingdom.
In regard to the changes for visitors, which are perhaps the most important of the rule changes, there are serious doubts whether the Government's aims and intentions will be fulfilled, with the threat that visitors' rights will be diminished.
The Home Secretary, who is not here, announced on Second Reading of the Immigration Bill that under the new rules visitors, with small exceptions, will be granted stays of a maximum of six months. When he made that statement, had he read the draft instructions to immigration officers? The instructions, which are unpublished, determine in practice how the rules are to be operated. We are doubtful whether the Home Secretary's statement will be fulfilled in practice.
The Government's track record on the treatment of visitors is far from satisfactory. When the Home Secretary introduced the new visa requirements in 1986, he said:
"The changes have been made … because of the pressure on Heathrow airport in particular."
He said later:
"The changes will improve conditions for all passengers arriving at our ports and for all those in this country who come to greet them.—[Official Report, 27 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 86–91.]
I have documents from members of the immigration service which show that nothing at Heathrow has changed since then.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: As the hon. Gentleman is referring to evidence on the working of the visa system, it may be useful to him and to the House if I give him a straight quotation from my borough's community relations officer—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. An intervention must be a direct question or a very brief comment.
Mr. Arnold: It is a very brief comment. I want to quote the experience of my borough's community relations officer, a Labour councillor, who went to see the operation of the visa system. He said that he was sceptical before his visit to India, but now he thinks that everything is being done fairly. That is what a Labour councillor has said.
Mr. Randall: That was an abuse by the hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind that so many hon. Members want to speak.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, there have been no changes at Heathrow. There were three-hour delays in 1985–86 before the visa system was introduced; in 1987 we have the same delays.
Detention figures indicate that between 14 October and 13 November last year 173 people spent the night in appalling conditions on the floor at Heathrow, with no blankets, no food and no drink. That was not the most busy time of the year. I understand that among those who had to stay in those conditions was a pregnant woman. I also understand that the premises do not comply with the

435
fire regulations. So the problems that the Home Secretary claimed the visa system would eliminate still exist at Heathrow. The Government have failed to tackle the root causes of the problems which are the grossly inadequate administrative systems and staff numbers at Lunar house.
Several right hon. and hon. Members referred to the chaos at Lunar house. Clearly, the magnitude of the problems makes the Government look administratively incompetent. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and other hon. Members said, an independent inquiry is required to investigate and report on the scandal there.
I should like to ask the Minister five brief questions. First, will he increase staffing levels at Lunar house to cope with the growing demand, or will he rely only on efficiency improvements? Clearly, black and Asian family visitors suffer most from the 1986 visa system. It appears that this is because entry clearance officers abroad are changing the criteria for issuing visas. If these rules are approved, it is likely that the same pattern of refusals will occur in the future. Problems for visitors will increase substantially, especially for family visitors who wish to stay for periods beyond six months. Family visitors will tend not to be guaranteed a six-month stay initially. Family visitors tend to be refused entry because of suspicions about their finances or intentions.
We must all admit that there are difficulties in accurately assessing the precise effect of the new rules. What happens in practice is determined largely by the contents of the unpublished document "Instructions to Immigration Officers". Those secret instructions describe how the rules should be operated in practice. Accordingly, I ask the Minister, secondly, to tell us where in "Instructions to Immigration Officers" there is any reference to the discretion that an officer has outside the rules to decide what period of stay is stamped in a visitor's passport.
Thirdly, on what grounds under the new rules and new instructions will an immigration officer grant a stay of less than six months?
Fourthly, in practice does the Minister really expect significantly fewer people to be granted stays of less than six months?
Fifthly, will the Minister tell us what will happen to code 3 applicants, who are regarded by immigration officers as suspicious and are therefore allowed entry of less than six months? Is there a risk that they will not be admitted at all?
Tonight's debate has demonstrated that the Home Office function that deals with those foreign nationals who wish either to visit or to stay in Britain for a limited period is an administrative shambles. It is highly questionable whether the benefits that the Government claim will arise from the new rules will materialise. If so, the current incompetent administration at the Home Office could continue. Visitors will not benefit unless the vast majority are given visas which last for six months, without any increase in the visa refusal rate as a result of immigration officers refusing entry to those who previously would have been granted permission to stay for shorter periods. A certain consequence of the new rules is that visitors, especially family visitors, will find it much more difficult to extend a visit beyond six months, if needed. They will not be able to appeal against a decision that they should leave. That is why the Opposition will vote against the changes.
11.53 pm
Mr. Renton: In the short time available, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for his useful intervention and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for pointing out so succinctly that, including those from the countries of the Indian subcontinent, five times more people will benefit from the rule changes than will suffer — a point singularly not taken on board by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) for his helpful speech. It is nice to get such help, even at times from an unexpected quarter.
To both the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) I give an assurance, repeating what I said earlier, that six months will be the norm for visits. I give them both that assurance. Exceptions will be limited to cases where there is a specific reason for granting less than six months, such as passengers in transit or people who come here for short-term medical treatment. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will be able to persuade his hon. Friends in the Liberal party — all those who are here—to vote with us tonight.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery asked me some other questions. On his question about variation of leave and its still being possible to apply for that within six months, yes, I can assure him that that will remain the same, especially for compassionate reasons. Rights of appeal will remain unchanged, and there will therefore be an appeal right for those who make in-time applications. I will reply to his other, detailed questions by letter.
I turn now to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The House will have heard tonight, from the tone of high-pitched indignation with which the whole of his speech was delivered, what we have suffered in the Standing Committee on the Bill for 62 hours. For 62 hours we have had that noise delivered to us. I do not see what was his point in reading out that list of people from the British Council of Churches. I invited them to come to my office—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I would like to see the Minister's handsome face, even if only in profile.
Mr. Renton: You bowl me over, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your kind words. Thank you very much.
I invited them to my office. We had an extremely useful and friendly discussion—far more friendly, I fear, than it would have been if the hon. Member for Bradford, West had been with us.
I can assure the hon. Member, as I said earlier, that on compassionate grounds people will be allowed to stay for more than six months, as they are now. But I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who demanded an apology for misquotation of figures, that I have already given him in Committee the answer to the figures that he misquoted about the Foreign Office list. I have already told him that the figure that he quoted was not of total refusals but that it did not allow for applications that had been withdraw n or that were still pending receipt. I told him that in Committee, and I am amazed that he came back to that here tonight.
Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: No, I will not, because I have only a minute or two more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made one point with which I would particularly agree, when he referred to the huff and puff that we hear from Opposition Members on this issue. They lecture us when we aim to improve procedures. They lecture us when we try to bring more efficiency into the difficulties that certainly exist at Lunar house at the moment. They tell us that they will vote against these reasonable rule changes. They tell us nothing at all about what they would do. Why do they not tell us their policy, their proposals? The simple reason is that they are scared to bring their policy and their proposals on these issues into the open.
When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was shadow Home Secretary, he told us that he would cancel the British Nationality Act 1981. His successor, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), told us that he would cancel the Immigration Act 1971: all this—and only 1,000 more immigrants a year. We all know that that is impossible, that it is a total contradiction.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes said that Labour's policies on this issue were dominated by hypocrisy and humbug, I would add another ingredient—hysteria. Those are the characteristics that dominate the Opposition's immigration policies. If they have the gall to vote against these reasonable amendments to rules tonight, they will be confirmed in that hypocrisy, humbug and hysteria.
I warmly commend the rule changes to the House.
Question put:
The House divided:Ayes 202, Noes 257.

Division No. 157]

[12 midnight

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Clay, Bob

Allen, Graham

Clelland, David

Alton, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Anderson, Donald

Cohen, Harry

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Corbett, Robin

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Cousins, Jim

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Crowther, Stan

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cryer, Bob

Barron, Kevin

Cummings, J.

Battle, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Beckett, Margaret

Cunningham, Dr John

Beith, A. J.

Darling, Alastair

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bermingham, Gerald

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

Bidwell, Sydney

Dewar, Donald

Blair, Tony

Dobson, Frank

Blunkett, David

Doran, Frank

Boateng, Paul

Douglas, Dick

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunnachie, James

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Eadie, Alexander

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Eastham, Ken

Buchan, Norman

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Buckley, George

Fatchett, Derek

Caborn, Richard

Faulds, Andrew

Callaghan, Jim

Fearn, Ronald

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

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

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Fisher, Mark

Canavan, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Flynn, Paul

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Foster, Derek

438

Fraser, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Morgan, Rhodri

Galbraith, Samuel

Morley, Elliott

Galloway, George

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

George, Bruce

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mullin, Chris

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Murphy, Paul

Golding, Mrs Llin

Nellist, Dave

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

O'Brien, William

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

O'Neill, Martin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Grocott, Bruce

Patchett, Terry

Harman, Ms Harriet

Pendry, Tom

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pike, Peter

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Heffer, Eric S.

Prescott, John

Henderson, Douglas

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Hinchliffe, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Holland, Stuart

Radice, Giles

Home Robertson, John

Randall, Stuart

Hood, James

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Reid, John

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Hoyle, Doug

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Robertson, George

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rogers, Allan

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Rooker, Jeff

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rowlands, Ted

Illsley, Eric

Salmond, Alex

Ingram, Adam

Sedgemore, Brian

Janner, Greville

Sheerman, Barry

John, Brynmor

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Short, Clare

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Skinner, Dennis

Kirkwood, Archy

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lamond, James

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

Leadbitter, Ted

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

Leighton, Ron

Snape, Peter

Livsey, Richard

Soley, Clive

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Spearing, Nigel

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Steinberg, Gerald

Loyden, Eddie

Stott, Roger

McAllion, John

Strang, Gavin

McAvoy, Tom

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McCartney, Ian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Macdonald, Calum

Turner, Dennis

McFall, John

Vaz, Keith

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Wall, Pat

McKelvey, William

Walley, Ms Joan

McLeish, Henry

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

McTaggart, Bob

Wareing, Robert N.

McWilliam, John

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Madden, Max

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Marek, Dr John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wilson, Brian

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Winnick, David

Martlew, Eric

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Maxton, John

Worthington, Anthony

Meacher, Michael

Wray, James

Meale, Alan

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Michael, Alun

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Tellers for the Ayes

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Mr. Frank Cook and

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Mr. Frank Haynes.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Aspinwall, Jack

Alexander, Richard

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Allason, Rupert

Baldry, Tony

Amess, David

Bellingham, Henry

Amos, Alan

Bendall, Vivian

Arbuthnot, James

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Benyon, W.

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Ashby, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

439

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Fallon, Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Farr, Sir John

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Favell, Tony

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Boswell, Tim

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bottomley, Peter

Forman, Nigel

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Forth, Eric

Bowis, John

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Franks, Cecil

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Freeman, Roger

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

French, Douglas

Brazier, Julian

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bright, Graham

Gill, Christopher

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Glyn, Dr Alan

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

Goodlad, Alastair

Browne, John (Winchester)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Gorst, John

Buck, Sir Antony

Gow, Ian

Budgen, Nicholas

Gower, Sir Raymond

Burns, Simon

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butcher, John

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Butler, Chris

Gregory, Conal

Butterfill, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Ground, Patrick

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carttiss, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Cash, William

Hanley, Jeremy

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hannam, John

Chapman, Sydney

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

Chope, Christopher

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Churchill, Mr

Harris, David

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

Haselhurst, Alan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hayes, Jerry

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hayward, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Heddle, John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Cormack, Patrick

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Couchman, James

Hind, Kenneth

Cran, James

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Holt, Richard

Curry, David

Hordern, Sir Peter

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

Howard, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

Day, Stephen

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Devlin, Tim

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Dover, Den

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Dunn, Bob

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Durant, Tony

Hunter, Andrew

Dykes, Hugh

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Eggar, Tim

Irvine, Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Irving, Charles

Evennett, David

Jack, Michael

440

Janman, Timothy

Page, Richard

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Paice, James

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Key, Robert

Pawsey, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Kirkhope, Timothy

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Knapman, Roger

Porter, David (Waveney)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Portillo, Michael

Knowles, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Knox, David

Price, Sir David

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Raffan, Keith

Lang, Ian

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Latham, Michael

Redwood, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Renton, Tim

Lee, John (Pendle)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Riddick, Graham

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lightbown, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Lilley, Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Rost, Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Rowe, Andrew

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Maclean, David

Scott, Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shaw, David (Dover)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Major, Rt Hon John

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Malins, Humfrey

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Mans, Keith

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Maples, John

Shersby, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sims, Roger

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mates, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maude, Hon Francis

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Miller, Hal

Squire, Robin

Mills, Iain

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Sumberg, David

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Moate, Roger

Thurnham, Peter

Monro, Sir Hector

Tredinnick, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trippier, David

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Moss, Malcolm

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Warren, Kenneth

Needham, Richard

Watts, John

Nelson, Anthony

Wheeler, John

Neubert, Michael

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wood, Timothy

Nicholls, Patrick

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Tellers for the Noes:

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Mr. Richard Ryder and

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Oppenheim, Phillip

Question accordingly negatived.

Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[MISS BETTY BOOTHROYD in the Chair]
12.11 am
The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Let me say briefly at the outset that the Committee is faced with an unusually large number of amendments to this Bill, despite the fact that it is purely and simply a consolidating measure. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General made clear on Second Reading, this massive work of consolidation has taken four years to complete. Owing to the very tight timetable that had to be imposed upon the introduction of the Bill, the textual amendments and corrections could not be fully completed. Therefore, the amendments before the Committee correct purely typographical errors or comprise changes of a purely technical consolidating character. I thought it right to make that clear.
Mr. John Fraser: This is a somewhat indigestible diet for the time of night. I should tell my hon. Friends that the Attorney-General, with his characteristic courtesy, gave me advance notice that this problem had arisen because this is such a heavy Bill. We have to accept his word for it that everything that is before us is of a purely textual nature and that not a jot of the law is altered by the Bill. If he can give us that assurance, we shall all be anxious to make progress.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us an idea of the time scale for the completion of the Bill, including the final publication of the Act?
The Attorney-General: It is intended that the Act shall take effect on 6 April this year. Accordingly, if the House approves, further stages will be considered at a suitable time before that.
Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [Lords]
  Clause 9

    COMPUTATION OF INCOME: APPLICATION OF INCOME TAX PRINCIPLES
    Amendment made: No. 1, in page 6, line 39, leave out '70' and insert `69'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 10 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 19

    SCHEDULE E
    Amendments made: No. 2, in page 16, line 28, at end insert
    `and subject also to section 170'.
    No. 3, in page 16, line 36, at end insert
    'and subject also to section 170'.
    Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 20 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 36

    SCHEDULE D CHARGE ON SALE OF LAND WITH RIGHT TO RECONVEYANCE
    Amendment made: No. 4, in page 33, line 21, after 'immediately', insert 'after'.
    Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 37 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 43

    NON-RESIDENTS
    Amendment made: No. 5, in page 39, line 8, after '22(2)', insert 'and (3)'.
    Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 44 to 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 136

    PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 135
    Amendment made: No. 6, in page 113, line 2, leave out 'this section" and insert 'section 135'.
    Clause 136, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 137 and 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 139

    PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 138
    Amendment made: No. 7, in page 120, line 18, leave out 'that office or employment' and insert
    'the office or employment by virtue of which he acquired the shares'.
    Clause 139, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 140 to 173 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 174

    EXCLUDED EMPLOYMENTS
    Amendment made: No. 8, in page 152, line 34, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.
    Clause 174, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 175 to 177 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 178

    CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION
    Amendment made: No. 9, in page 155, line 17, leave out '176' and insert '174'.
    Clause 178, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 179 to 189 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 190

    PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTATIVES TO THE EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY AND OTHERS
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 168, leave out lines 28 to 31.
    The amendment leaves out a saving for a time before the Single European Act came into force. In fact, the Act came into force in 1987, so the saving is not required.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 190, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 191 to 217 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 218

    INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 213 TO 217
    Amendments made: No. 11, in page 194, line 15, leave out 'trade' and insert 'trades'.
    No. 12, in page 194, line 20, leave out first 'of and insert `in'
    No. 13, in page 194, line 35, leave out 'and 218' and insert 'to 217'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 218, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 219 to 241 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 242

    SET-OFF OF LOSSES ETC. AGAINST SURPLUS OF FRANKED INVESTMENT INCOME
    Amendment made: No. 14, in page 215, line 45, leave out '393(8)' and insert '393(9). — [The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 242, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 243 to 280 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 281

    TAX REPAYMENTS TO WIVES
    Amendment made: No. 15, in page 250, line 29, leave out '(4)' and insert `(6)'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 281, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 282 to 348 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 349

    PAYMENTS NOT OUT OF PROFITS OR GAINS BROUGHT INTO CHARGE TO INCOME TAX, AND ANNUAL INTEREST
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 323, leave out lines 30 to 31 and insert—
    '(d) to any payment to which section 369 or 479(1) applies; and subsection ( I) above does not apply to any small maintenance payment within the meaning of section 351.'.
    This amendment is to take smaller maintenance payments out of clause 348(1) rather than, as the Bill is presently drafted, out of clause 349(2).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 349, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 350 to 408 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 409

    COMPANIES JOINING OR LEAVING GROUP OR CONSORTIUM
    Amendment made: No. 17, in page 386, line 20, after `to', insert 'in'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 409, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 410 to 412 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 413

    INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER IV
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 391, line 39, after 'company' insert
    'or, in the case of a company within section 402(3)(b), of its holding company'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, we shall take Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
    The Attorney-General: These are to achieve a more faithful consolidation of provisions in the previous Act. This point has been raised by a solicitor in the private sector, for which all concerned are most grateful.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 19, in page 391. line 42, leave out second 'the' and insert 'that'.
    No. 20, in page 391, line 43, leave out 'of the company'. —[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 413, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 414 to 426 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 427

    REDUCTION OF CHARGE UNDER SECTION 426 IN CERTAIN CASES
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 407, line 15, leave out 'this section' and insert `section 426'.
    This is necessary to reflect the splitting of the previous legislation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 427, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 428 to 502 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 503

    LETTING OF FURNISHED HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION TREATED AS A TRADE
    Amendment made: No. 22, in page 485, line 34, after '833(4)(c)', insert
    `and of Chapter I of Part III of the Finance Act 1971' —[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 503, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 504 to 512 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 513

    BRITISH AIRWAYS BOARD AND NATIONAL FREIGHT CORPORATION
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 494, line 1, leave out subsection (1).
    The amendment seeks to leave out a provision that is no longer required, as the time during which a trigger event could occur has elapsed. In so far as any rights or liabilities have accrued and are still alive, they will be preserved by the provisions of schedule 30.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 513, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 514 to 600 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 601

    CHARGE TO TAX: PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYERS
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 579, line 23, at end insert 'or'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Government amendment No. 25.
    The Attorney-General: The first amendment corrects a typographical error. The second reinstates a reference to

    445
    the old law, rather than to that law as re-enacted in the consolidation, as the application referred to in clause 601(3)(e) would have been made before 18 March 1986. It is thought to be misleading to refer in that context to the consolidation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 25, in page 579, line 28, leave out '590(5)' and insert '19(3) of the Finance Act 1970'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 601, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 602 to 614 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 615

    EXEMPTION FROM TAX IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PENSIONS
    Amendment made: No. 26, in page 589, line 16, at end insert 'or '.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 615, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 616 to 645 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 646

    MEANING OF "NET RELEVANT EARNINGS"
    Amendment made: No. 27, in page 616, line 23, after 'under', insert `section'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 646, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses, 647 to 686 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 687

    PAYMENTS UNDER DISCRETIONARY TRUSTS
    Amendment made: No. 28, in page 649, line 11, leave out founded' and insert found'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 687, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 688 to 712 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 713

    DEEMED SUMS AND RELIEFS
    Amendment made: No. 29, in page 676, line I, after 'before', insert 'on'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 713, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 714 to 718 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 719

    UNREALISED INTEREST IN DEFAULT
    Amendment made: No. 30, in page 683, line 5, leave out '(5)' and insert '(4)'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 719, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 720 to 752 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 753

    NOTICES AND APPEALS
    Amendment made: No. 31, in page 719, line 6, leave out `13' and insert `12'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 753, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 754 to 845 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule 1 to 6 agreed to.

  Schedule 7

    TAXATION OF BENEFIT FROM LOANS OBTAINED BY REASON OF EMPLOYMENT
    Amendments made: No. 32, in page 845, line 21, after 'sections', insert '354(5) and (6)'.
    No. 33, in page 845, line 24, leave out '354' and insert '354(1) to (4)'.
    No. 34, in page 845, line 27, after 'sections', insert '354(5) and (6)'.
    No. 35, in page 845, line 35, leave out '354' and insert '354(1) to (4)'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedules 8 to 17 agreed to.

  Schedule 18

    GROUP RELIEF: EQUITY HOLDERS AND PROFITS OR ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION
    Amendment made: No. 36, in page 914, line 2, leave out second 'or' and insert 'and'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedules 19 to 26 agreed to.

  Schedule 27

    DISTRIBUTING FUNDS
    Amendment made: No. 37, in page 973, line 17, leave out '760(3)(b)' and insert '760(3)(c)'. —[The Attorney-General.]
    Schedule 27, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 28 agreed to.

  Schedule 29

    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 985, line 33, column 2, leave out 'and (6)(a)' and insert ',(6) and (7)(a)'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 39 to 139.
    The Attorney-General: As this is such a prodigious number of amendments, perhaps I should state that other Acts refer to specific enactments the references to which are rendered out of date by this consolidation. Schedule 29 amends those references to bring them into conformity with this consolidation. In other words, it achieves translations. It will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take the amendments together.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 39, in page 985, line 41, column 1, leave out '602(2)' and insert '602'.
    No. 40, in line 48, column 2, leave out '602(2)' and insert '602'.
    No. 41, in line 49, column 2, leave out '605(2)(a)' and insert '605(3)(a)'.
    No. 42, in page 986, line 29, leave out '602(2)' and insert '602'.
    No. 43, in line 31, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'subsection (2) of that section.'.
    No. 44, in line 42, after '267(3C)', insert 'or 278(5)'.
    No. 45, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert—

    447
    `(c) in subsection (4), in paragraph (a) for "85 of the Finance Act 1972" there shall be substituted "239 of the principal Act", and in aragraph (b) for "85" there shall be substituted "239"; and'.
    No. 46, in page 988, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—
    '15. In the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979—

    (a) for "the Taxes Act", in each place where it occurs except sections 1, 31 and 34(4)(a), the definition of "the Taxes Act" in section 155(1) and paragraph 6(8) of Schedule 1 and any provision mentioned in paragraph (b) below, there shall be substituted "the Taxes Act 1988";

    (b) in sections 16, 26, 29A, 32, 35, 75, 84, 87, 98, 107 and 136(10), paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 5 and paragraphs 12 and 21 of Schedule 6 for "the Taxes Act" there shall be substituted "the Taxes Act 1970";

    and in addition the 1979 Act shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in relation thereto in paragraphs 16 to 28 and 32 below.'.
    No. 47, in page 999, line 8, after '333', insert `of the Taxes Act 1988'.
    No. 48, in page 1000, line 5, leave out '619(7)' and insert `620(9)'.
    No. 49, in line 10, leave out '(2)' and insert '(5)'.
    No. 50, leave out lines 12 to 19.
    No. 51, in line 22, leave out '579' and insert '519'.
    No. 52, in line 27, at end insert—

    '5(1)(c)

    from "243(6)" to "1972"

    8(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

    5(2)

    from "the said" to "1972"

    sections 8(5) and 822 of the 1988 Act (over-deductions from preference dividends before passing of annual Act)'.

    No. 53, in page 1001, line 3, at end insert—
    '12(3) 154 or 251(1) 113 or 337(1)'.
    No. 54, in line 12, after '134', insert `(twice)'.
    No. 55, in line 24, after '348', insert 'or 349(1)'.
    No. 56, in line 26, at end insert—
    '85(4) 111 54'.
    No. 57, in page 1002, line 1, at end insert—

    `2, para. 8(1) (c)

    78(1) or 306(1) of the principal Act

    32(1) of the principal Act or section 306(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970'.

    No. 58, in line 7, at end insert—

    61(1)(c)

    463

    706'.

    No. 59, leave out line 20 and insert—

    '30

    47 or 48 (twice)

    824 or 825 of the principal Act or section 47'.

    No. 60, in line 24, leave out '349' and insert '350'.
    No. 61, in page 1003, line 6, leave out '(6)' and insert `(5)'
    No. 62, in line 7, leave out 'that subsection' and insert `section 615(3) of that Act'.
    No. 63, in line 9, leave out '(6)' and insert '(5)'.
    No. 64, in column 3, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert 'section 102, 113(5), 263(5) and (6), 343(10) or 783(9) of the principal Act, or paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, or '.
    No. 65, in line 19, column 3, at beginning insert `sections 6 to 12 and '.
    No. 66, in line 26, leave out '5(3) ' and insert '5(4)'.
    No. 67, in page 1004, line 6, leave out '5(3) ' and insert '5(4) '.
    No. 68, in line 12, columns 2 and 3, leave out

    '286(4)

    419(3)'

    and insert—

    `286(5)

    419(4)'.

    No. 69, leave out line 22.
    No. 70 in page 1005, line 2, after '204', insert `(three times)'.
    No. 71, leave out line 6 and insert—

    'last para.

    from "11" to "to the principal Act"

    102, 113(5), 263(5) and principal Act" (6), 343(10) and 783(9) of the principal Act, to paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970'.

    No. 72, in line 10, column 2, at beginning insert `Chapter'.
    No. 73, in line 10, column 3, leave out 'III of Part XII' and insert 'section 468'.
    No. 74, in line 11, column 3, at beginning insert `section'.
    No. 75, in line 16, column 2, at beginning insert 'Chapter'.
    No. 76, in line 16, column 3, leave out '111 of Part XII' and insert 'section 842'.
    No. 77, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—

    `540(2)

    1979

    1979 and any reference in this Act to the Taxes Act 1988 is a reference to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 78, in page 1006, leave out line 22 and insert—

    `44(6)

    63 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 404 of the Taxes Act'. Act 1987

    No. 79, in line 23, leave out 'the Taxes Act 1988' and insert 'that Act'.
    No. 80, in page 1007, line 10, after 'of', insert 'Part XIV of'.
    No. 81, in line 12, at end insert—

    `para. 13

    533 of the Taxes Act

    839 of that Act'.

    No. 82, in line 17, at end insert—

    '69(4)

    80

    34

    134(2)

    1970

    1988'.

    No. 83, in page 1009, line 6, column 1, leave out `(b)'.
    No. 84, in line 6, column 2, leave out `(twice)' and insert `(three times)'.
    No. 85, leave out line 11 and insert—

    'para. 3(1) (d)

    section 174

    sections 388 and 389'.

    No. 86, in line 16, leave out '349' and insert '350'.
    No. 87, in line 20, leave out '349' and insert '349(1)'.
    No. 88, in page 1010, line 20, leave out '238(1)' and insert '231(5)'.
    No. 89, in line 22, leave out '701(8)' and insert '701(9)'.
    No. 90, in line 23, leave out '59(10)' and insert '58(10)'.
    No. 91, in page 1011, line 2, leave out '41(3)' and insert `41(2)'.
    No. 92, in line 12, at end insert—

    `1(2)

    Taxes Act

    Taxes Act 1970 and Part VIII of the Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 93 leave out line 17.
    No. 94, leave out line 20.
    No. 95, in page 1012, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert

    '74(2)

    sub-paragraph (6) of the said paragraph 5

    section 427(4) of the Taxes Act 1988

    74(2)

    sub-paragraph (2)(b) of that paragraph

    section 426(2)(b) of that Act

    74(5)

    formed part of the said paragraph 5

    were included in sections 426 to 428 of the Taxes Act 1988.'.

    No. 96, in line 9 at end insert—

    '89(1)

    paragraph 1 of the said Schedule 8

    section 251(2) of the Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 97 leave out line 15.
    No. 98, in line 18, leave out '125(8)' and insert '124(8)'.
    No. 99. leave out line 21.
    No. 100, in page 1013, line 2, at end insert—

    '155(2)

    42(1)(2)

    282(1) and (2)'.

    No. 101, leave out lines 22 and 23.
    No. 102, in line 26, column 2, at beginning insert 'subsections'.
    No. 103, in page 1014, line 2, at end insert—

    '64(9)(b)

    154(2) or 155(1) of the Taxes Act

    113(2) or 114(1) of the Taxes Act 1988'

    No. 104, in line 3, leave out '66' and insert '65(5) , 66(5)'.
    No. 105, in line 3, leave out 'Income and Corporation'.
    No. 106, in line 5, at end insert—

    '73(6)

    533 of the Taxes Act

    839 of the Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 107, in line 7, leave out '108(8)(b)' and insert `108(9)(b)'.
    No. 108, in line 19, leave out '213(2)(a)' and insert '213(3)(a)'.
    No. 109, in line 21, leave out '213(1)' and insert '213(2)'.
    No. 110, leave out line 25 and insert—

    '84(2)

    (4) of section 481

    (5) of section 745'.

    No. 111, in page 1015, line 10, column 3, leave out '345(1) (a)' and insert '345(1)'.
    No. 112, leave out lines 15 and 16.
    No. 113, in line 20, at end insert '1988'.
    No. 114, in line 22, at end insert '1988'.
    No. 115, leave out lines 23 and 24.
    No. 116, in page 1016, line 9, at end insert—

    '12, para. 3(3)(b)

    341 of the Taxes Act

    488 of the Taxes Act 1988

    3(3)(e)

    Chapter III of Part XI of the Taxes Act

    Part XI of the Taxes Act 1988

    3(3)

    533 of the Taxes Act

    839 of the Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 117, leave out lines 15 to 19.
    No. 118, in line 23, after 'the', insert 'Income and Corporation'.
    No. 119, in line 24, column 3, after 'the', insert 'Income and Corporation'.
    No. 120, in line 24, at end insert—

    '8, para.11(2)

    533 of the Taxes Act

    839 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 121, in page 1017, line 17, at end insert—

    '113(8)

    532 of the Taxes Act

    838 of the Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 122, in line 27, column 2, at beginning insert `(5) of section'.
    No. 123, in line 27, column 3, at beginning insert `(6) of section'.
    No.124, in page 1018, leave out line 4.
    No. 125, in line 5, at end insert—

    '12(2)(c)

    II of Part I of the Finance (No.2) Act

    IV of Part XIV of the Taxes Act 1988 1987

    13(4)(b)

    the Finance Act 1978

    Schedule 9 to the Taxes Act 1988

    21(3)

    230 of the Taxes Act

    657 of the Taxes Act 1988

    72(4)

    Finance Act 1978

    Taxes Act 1988

    86(3)

    Finance Act 1978

    Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 126, in line 9, at end insert—

    '96

    234(3) of the Taxes Act

    210(4) of the Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 127, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

    '151(1)

    218 of the Taxes Act

    615(3) of the Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 128, line 19, column 2, at end insert 'of the Taxes Act'.
    No. 129, in line 19, column 3, at end insert 'of the Taxes Act 1988'.
    No. 130, leave out line 21 and insert—

    '174(1)(a)

    VII of Part II of the Finance Act 1984

    V of Part VII of the Taxes Act 1988

    174(1)(a)

    92(3)

    757(3)

    174(1)(b)

    1 of Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1984

    4 of Schedule 4 to that Act

    174(1)(b)

    2(2)

    7(2)

    178(1)

    358 of the Taxes Act

    468 of the Taxes Act 1988

    204(5)

    from "478" to "1981"

    739 or 740 of the Taxes Act 1988

    272

    52 of the Finance Act 1974

    519 of the Taxes Act 1988

    272

    the definition of the Taxes Act

    "the Taxes Act 1970" means the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970;

    "the Taxes Act 1988" means the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;'.

    No. 131, in line 26, at end insert—

    '68(7)

    Taxes Act

    Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970'.

    No. 132, in page 1019, line 5, after '5(4)(a)', insert 6(d)'.
    No. 133, in line 5, at end insert—

    '19, para. 16(3)

    from "Part I" to "1983"

    Chapter III of Part VIII of the Taxes Act'.

    No. 134, leave out lines 23 to 26.
    No. 135, in page 1020, line 4, at end insert—

    'In the Housing Associations Act 1985 c. 69

    Section

    62(2)

    341

    488

    62(2)

    1970

    1988'.

    No. 136, leave out lines 14 to 17.
    No. 137, in line 21, at end insert—

    '69(6)

    535 of the Taxes Act

    841 of the Taxes Act 1988'.

    No. 138, in line 22, leave out '65(8)' and insert '78(9)'.
    No. 139, in page 1021, line 8, at end insert—

    'In the Insolvency Act 1986 c. 45

    Sch. 6

    para.1

    204 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970

    203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

    para.2

    69 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975

    559 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988'. —[The Attorney-General.]

    Schedule 29, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 30

    TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
    Amendments made: No. 140, in page 1033, leave out lines 15 to 18.
    No. 141, in line 38, leave out from 'which' to `immediately' in line 39 and insert
    `paragraph 9 or 17(1) of that Schedule applied'. —[The Attorney-General.]
    Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 31

    REPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 142, in page 1036, leave out line 6.
    No. 143, in page 1038, line 3 at end insert—

    '1979 c.14.

    Capital 1979

    Gains Tax Act

    Section 155(5).

    In Schedule 7, paragraph 5; in paragraph 8, in Part I of the Table, the entries relating to sections 265, 352 and 526 of the 1970 Act, the Finance Act 1972, section 29 of the Finance Act 1970, section 67 of the Finance Act 1976 and section 45 of the Finance Act 1977, and paragraph 3 in Part II of the Table; and in paragraph 9 the entries relating to sections 186, 246, 265, 266, 305, 352, 359, 360, 474, 488, and 489 of the 1970 Act, the Finance Act 1972, the Finance Act 1973, sections 26 and 30 of the Finance Act 1974, section 42 of and Schedule 8 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975, section 67 of the Finance Act 1976 and the Finance Act 1978 (except section 64(5)).'.

    No. 144, in page 1039, column 3, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert
    `Section 50(10)(a) and (c).'.
    No. 145, in page 1039, line 53, column 3, leave out (d)' and insert '(e)'.
    No. 146, in page 1040, line 9, column 3, leave out 'and 21 to 23' and insert `, 21 and 22'. —[The Attorney-General.]
    Schedule 31, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with amendments; considered, read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

PETITION

  Gipsy Sites (Avon)
  12.35 am
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Before I present my petition, I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your verbal dexterity and stamina.
  This petition to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled sheweth that
  the undersigned do hereby object to the intention of Avon county to develop gipsy encampments at Marsh Junction, St. Philips Marsh.
  It is signed by 3,000 individuals who live and work in the area. It says:
  The three proposed sites are within an area designated for an urban development corporation and their establishment would be in direct conflict with the purposes of the urban development corporation, which are to remove urban blight and promote regeneration.
  The sites will be adjacent to housing and surrounded by industrial and commercial concerns that distribute cars and trucks, produce equipment for the Ministry of Defence, manufacture and store hazardous chemicals and deal in high-value, theft-attractive items of a wide variety.
  Already, existing commercial concerns have been warned that insurance premiums will be raised to such a level that the viability of a number of companies will he seriously in doubt and thousands of present and potential jobs are threatened in an area of high unemployment should Avon county council's proposals be endorsed.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will call upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to reject any proposals for gipsy sites in the St. Philips Marsh area.
  This petition has my wholehearted support.
  To lie upon the Table.

Barker and Dobson plc (Takeover)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
12.36 am
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Barker and Dobson plc, a small confectionery manufacturer and supermarket chain, has made a hostile takeover bid for the Dee Corporation, the country's third largest food retailer.
Dee is the largest distribution company in the country, with sales last year of £4,836·6 million. In terms of reported sales, profits and net assets, Dee is at least 20 times larger than Barker and Dobson. Gateway, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dee, accounts for approximately 13 per cent. of the United Kingdom's packaged grocery sales and employs about 68,000 people.
In addition, Dee owns F. A. Wellworth, the second largest and fastest growing food retail business in Northern Ireland, and Linfood Cash and Carry, one of the two largest food cash-and-carry wholesalers in Britain.
The financing of the Barker and Dobson bid relies on two key elements. The first is massive borrowings of about £1·6 billion, which, on the basis of the latest published accounts of both companies, would leave the enlarged group with negative net tangible assets of more than £600 million if the bid were successful. Barker and Dobson, with net assets of £30 million, is borrowing £1·25 billion to acquire Dee, which has net assets of £670 million.
Secondly, Barker and Dobson has stated that it expects to meet its debt obligations by selling all the five subsidiaries of Dee, other than Gateway, but Gateway's superstores will also be sold.
In his offer document, the chairman of Barker and Dobson said:
"our programme for action will … include the sale of Dee's".
That will leave only Gateway's supermarkets in a severely truncated company.
The financial structure of the bid has major implications for Dee's business and employees. The £1·6 billion of borrowings, which is to be provided by a syndicate of largely foreign banks, led by Citibank of New York, would be at a floating rate of interest: 35 per cent. must be repaid in 18 months, 35 per cent. in 30 months and the remainder in 36 months. The financing package appears to stretch Barker and Dobson beyond prudent limits. What happens if interest rates rise? What happens when the borrowing facilities run out in three years? What happens if the asset-stripping exercise does not go according to plan, or if the company has a bad year? Even if the financial implications in themselves were insufficient for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, it is clear from the DTI press notice that great concern is felt about the consequences of this bid. If Barker and Dobson is successful, it could open the floodgates to even higher leveraged bids.
The asset stripping of the Dee group and the huge borrowing liability have implications for competition in the United Kingdom food industry and for Dee's customers, employees and suppliers. The growth of Gateway as a major food retailing force has been accepted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as creating "a countervailing force" against such established and fast-growing food retailers as J. Sainsbury, Tesco and Asda.
454
Argyll's acquisition of Safeway has meant that there are now five leading food retailers in the United Kingdom. Barker and Dobson's bid would reduce the number of leading retailers to four, as it has stated that it will sell off the Gateway superstores and change 100 of Gateway's smaller stores to service another market.
Barker and Dobson's financing structure demands a very early sale of Gateway's superstores at a very full price. The key issue is not the combination of Barker and Dobson's almost negligible retail sales with those of Gateway. It is the sale of Gateway's superstores space of 3·2 million sq ft, plus its associated development programme, to another competitor. J. Sainsbury, Tesco and Asda are in the best position to offer to pay the highest price needed by Barker and Dobson, as they stand to gain substantial incremental benefits from the extensive additional selling space, and it is believed that a piecemeal sale would achieve that price.
The elimination of an important competitor and the simultaneous and significant strengthening of one of the other four leading food retailers must work against competition. F. A. Wellworth supplies an estimated 20 per cent. of the Northern Ireland food market. To which company will this important share of that local market fall?
Linfood Cash and Carry has a turnover of some £900 million. In order to secure an acceptable price, Barker and Dobson would have to sell to one of Linfood's two principal competitors: Booker or Nurdin and Peacock. Following such a sale, the buyer would dominate the United Kingdom wholesale trade, and prices charged to the small independent traders might well rise.
In 1987, the Dee Corporation opened 42 new stores, creating a total of 7,168 new jobs, of which 1,753 were in Scotland and 803 in Yorkshire and the north-east. Since the Dee Corporation took over Fine Fare some 20 months ago, 2,075 jobs have been created, of which 1,700 were in Yorkshire and the north-east—a total of 11 per cent. of Dee's investments.
Between now and the end of 1990, Dee proposes to open a further nine stores in Scotland, creating a total of 2,200 jobs. The proposed break-up of Dee would put this development programme in jeopardy. Many of the head offices and its divisions would be closed or severely reduced in size. Gateway alone has about 1,700 employees at Bristol and Keynsham. The new 250,000 sq ft head office, which is due to be completed in 1988, might become superfluous.
The sale of the superstores would have an effect on Gateway's distribution arrangements and lead to warehouse closures and job losses. Rationalisation would lead to a number of store closures and additional job losses.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's general concern and his specific concern about jobs. Barker and Dobson took over a Budgen facility on the edge of my constituency and over the past year the number of those employed there has increased by 13 per cent. The record is quite good. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a tiny firm when comparison is made with the Dee Corporation. I take the view that there is only so much

455
food to be sold in all areas and only so much money to be spent. The number of jobs to be made available is governed by those factors.
The proposed sale of the superstores would entail a costly disentanglement process, which would be destructive to the remaining Gateway business. This could lead to the loss of a number of key employees. In the systems area, for example, Gateway has the largest IBM System 38 in Europe.
The sale of the superstores would reduce customer choice in the food retailing sector. The prices of goods sold in stores transferred to the Budgen formula could increase by over 5 per cent. That is the average differential between Gateway and Budgen prices. It should be said that the Budgen range is significantly different from the range that is available at Gateway. It is likely that prices in the residual Gateway chain will rise. With a severely truncated chain of stores, the new company will not be able to buy on such favourable terms. An additional upward pressure on prices will be the requirement to service significant levels of acquisition debt despite the forced sale of assets.
The proposed sale of the superstores is likely to increase the buying power of the four remaining major food retailers, with an inevitable effect on suppliers' margins. Dee has a policy of promoting branded goods, unlike other major food retailers, and this is important for manufacturers seeking shelf space in certain markets. The need to service the massive debt and meet the demanding repayment schedule would be likely to have twin effects. Prices would have to be increased, and every possible means to improve buying terms would be necessary. It is the trade creditors of Dee—they represent about £600 million at the date of the last published accounts— who will suffer most if the group gets into financial trouble. The banks are proposing to exercise strict security over the group's assets.
Dee has been investing heavily in the long term and during its last financial year it has expanded its sales area by more than Sainsbury and Tesco put together. It is a term of the banking agreement that Barker and Dobson has entered into that Dee's capital expenditure programme should be severely curtailed. It is worth mentioning that when Dee bought Fine Fare it was stated that it would take three years to integrate Fine Fare into Gateway. Only one and a half of the three years has expired and the job is well under way and on course.
The financing arrangements proposed by Barker and Dobson for the bid, replacing equity with debt, are akin to junk bond financing in the United States, which has contributed to the structural problems of that country's economy. The implications of this opportunistic bid, which is possible only because of the proposed asset stripping and massive borrowings on which it relies, deserve the closest possible scrutiny by the authorities.
There would be a spin-off in my constituency. I may say, incidentally, that I have no connection with, and no brief for, any of the companies. Barker and Dobson is a small firm attempting to take over a much larger firm and then dispose of many of its assets. That is the only way in which it will be able to finance its borrowing.
All the takeover bids in the nation cause me great concern. Only last year in Pontefract, Tesco—one of the big four, and probably in the running for some of the assets—took over the Hillard chain after a brutal battle. While that takeover was happening, a local property developer was negotiating for land and buildings on the
456
outskirts of the town for a large supermarket complex. Since he has obtained the land and planning permission we find that Tesco is the interested party. It is preparing, with the local authority, to obtain more land, and it has informed the local authority that it intends to close the major supermarket that it purchased only last year. I do not wish to throw any suspicions about, but people in Pontefract wonder whether it knew when the takeover was happening that another big supermarket would be going up and the one that serves the centre of the town would be closed and sold for trading in other goods.
That is the takeover bid scene. I ask the Minister to request his right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision not to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I believe that the case I have presented tonight warrants great consideration and thorough investigation of the bid.
12.52 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): It is useful to have a chance to air these issues in the House, even at this time of night. The fact that many of my hon. Friends are here to listen to what is said is evidence of that. I note in particular that my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) are present.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has aired matters in a temperate way. It is not helpful to overstate the case on these difficult and delicate matters, and I am grateful to him for the way in which he raised them.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State decided last week, and announced his decision hen, not to refer the proposed takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. His decision was in accordance with the advice that he had received from his adviser on mergers, the Director General of Fair Trading. I am sorry that I cannot discuss in any detail the reasons for that decision. Representations are made to us by the Director General of Fair Trading in confidence and I must respect the confidentiality of the advice which he provides to my right hon. and noble Friend. I can say, however, that all the representations on this matter were considered carefully by the Director General, and by my right hon. and noble Friend in reaching his decision.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the concentration and the high level of merger activity among major food retailers. It is true that in 1984 it was reckoned that the 10 largest grocery retailers had about 54 per cent. of total grocery and provisions sales. Following some takeover activity—the takeovers of Safeway by Argyll, of Hillard by Tesco and of Fine Fare by Dee—that share seems likely to have increased now to over 66 per cent. of the market. In certain local and regional markets, the concentration ratios may be even higher.
Our present mergers law and policy are perfectly capable of dealing adequately with the trend towards concentration. The Fair Trading Act 1973 provides for a case-by-case scrutiny of mergers. Each merger or merger proposal which qualifies on the basis of the assets or market share test laid down in the Act is considered by the Office of Fair Trading, and the director general advises the Secretary of State on whether it should be referred. Each merger proposal must be considered on its own merits, in the light of all the circumstances at the time. Only if a

457
merger is referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the commission concludes that it would be against the public interest does my right hon. and noble Friend have powers to take action against that merger.
Despite the trend towards increased concentration in the food retailing sector, it would be wrong to assume that any merger in this sector is by definition anti-competitive and hence against the public interest; on the contrary. It is worth noting, in defence of this view, that when the Mergers and Monopolies Commission reported in 1983 on the merger between Linfood and Fitch Lovell it reached the conclusion that some mergers
"which would strengthen the ability of middle ranking chains to survive and continue to compete, and which might even go some way towards redressing the balance between them and the largest chains, should not be prevented without good reason."
Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister agree that in the example I have given in Pontefract Tesco is now the major owner of supermarkets in the district? If the bid goes through, and Tesco purchases the supermarket from Barker and Dobson, another supermarket in my constituency will be owned by Tesco, which will have a large private monopoly. What competition is there?
Mr. Maude: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will recognise that we realise its importance from the way in which my right hon. and noble Friend's announcement was made.
The Office of Fair Trading recently found that competition in the retailing sector was still strong and that, in general, lower buying prices were being passed on, to the benefit of consumers. It is clear that the matters are being kept under constant review by the Director General of Fair Trading.
Each merger or merger proposal in this sector will continue to be looked at, with a view to assessing its probable effect on competition, by the Office of Fair Trading, with the possibility of a reference to the MMC if public interest issues are raised. My right hon. and noble Friend's announcement that the proposed takeover by Barker and Dobson was not to be referred emphasises the close scrutiny which would be given to any divestment of assets following a successful acquisition by the bidding company.
The announcement read as follows:
"This proposed merger is pursuant to a plan which is said to include also the divestment of certain assets of the combined company. The divestments account for a substantial proportion of retail food distribution in the UK. Any such divestments would fall to be considered under the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act in the usual way, in order to determine whether they should be allowed to proceed. Such consideration would need to take account of concern about the concentration of food retailing, both in the country at large and in particular parts of it. The weight given to such issues would be course depend upon who were the intending buyers".
Mr. Tony Blair: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. We know that the Barker and Dobson bid can only be financed out of the disposal of assets after the bid. That is beyond dispute. May I put to the Minister two points? First, given that almost certainly the assets will be disposed of to one of the other main competitors, would we be more prescient if we investigated
458
the competition aspects of the body now rather than waited for the bid to go through and a disposal to occur? Secondly, a leverage bid means that the buyer can finance the sale only by disposing of the assets. Is it not time that we had a good look at those bids in principle and measured them against the public interest?
Mr. Maude: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's second point about the principle of leverage bids. On his first point, he said that the proposed bid involved a necessary divestment after the merger, and asked whether we should look at it on that basis. The answer is not to look at it at this stage. We must look at this merger and the market share of the combined companies.
If the bid were successful and the combined company chose to divest some assets to another purchaser or several purchasers—it is clear that a number of different types of assets are contemplated—it would be for us to look at the implications of sales to particular purchasers to find out the effects of the mergers on competition. That would be the right time to do that. We cannot speculate on the implications of hypothetical buyers, but we can make it clear, as we have done, that we are aware of the concern and that the Director General of Fair Trading will look carefully at the implications of any divestments.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Dee Corporation has utilised a substantial sum of public money, certainly in my constituency, in developing a major distribution warehouse which would be part of the sell-off proposals. Since this would be redundant and part of the original proposal, would it be the Government's policy to claw back that public money? I should like to know the answer.
Mr. Maude: I am not sure that I can provide it. I do not know for what purposes and under what conditions the money was given, so I do not think that I can provide an authoritive answer, or indeed any answer.
Mr. Blair: I should like to press the Minister on his statement that he cannot look into the bid now. What would happen if the bid were successful and the new company decided to dispose of the Gateway superstores to one of the main competitors, so that a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission became activated? What would be the position in terms of certainty and for the employees and shareholders if, having bought the company knowing that it could finance the sale only through the disposal, there was then a reference to the MMC and the bid were blocked?
Mr. Maude: That would have to be considered at the time. We cannot speculate on it at this stage. I must proceed; there are only three minutes left and I want to deal with the important point of leveraging.
The White Paper which we published a couple of months ago made it clear that the result of the review of mergers policy was that competition should continue to be the principal, although not the exclusive, consideration that my right hon. Friend bore in mind in deciding whether to refer the proposed merger. There are other public interest matters to be taken into account, but we made it clear that we would look principally at competition.
It is sometimes suggested that a leverage bid and the shareholders' response to it are intrinsically contrary to the public interest. I do not accept that. There have been two recent cases where leveraging of the bid has been considered to have raised public interest issues which

459
deserved further investigation by the commission— the Elders IXL's proposed takeover of Allied Lyons and the offer by Gulf Resources for IC Gas. They were considered by the commission.
There were other cases where a reference was not considered appropriate because shareholders and the market were best placed to decide on the merits or otherwise of the proposals. Two cases which spring to mind are the Demerger Corporation's bid in 1986 for the Extel Corporation and Valuedale's bid later the same year for Simon Engineering. It is worth noting that in both cases the offers were unsuccessful in the market and were rejected by shareholders.
The fact is that highly leveraged bids can and do fail in the market, which shows that shareholders — for a number of the reasons raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford—are quite often unprepared to support offers which seem to them too risky. That has been shown to be the case.
The financial arrangements and the pereceived ability of the bidding management team to carry the offers through, along with the size of the potential benefits which have to be set against the risks, are all matters for the
460
shareholders to consider, and this is a healthy check on highly leveraged proposals. There are also checks in the City code on takeovers and mergers.
These are matters which have to be considered in each individual case. There is nothing inherent in a highly leveraged bid which means that the public interest requires it to be considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. We make it clear that competition is the principal consideration that we shall keep in mind, and that will continue to be the case. If this bid turned out to be successful and divestments were subsequently made, competition would be our principal consideration at that stage.
But my right hon. and noble Friend has decided not to refer this proposed merger, in full consideration of all the issues and in accordance with the advice given to him by the Director General of Fair Trading, and I have, I am afraid, to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot hold out the prospect of that decision being reconsidered.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past One o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Autistic Children
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many special places are available for autistic children at (i) primary and (ii) secondary level, by region;

  (2) what is the total number of autistic children in maintained schools in England.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information is not available. Since 1983 neither special schools nor the pupils in them have been classified in accordance with categories of handicap.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision in (i) spend, and (ii) additional places, was made for schools for the autistic in the capital allowances for local education authorities for 1988–89.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 18 December 1987 to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) setting out the allocations in respect of prescribed expenditure made to local education authorities for 1988–89. Allocations are unhypothecated and it is up to each authority to decide how to use the resources available.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will increase Government grants to research councils to allow them to upgrade grants paid to postgraduate students sufficiently to compensate for liability for the community c harge when this is introduced in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  This is one of the factors that will be considered when the science budget is reviewed during the course of the 1988 public expenditure survey.

  Common Seals (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions his Department has had with the Natural Environment Research Council regarding the survey of common seals on the west coast of Scotland and the islands of Scotland in relation to the growth of numbers of salmonid fish farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. The Natural Environment Research Council, through its responsibilities under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, provides my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and Scotland with estimates of seal populations.

  Student Awards
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many students from England to whom covenants are made and who are also entitled, after means testing, to a full university or further education award, currently have a deduction made from their awards relative to the amount of the covenant;

  (2) how many students from Wales to whom covenants are made and who are also entitled, after means testing, to a full university or further education award, currently have a deduction made from their awards relative to the amount of the covenant.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not available.

  Computers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funding is given to the study of the psychology of the interface between computers and human operators with a view to redesigning computers; and what representations he has received from the Science and Engineering Research Council and Natural Environmental Research Council on this topic.

  Mr. Jackson
  [pursuant to his reply,18 January 1988, c. 461]: I regret that an error was included in my answer. The £11·5 million spent on collaborative research into studies of the interface between computers and human operators referred to the total under the Alvey programme, and not solely to expenditure by the Science and Engineering Research Council as my answer implied.

WALES

  Sheep
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that no change which discriminates against those mountain sheep which do not normally bring lambs until they are two years old is made in the definition of those sheep which are eligible for premium payments under the proposals of the European Community for a single market by 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The redefinition of an eligible ewe for the sheep annual premium scheme is one of a number of proposals which the Commission has put forward in its review of the sheepmeat regime. However, details of administrative and control procedures, which are important considerations in assessing whether a new definition would be beneficial or workable, are still awaited. Accordingly, no detailed assessment can yet be made of the Commission's proposal.

ENVIRONMENT

  Hinkley Point A Power Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the relative ranking of Hinkley Point A as a polluter of the aquatic environment by the standards of European nuclear power stations; what proposals he has substantially to reduce this pollution; and if he will make a statement.
  235
  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the ninth annual report on the activities of the Paris Commission from June 1986 to June 1987. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will widen the remit of the Countryside Commission in disbursing grant for replanting trees following the October 1987 hurricane to include the clearance of fallen trees, remedial survey to damaged standing trees, assistance with timber marketing and surveys of overall damage to trees; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received about the desirability of dedicating a substantial proportion of the grant, to be administered by the Countryside Commission, towards the cost of a tree-planting programme following the October 1987 hurricane, to remedial tree surgery, a damage survey, public information and future planting; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received about the necessity for grants towards the cost of clearance and disposal of fallen timber prior to tree planting following the October 1987 hurricane; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We are carefully considering the need for a programme of assistance in the long term, and we shall take into account various representations which have been received about the scope and nature of the assistance required.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department made of the cost per acre of clearing and disposing of fallen timber prior to allocating a grant of £2·7 million to be administered by the Countryside Commission towards the cost of a tree-planting programme following the October 1987 hurricane.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The purpose in making assistance immediately available through the Countryside Commission for tree planting was to assist in replacing the maximum practicable number of trees during the current planting season. The general principle is that clearance is the responsibility of the individual owner and the costs of clearing and disposing of fallen timber were not therefore directly relevant.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Countryside Commission has provided for tree planting in each county since the October 1987 hurricane; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Countryside Commission has allocated the following sums for tree planting to the counties affected by the storm of 16 October:

  County

  £000

  Bedfordshire

  3

  Berkshire

  93

  Buckinghamshire

  20

  Cambridgeshire

  21

  Dorset

  9

  East Sussex

  293

  Essex

  151

  Hampshire

  204

  236

  County

  £000

  Hertfordshire

  33

  Isle of Wight

  55

  Kent

  350

  Norfolk

  34

  Oxfordshire

  6

  Suffolk

  139

  Surrey

  56

  West Sussex

  141

  Greater London

  800

  These figures do not include amounts previously committed under the commission's existing schemes of aid for tree planting. Nor do they include allocations to be made from the further £250,000 for 1987–88 which the Government announced on 21 January, or amounts made available to certain trusts and other bodies which own land in more than one county.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the London Docklands development corporation has any plans for affordable rented accommodation to attract teachers to docklands.

  Mr. Trippier
  LDDC is currently considering whether certain categories of employee, including teachers, should receive priority in the allocation of rented homes built on corporation sites.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the London Docklands development corporation has spent on advertising in each year of its existence.

  Mr. Trippier
  Details of the corporation's expenditure on promotion and publicity are given in its annual reports and accounts, copies of which are placed in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost of housing homeless families in(a) Vale Royal and (b) Chester in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information on the cost to individual authorities of accommodating homeless households other than in council dwellings is included in the series of annual publications by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy "Homelessness Statistics, Actuals". Copies are in the Library.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average weekly cost to local authorities of keeping a person in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 21 January, at column 826.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the leader of Wandsworth council on the number of empty council properties in the borough, in the light of the numbers on the housing waiting list or living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  237
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had any such discussions.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in each of the 32 London boroughs on 31 October 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information is available in the publication "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for third quarter 1987. Supplementary tables", which is in the Library. It contains for each authority responding the number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at the end of September 1987. The information is available only for the last day of each quarter.

  Hedgerows
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of hedgerow have been lost in Staffordshire through changing agricultural practices; and whether he has any plans to enable local authorities to introduce statutory controls to be applied to the removal of hedgerows.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The surveys so far completed have not provided information at the county level. On the national position, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) on 13 January, at column 271.

  It would be inappropriate to impose statutory controls on the removal of hedgerows. They need regular management, so the emphasis on conserving them must be on enlisting the voluntary co-operation of farmers and landowners. Grants are available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Countryside Commission or the Nature Conservancy Council, depending on the circumstances.

  Football Clubs (Membership)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with Football League clubs about their membership schemes.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Most league clubs have now either achieved the initial target of 50 per cent. coverage for their membership schemes agreed between the Government and the football authorities or have been advised by their local police that the present configuration of their grounds would make it dangerous for them to go beyond the level they have already reached. The president of the Football League and I will be holding meetings with the six clubs which have not done so on 4 February and 21 March. They are Wimbledon, Fulham, Southampton, Barnsley, Wrexham and Darlington.

  Since my last meeting with the Football League on this subject, three further clubs, Chelsea, Scarborough and Tranmere, have received clear advice from their local police forces against extending their membership schemes. The league and the Association of Chief Police Officers have agreed with me that these clubs should not be invited to our meetings.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to lay before Parliament the 1986–87 annual report and statement of accounts of the London Residuary Body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The 1986–87 "Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the London Residuary Body" were laid before Parliament today. A copy of the Secretary of State's direction under section 78(2) of the Local Government Act 1985 as to the content and structure of the accounts has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The LRB's report shows good progress by the board members and staff in discharging the functions inherited from the Greater London council at abolition. It complements the equally encouraging 1986–87 annual report and accounts of the six metropolitan residuary bodies which were published on 25 November 1987.

  During the first year after abolition the LRB reduced its staff numbers by 468. These totals will continue to fall as the LRB's functions are discharged or transferred to successor bodies.

  LRB's progress in identifying and disposing of a mass of surplus land and property accumulated by the GLC has already been substantial. Of the total £90 million capital receipts generated in 1986–87, over £69 million was attributable to property disposal. These significant receipts enabled LRB to distribute to the London boroughs £32 million of capital money in addition to £89 million of revenue balances left by the GLC. Taken together these cash refunds represent good news for the ratepayers of London who had previously financed the GLC.

  Toxic Waste
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to prevent toxic waste originating from outside the European Community being reshipped for disposal to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Toxic waste originating outside the Community which is reshipped by another member state for disposal in the United Kingdom will be subject to the EC directive on transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste, which we expect to implement later this year. Shipments will need to be notified in advance to the disposal authority for the area containing the prospective disposal facility. There will be a power to object to shipments whose disposal would be contrary to United Kingdom law for the protection of the environment and human health.

  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what control is exercised to ensure that imported toxic waste is not dumped in Essex and other counties because of their close proximity to continental ports; and whether he will order a review of waste disposal practices to ensure protection of the environment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Imported waste, which is subject to the same control as indigenous waste, is disposed of at facilities in various parts of the country. All such facilities must be licensed by waste disposal authorities to ensure that disposal does not damage public health, water supplies or is detrimental to local amenities.
  239
  Waste disposal practices are reviewed continually and my Department publishes waste management papers giving detailed guidance on best practice, to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria his Department will recommend using for the purposes of interpreting section 13(7)(6) of the Local Government Finance Bill, for the purpose of establishing if an unmarried couple are living together as husband and wife.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend will consider the need for guidance on these matters in due course. Many such couples can be expected to acknowledge that they are living together as husband and wife; some will be receiving rebates on that basis.

  Water Authorities (Membership)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) local authority councillors and (b) accountants served on each water authority in each year from 1979 to date.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Information about board members appointed since October 1983 is contained in the authorities' annual reports and accounts which are laid before Parliament each year. The reports for the period from 1979 to 1983 list members appointed by local authorities. Information is not readily available about the occupations or qualifications of members in office between 1979 and 1983.

  Industrial Site, London SE2
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what application he has received for urban development grant in respect of the redevelopment of a former industrial site at 1A Eynsham drive, London SE2; how much is involved; and when a decision is likely to be forthcoming.

  Mr. Trippier
  No application has been received for urban development grant, but the Department's UDG appraiser for the London borough of Greenwich has had a recent informal discussion with a developer who is interested in purchasing the site for redevelopment.

  Radioactivity (Monitoring)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the proposed locations for the 35 stations which will complete the radioactive incident monitoring network.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the booklet "The National Response Plan and Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network (Rimnet). A Statement of Proposals" the publication of which by Her Majesty's Stationery Office was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 21 January. This booklet outlines the initial proposals for the monitoring sites although their exact locations have yet to be confirmed. Copies of the booklet have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has replied to the letter to him of 11 January from the chief executive of Leicestershire county council regarding a reduction of £2·968 million in rate support grant to Leicestershire in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for this reduction.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: The council's letter of 11 January was a representation in response to the Department's consultation proposals for forthcoming supplementary reports for 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1986–87. It has been acknowledged and will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before he makes final decisions on the supplementary reports. Under the consultation proposals, Leicestershire's rate support grant entitlements for the three years would not be reduced, but rather increased by about £600,000 in total. I shall write to my hon. Friend to explain why the council is wrong to assert that its grant is being reduced.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rudolph Hess
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if following the end of control of Spandau prison by the Allies of the Second World War, he will give the total cost to the United Kingdom taxpayers of the detention there of the late Rudolph Hess.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The costs of Hess's detention were not a charge to the United Kingdom taxpayer. All the costs of the three Western powers (UK, US, France) were borne by the German authorities.

  La Belle Discotheque
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the British Minister in west Berlin on the progress of police investigations into the bomb outrage at the La Belle Discotheque.

  Mrs. Chalker
  It is not our practice to publish details of reporting from our posts overseas.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 25 and 26 January.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 25 January.

  The Council discussed the financial situation in the European Community. My right hon. and learned Friend and I made it clear that there could be no overall agreement in the current negotiations without effective control on agricultural production and spending. We drew attention to the dangers in any approach which did not build on the package of measures which Heads of Government had discussed at Copenhagen. These issues will be discussed again at a special meeting of EC Foreign Ministers on 1 and 2 February.
  241
  The Council also discussed preparation for the EC/EFTA ministerial meeting on 2 February; and, meeting in political co-operation, Foreign Ministers exchanged views on the middle east, Afghanistan and East-West relations.

ENERGY

  Electricity
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total annual generation of electricity by standard measure in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany, (c) France, and (d) Japan, in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The total annual generation of electricity in the following countries in the years indicated was:

  TWh

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  France

  Japan

  1958

  114·6

  97·5

  64·4

  85·4

  1960

  138·5

  120·5

  74·8

  115·5

  1965

  196·2

  172·3

  106·1

  192·1

  1970

  249·1

  242·6

  146·8

  359·5

  1975

  271·9

  300·5

  185·3

  475·6

  1979

  299·8

  372·1

  241·3

  589·6

  1980

  285·3

  368·7

  257·9

  576·3

  1981

  277·7

  368·8

  276·4

  583·2

  1982

  272·7

  366·8

  279·2

  581·3

  1983

  277·4

  373·8

  296·8

  618·3

  1984

  282·4

  394·8

  324·5

  648·6

  1985

  297·5

  408·7

  344·3

  672·1

  11986

  301·1

  407·5

  362·0

  678·5

  1 Estimated.

  Figures on a comparable basis for 1987 are not yet available.

  Sources: OECD and IEA.

  "This Week Next Week"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek to obtain and place in the Library a copy of the transcript of his interview on the "This Week Next Week" programme, broadcast on BBC television on 17 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No. I understand that the Library does obtain transcripts from the broadcasters on behalf of hon. Members.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Insolvency Fees
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends to seek any changes in the fees charged in bankruptcy and winding-up proceedings as set out in the Insolvency Fees Order 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  A substantial contribution towards paying the costs of running the insolvency service in my Department is derived from various fees prescribed by the Insolvency Fees Order 1986. These are either of fixed amounts or on a percentage scale.

  Although some of the fixed fees were increased by that order, the product this year has not come up to expectations because there has been a drop in the number
  242
  of winding-up orders made and a rise in the number of insolvency cases closed where the assets are insufficient to meet the fixed fees charged. The scales of percentage fees which, by their nature, are only chargeable where assets exist, have, in the main, net been increased since 1980.

  In order to provide the necessary funds to finance the work of the insolvency service, the Government intend to increase certain of the percentage fees relating to the performance by the Secretary of State of his general duties under the insolvency legislation and to the purchase of Government securities at the request of liquidators. These fees are identified by numbers 10, 11 and 12 in part 1 of the fees order and fee 13 in part II.

  Fees 10 and 13 are calculated on moneys paid into the insolvency services account in each case where a company is wound up by the court or an individual is made bankrupt, charged on a sliding scale ranging from 10 per cent. on the first £50,000 down to 1 per cent. on any amount in excess of £5 million; these will be increased on a scale from 15 per cent. down to 1·5 per cent.

  Fee 11 is charged, on moneys paid into the account in respect of companies wound up voluntarily, on two scale points of 1·25 per cent. and 0·75 per cent.; these wilt be increased to 1·75 per cent. and 1·25 per cent. The case limit on the total amount payable under this fee will he increased from £7,500 to £12,500. Fee 12 is charged at the rate of 0·375 per cent. on the amount expended at the request of a liquidator on any purchase of Government securities; it will be increased to 0·625 per cent. These fee increases are to be contained in a fees order which will be laid before Parliament shortly. The increases will take effect in February 1988 and are estimated to produce £500,000 in the year to 31 March next and £4 million in a full year.

  The order will also include an increase of £1·15 in fees numbered 7 in part I and numbered 10 in part 11 of the 1986 fees order. These fees are made in respect of the insertion in the London Gazette by the Secretary of State or the Official Receiver or any notice authorised by the Insolvency Act or the rules. The increase represents no more than the additional charge now made by the London Gazette for these advertisements.

  A review of the fee-charging policy and financing of the insolvency service is at present being undertaken by a project team headed by a professional accountant seconded to my Department. The team is expected to report by March 1988 and its findings may lead to further proposals for fee changes.

  Labour Costs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what were United Kingdom unit labour costs per unit of output in the manufacturing sector, divided by a weighted average of competitors' unit labour costs, both expressed in pound sterling, for 1979, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The index of United Kingdom relative unit labour costs in manufacturing is published in tables F3 and F6 of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library. The data are expressed in common currency.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the unit volume index of United Kingdom exports of manufactures divided by a weighted average of overseas wholesale prices, both expressed in pound sterling, for 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is in the following table.

  United Kingdom unit value relative to competitors1 Wholesale prices

  Manufactures2 ; 1980 = 100

  Year

  1984

  90·0

  1985

  92·6

  1986

  89·6

  1987 Q1-Q3

  90·0

  Note: 1 United States of America, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Netherlands,

  1985 Current Prices

  United Kingdom

  United States

  Japan

  Germany

  France

  Italy

  Canada

  OECD Europe

  OECD Total

  Gross fixed capital formation

  1. per head ($ thousand/head)

  1·4

  3·1

  3·0

  2·0

  1·7

  1·6

  2·7

  1·4

  2·2

  2. as a proportion of GDP (per cent.)

  17

  19

  28

  20

  19

  21

  20

  19

  20

  Source: OECD.

  Exchange Cover
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how many applications for tender to contract and forward exchange cover have been received in each thrice-monthly quarter since the scheme was established.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The following table shows the number of applications received each quarter since the introduction of tender to contract and forward exchange cover in August 1977.

  Applications for tender to contract and forward exchange supplement cover

  Quarter ending

  Number of applications

  September 1977

  22

  December 1977

  5

  March 1978

  15

  June 1978

  13

  September 1978

  16

  December 1978

  13

  March 1979

  31

  June 1979

  13

  September 1979

  27

  December 1979

  26

  March 1980

  23

  June 1980

  28

  September 1980

  28

  December 1980

  25

  March 1981

  14

  June 1981

  20

  September 1981

  35

  December 1981

  21

  March 1982

  19

  June 1982

  8

  244

  Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Finland, Spain.

  2 Standard International Trade Classification Sections 5–8.

  Source: International Monetary Fund.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the latest figures for capital investment on both a per capita basis and as a percentage of gross national product; and what comparable figures he has for capital investment relating to the other members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The latest figures for the United Kingdom show that gross domestic fixed capital formation amounted to around £1,130 per head of the population in 1986. This is equivalent to 17 per cent. of GDP.

  Comparisons for OECD countries are readily available only for 1985. The table summarises:

  Quarter ending

  Number of applications

  September 1982

  28

  December 1982

  18

  March 1983

  17

  June 1983

  24

  September 1983

  12

  December 1983

  12

  March 1984

  18

  June 1984

  19

  September 1984

  21

  December 1984

  14

  March 1985

  4

  June 1985

  4

  September 1985

  1

  December 1985

  4

  March 1986

  4

  June 1986

  2

  September 1986

  0

  December 1986

  1

  March 1987

  3

  June 1987

  5

  September 1987

  3

  December 1987

  7

  Toys (Lead Content)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to prevent the continued importation of toys with excessive lead content in their paintwork.

  Mr. Maude
  At present all toys placed on the market in the United Kingdom must comply with the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1974 which include requirements on the maximum level of lead and other substances permitted in paint used in toys. The Consumer Protection Act 1987
  245
  empowers Customs officers to detain goods at the port of entry for up to two working days to allow enforcement authorities time to make initial inquiries about the safety of goods detained. Trading standards authorities, which enforce the legislation, have the necessary powers to prosecute suppliers in cases of non-compliance.

  The proposed European directive on toy safety will also specify levels for toxic metals which must not be exceeded.

  Wine-Glass Measures
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received during the past 12 months on the subject of wine-glass measures.

  Mr. Maude
  Since the beginning of 1987 the Department has received 12 representations about sales of wine by the glass; 10 in respect of enforcement authority surveys, one from the Consumers Association and one from the Restaurateurs Association.

  Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to seek to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill to limit or control the amounts paid in royalties by radio broadcasters to record companies or others.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government are considering representations on this issue from independent radio and from the record industry. No decision has yet been taken.

  South Africa
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) on Thursday 21 January,Official Report, column 769, he will take urgent steps to collect the information on Scottish exports to and imports from South Africa not available referred to therein.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. Scottish trade with South Africa which passes through ports in the rest of the United Kingdom is not separately identified; to collect this information would impose an undue burden on companies.

  National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit (Report)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish the annual report of

  Terms of trade

  Trade in finished manufactures1 2 US $ billion

  UK

  US

  FR Germany3

  Japan3

  UK

  USA

  FR Germany

  Japan

  imports

  exports

  imports

  exports

  imports

  exports

  imports

  exports

  1963

  83

  106

  75

  n/a

  1·8

  6·0

  3·2

  9·8

  2·2

  8·1

  n/a

  n/a

  1964

  84

  107

  75

  n/a

  2·3

  6·1

  3·8

  11·1

  2·6

  9·0

  1·0

  2·9

  1965

  84

  111

  74

  57

  2·5

  6·7

  4·9

  11·6

  3·4

  9·8

  0·9

  3·8

  1966

  88

  111

  72

  61

  2·8

  7·3

  7·1

  13·0

  3·9

  11·1

  1·0

  4·7

  1967

  88

  113

  70

  68

  3·4

  7·2

  8·4

  14·6

  3·8

  11·8

  1·2

  5·4

  1968

  83

  117

  72

  70

  4·0

  7·7

  11·3

  16·6

  4·5

  13·7

  1·5

  6·9

  1969

  84

  119

  71

  80

  4·4

  8·9

  13·9

  18·8

  6·0

  16·2

  1·9

  8·5

  1970

  84

  116

  84

  74

  5·0

  8·7

  16·0

  20·5

  8·3

  19·1

  2·8

  10·4

  1971

  85

  111

  85

  70

  6·0

  4·7

  19·3

  22·2

  10·1

  22·1

  3·0

  13·5

  1972

  89

  105

  88

  78

  7·9

  12·4

  24·3

  24·6

  12·2

  26·6

  3·5

  17·0

  246
  the National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit, as required by section 60(1) of the Weights and Measures Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The final report of the National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit, covering the period 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987, has been published today. I have arranged for copies of the report, which includes the audited statement of accounts, to be placed in the Library.

  Investment Management Regulatory Organisation
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if a decision has been reached on whether to give leave for the recognition under the Financial Services Act of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation.

  Mr. Maude
  In accordance with the procedures laid down in the Financial Services Act, the Director General of Fair Trading has submitted to my right hon. and noble Friend a report on the rules and guidance submitted by IMRO to the SIB. Having considered the director general's report, my right hon. and noble Friend has concluded that, on the basis of the information presently available to him, he does not consider the IMRO rules and guidance have, or are intended or likely to have, to any significant extent the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition. He has therefore today given his leave to the SIB for the recognition of IMRO.

  Terms of Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1958 and the latest available date the terms of trade for finished manufacturing/manufactures for the United Kingdom, the United States of America, West Germany and Japan, together with imports and exports of such manufacturers in terms of dollars.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: The available information is in the following table. Data on the terms of trade in finished manufactures are not available for the FRG and Japan. For these two countries information on the terms of trade in machinery and transport equipment (which accounted for 76 per cent. and 85 per cent. respectively of their total trade in finished manufactures) is provided instead.
  247

  Terms of trade

  Trade in finished manufactures1 2 US $ billion

  UK

  US

  FR Germany3

  Japan3

  UK

  USA

  FR Germany

  Japan

  imports

  exports

  imports

  exports

  imports

  exports

  imports

  exports

  1973

  81

  98

  91

  91

  11·4

  14·6

  29·3

  31·8

  15·7

  37·6

  5·1

  22·0

  1974

  82

  91

  92

  99

  13·1

  17·7

  34·2

  43·6

  17·4

  45·1

  6·7

  29·7

  1975

  85

  94

  94

  96

  15·0

  22·4

  33·5

  51·4

  21·6

  49·3

  5·8

  31·8

  1976

  82

  100

  97

  97

  16·2

  22·7

  43·4

  56·1

  25·6

  57·5

  6·5

  42·0

  1977

  86

  100

  98

  100

  20·0

  27·2

  51·4

  58·4

  31·1

  67·2

  7·0

  52·8

  1078

  89

  96

  100

  114

  26·9

  32·6

  70·8

  68·5

  40·0

  79·9

  9·6

  66·0

  1079

  94

  97

  99

  106

  36·1

  38·6

  78·7

  81·6

  49·4

  93·0

  12·5

  66·8

  1980

  100

  100

  100

  100

  41·2

  48·3

  88·7

  99·1

  56·8

  103·4

  13·8

  86·7

  1981

  102

  109

  96

  105

  39·5

  43·6

  99·9

  110·2

  50·6

  94·7

  14·6

  106·3

  1082

  101

  112

  100

  96

  40·4

  40·7

  105·6

  102·6

  48·6

  98·3

  13·6

  96·8

  1983

  101

  107

  99

  91

  42·4

  36·6

  122·5

  97·3

  50·4

  92·8

  14·6

  106·3

  1984

  99

  114

  98

  95

  44·4

  38·1

  168·3

  105·2

  50·9

  93·2

  16·9

  127·3

  1985

  99

  118

  99

  92

  48·1

  42·3

  193·2

  109·7

  54·4

  103·0

  17·4

  134·1

  1986

  102

  117

  107

  105

  58·9

  49·8

  226·0

  112·2

  76·4

  142·2

  21·9

  164·4

  1 Standard International Trade Classification Sections 7 and 8.

  2 Standard International Trade Classification Rev. 1-up to 1977. Rev. 2-from 1978.

  3 Machinery and Transport Equipment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mozambique
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being made to establish the special fund for Mozambique, agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in Vancouver.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Commonwealth Secretary-General has written to all Commonwealth Governments requesting contributions to the fund. It will have a target of £10 million and will be administered by the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. I have informed the secretary-general that Britain is prepared to contribute 30 per cent. of the total pledged to the fund, up to a maximum of £3 million. Payment of our contribution will be subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Estimates provision.

  ODA (Funds)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any change has been agreed in voted provision for the Overseas Development Administration in 1987–88.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the spring Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for the overseas aid vote (class II, vote 5) will be increased to £1,096,875,000. The change allows for an agreed carryover of aid programme underspending in 1986–87, for part of the cost of the United Kingdom subscription to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and for other minor adjustments. Subject to parliamentary approval, the cash limit on the overseas aid administration vote (class II, vote 6) will also be increased to £28,191,000 to meet additional capital expenditure for the development and introduction of computer systems and other costs. The increases do not add to the planned total of public expenditure in 1987–88.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister under whose command it is envisaged that(a) Ministry of Defence police, (b) members of the armed forces on escort and (c) police officers should operate in the event of an accident or other serious incident affecting a nuclear weapons or materials convoy.

  The Prime Minister
  I am not prepared to discuss details of the movement of defence nuclear materials. In the event of an accident or other incident involving such materials any members of Her Majesty's Forces or the Ministry of Defence police assisting at the scene would act in support of the civil police.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (After Care)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps have been taken to implement the recommendation of the committee chaired by the director of prison medical services that arrangements should be made for patients in prison to be assessed by National Health Service medical staff prior to planning continuing care and support on release; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps have been taken to improve administrative procedures within his Department and the prison service following the report of the working group chaired by the director of prison medical services on the problems presented by mentally disordered offenders in the prison system in England and Wales;

  (3) what measures are being taken following the report of the director of prison medical services on mentally disordered offenders in the prison system in England and Wales to ensure that the courts are fully aware of non-custodial options open to them and of the facilities available in the health system;

  (4) what representations he has received on the report of the director of prison medical services on mentally disordered offenders in the prison system in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  249
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government welcomed this report of the inter-departmental working group of officials chaired by the director of prison medical services. As my right hon. Friend announced in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 30 November 1987 at column 349 the Government accept all 16 recommendations made. The administrative procedures referred to in that answer relate mainly to transfers from prison to hospital. In sending copies of the report to managing medical officers in prison service establishments the director of prison medical services has drawn attention to the recommendation in which they are able to make a contribution, particularly the need for transfer procedures to be initiated promptly when that course is clinically indicated.

  The recommendations aimed at increasing the extent to which mentally disordered offenders are detained other than in prison custody, and advance planning where that is indicated for the release of those who receive prison sentences are to be taken forward in further discussion between Home Office and DHSS officials.

  Copies of the report have also been sent to regional health authorities, chief probation officers and, on request, to a number of other organisations and individuals. We have received no representations on the report. The initial impression gained by officials is that it is recognised as a useful move forward in a difficult area.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the terms of reference of the registrar for data protection; how many complaints the registrar has dealt with for each year since his appointment; and if he will categorise the nature of such complaints.

  Mr. Renton
  The general duties of the Data Protection Registrar are specified in Section 36 of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  In his last report to Parliament dated June 1987, the registrar reported that he had received 225 complaints in the year under review and 60 complaints prior to that. Since the Act came fully into force in November 1987 I am informed by the registrar that the rate at which complaints are being received has increased fourfold. From the end of November 1987 until mid-January 1988, 202 complaints have been received. The registrar broadly described the nature of complaints in his last report, and later complaints are I understand, following a similar pattern.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report details of the process he adopts to monitor the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Renton
  The Data Protection Registrar, who is independent of the Executive, monitors the Data Protection Act 1984 and as required by section 36(5) of the Act, reports directly to Parliament. He holds regular meetings with officials to keep them informed, but my right hon. Friend is also ready to consider any representations put to him on the operation of the Act.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase education facilities for inmates at Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans to provide additional educational facilities for inmates at Wandsworth prison. Daytime and evening classes are provided in a range of subjects and provision is made for correspondence courses and other types of education which can be pursued individually. Local management will continue to keep education provision under review.

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women who were serving a prison sentence of one month or less in prisons in England and Wales on 31 October 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  From the records held centrally, it is estimated that about 770 males and 40 females were serving sentences of one month or less in prison department establishments in England and Wales on 31 October 1987. These figures include fine defaulters.

  Mr. M. Naylor
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Mr. M. Naylor of Oadby, an officer at Glen Parva young offenders centre, South Wigston, despite completing an application form and paying a cheque for £1,200 on 29 October 1987 in relation to the free standing additional voluntary contribution pension scheme, has to date received no response from his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The application form for a free standing additional voluntary contribution pension scheme completed by Mr. Naylor on 29 October 1987 was forwarded to the Home Department under cover of a letter from his insurance brokers dated 3 November 1987. Detailed information from Her Majesty's Treasury on how Departments should deal with applications for FSAVCs has only recently been received. A reply to Mr. Naylor's brokers will be sent shortly.

  Police (Pay)
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the figures for the pay of police officers, at each rank, both at the basic rate, and at the level of average overtime worked, at 1 June 1979, and at the latest available date showing percentage increases.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following is the information on basic salaries:
  251

  June 1979

  January 1988

  Percentage increase

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  £

  £

  £

  £

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Constable

  3,600

  5,700

  8,352

  13,938

  132

  144·6

  Sergeant

  5,450

  6,250

  13,332

  15,294

  144·6

  144·6

  Inspector

  6,250

  7,440

  15,294

  18,195

  144·6

  144·6

  Chief Inspector

  7,100

  8,235

  17,364

  20,142

  144·6

  144·6

  Superintendent

  9,800

  10,710

  23,622

  25,650

  141

  139·5

  Chief Superintendent

  10,800

  11,775

  26,262

  27,885

  143·2

  136·8

  Assistant Chief Constable

  12,500

  —

  30,960

  —

  147·7

  —

  Deputy Chief Constable

  13,280

  16,400

  32,511

  37,530

  144·8

  128·8

  Chief Constable

  16,600

  20,500

  36,906

  46,914

  122 3

  128·8

  Metropolitan Police

  Commander

  12,725

  —

  30,960

  —

  143·3

  —

  Deputy Assistant Commissioner

  15,500

  —

  35,277

  —

  127·6

  —

  Assistant Commissioner

  19,375

  —

  44,097

  —

  127·6

  —

  Deputy Commissioner

  21,315

  —

  49,983

  —

  134·5

  —

  City of London Police

  Commander

  12,725

  —

  30,960

  —

  143·3

  —

  Assistant Commissioner

  16,000

  —

  37,812

  —

  136·3

  —

  Commissioner

  21,315

  —

  48,507

  —

  127·6

  —

  Figures of average overtime earnings are not collected centrally.

  Radio
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish a White Paper on the future of radio broadcasting before introducing legislation.

  Mr. Renton
  We are considering this possibility.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will detail the regulations under which the new Radio Authority will supervise the ownership of radio stations;

  (2) how many (a) national commercial radio stations, (b) independent local radio stations and (c) community radio stations any one individual or any one company will be able to own or have a controlling interest in;

  (3) whether he will introduce restrictions on the ownership of radio stations by non-British and non-EEC individuals or companies;

  (4) whether he will introduce restrictions on individuals or companies who are licensed to own radio stations with regard to selling, sub-letting or sub-contracting such licences;

  (5) whether individuals or companies granted licences for new radio stations will be allowed to sell, sub-let or sub-contract the use of those frequencies for any other purposes;

  (6) under what regulations the new Radio Authority will operate with regard to (a) the ownership or (b) equity holdings of (i) political parties (ii) local authorities, (iii) statutory bodies, (iv) charitable organisations and (v) any body or organisation in which a political party has an interest.

  Mr. Renton
  Conditions regulating the award, renewal or transfer of radio licences by reasons of the status of prospective applicants or their accumulation of media interests will be included in the legislative proposals which my right hon. Friend will bring before Parliament. We have in mind, for example, provisions disallowing the control of licensed stations by companies registered outside the EC; limiting an individual or company to a financial interest in one national or six other licensed stations; and disallowing any such interest by political 252
  parties and their affiliates and public bodies (while allowing the latter to contribute to projects intended to further a specific purpose of benefit to the community concerned). Subject to such conditions and to the continuing observance of the promise of performance on the basis of which licences were awarded in the first place there will be provision for their reassignment.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will detail the regulations under which(a) national commercial radio, (b) independent local radio and (c) community radio will operate with regard to (i) advertising time per hour, (ii) weekly films and (iii) royalty and copyright payments;

  (2) whether he proposes that under the regulations which will apply to radio stations, it will be permissible to run such stations by computer, without staffing;

  (3) whether the regulations which will apply to (a) national commercial radio, (b) independent local radio and (c) community radio will include requirements to (a) provide news services, (b) provide staff to man such stations or (c) broadcast a minimum number of hours each day of live programmes;

  (4) what powers the new Radio Authority will have to investigate and to ensure that no system of payola operates in United Kingdom radio stations;

  (5) what percentage of programmes: (a) the new national commercial radio stations and (b) independent local radio stations will be required to take from independent producers.

  Mr. Renton
  Under the legislative proposals my right hon. Friend will bring before Parliament it will be for licensed radio stations themselves to determine their own business and programming arrangements consistent with the general law and their licence conditions including those reflecting their promise of performance.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will detail the regulations under which(a) national commercial radio, (b) independent local radio and (c) community radio will operate, with regard to (i) programme balance, (ii) news and current affairs time, (iii) obscenity and (iv) incitement to racial violence or religious intolerance;
  253
  (2) further to his written reply of 19 January, Official Report, columns 647–9, what requirements of accuracy, balance and decency there will be on licences of new radio stations;

  (3) further to his written reply of 19 January, Official Report, columns 647–9, what present constraints in the Broadcasting Act 1981 will not apply to transmission arrangements for new radio stations;

  (4) further to his written answer of 19 January, Official Report, columns 647–9, whether he will list the existing statutory requirements, applied to independent local radio, which will not be applied to the proposed (a) national commercial radio and (b community radio.

  Mr. Renton
  The legislative proposals which my right hon. Friend will bring before Parliament will reflect paragraph 7.7 of our Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities" (Cm. 92).

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what period of time the radio licences granted by the new Radio Authority will run for(a) national commercial radio, (b) independent local radio and (c) community radio.

  Mr. Renton
  The legislative proposals which my right hon. Friend will bring before Parliament will include provision for the radio authority to award licences for up to eight years.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the relationship between the new Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will be.

  Mr. Renton
  In the light of responses to our Green Paper we have concluded that radio should continue to fall within the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what powers and staff will be available to the new Radio Authority to monitor the programmes of new radio stations;

  (2) further to his written reply of 19 January, Official Report, columns 647–9, what sanctions the new Radio Authority will have in the event of new licence holders not living up to their promises to their audiences.

  Mr. Renton
  Provisions relating both to powers and to resources will be included in the legislative proposals which my right hon. Friend will bring before Parliament with a view to enabling the radio authority to enforce the conditions on which it issues licences, thus reflecting paragraphs 7.18–7.19 of our Green Paper.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what limits on transmission power will be imposed by the new Radio Authority on community radio stations.

  Mr. Renton
  Under the legislative proposals my right hon. Friend will bring before Parliament it will be for the radio authority to determine limits on the transmission power of stations it licenses, having regard amongst other things to the size of the area which the station is intended to serve and possible interference to other users of the radio spectrum.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the 500 responses he received 254
  to the Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities" recommended that radio licences should be assigned by competitive tender;

  (2) further to his written answer of 19 January, Official Report, columns 647–9, what system of competitive tendering will be adopted and what steps taken to ensure that such arrangements are open and public;

  (3) further to his written answer of 19 January, Official Report, columns 647–9, who will assign, by competitive tender, the licences for radio stations;

  (4) further to his written answer of 19 January , Official Report, columns 647–9, what powers the new Radio Authority will have to ensure that the national commercial radio station, broadcast programmes that appeal to a variety of tastes and interests and one not limited to a single format.

  Mr. Renton
  The legislative proposals which my right hon. Friend will bring before Parliament will include provision for the Radio Authority to award licences for national radio services by competitive tender, for the procedure to be followed and for the criteria which the Radio Authority will be expected to apply in deciding which applications to entertain for the purposes of tender. No responses to the Green Paper recommended this proposal, and only a small number commented on it.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) further to his written answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 647–9, what is his definition of community radio;

  (2) further to his written answer of 19 January, Official Report, columns 647–9, what method he will employ to determine the number, scale and type of stations that a local community demands or wishes.

  Mr. Renton
  Under the legislative proposals my right hon. Friend will bring before Parliamemt it will be for the radio authority and not the Home Secretary to consider applications for licences to provide radio services to localities or communities. We do not envisage that under the new scheme there will be any formal distinction between different kinds of radio at the local level.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his written answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 647–9, whether he will require the Independent Broadcasting Authority to sell the transmitters that it currently owns.

  Mr. Renton
  We do not intend to require the IBA to sell the radio transmission sites and equipment that it now owns.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his written answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 647–9, by what date the BBC will have to (a) determine and (b) reassign two frequencies to independent radio.

  Mr. Renton
  We shall not withdraw frequencies currently assigned to the BBC until after the enactment of the legislative proposals based on the Green Paper which my right hon. Friend will bring before Parliament.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his written answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 647–9, whether he will list all those areas which have no radio service other than those provided by the BBC, and how many (a) people and (b) households live in these areas.
  255
  Mr. Renton
  This information is not readily available in the form sought. Those areas which have no radio service other than those provided by the BBC are those which do not receive radio services provided by the IBA since they lie outside the service areas of the ILR programme companies listed in appendix VIII to the annual report of the IBA 1986–87.

  Radioactive Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Greater Manchester on the command and liaison arrangements in force with(a) armed forces escorts and (b) Ministry of Defence police in relation to the passage through Greater Manchester of nuclear weapons or other radioactive materials.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to give details of the movements of defence nuclear materials, but I am satisfied that adequate command and liaison arrangements have been made wherever they may be necessary.

  Voting Rights
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report a table to show his estimate of the number of persons living

  Estimated population of the United Kingdom, 1984–86 average1

  Thousands

  Place of usual residence

  Nationality

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Total of which:

  46,400

  5,050

  2,779

  1,554

  Irish Republic

  423

  14

  9

  298

  France

  24

  8

  +

  +

  Federal Republic of Germany

  33

  Greece

  11

  Italy

  73

  Netherlands

  19

  Portugal

  10

  Spain

  28

  Other European Community countries3

  10

  + Fewer than 5 thousand persons.

  1 Based on results of Labour Force Surveys 1984–86.

  2 Some of whom may hold dual British/Irish citizenship.

  3 Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Examiners
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicle examiners were employed by his Department in the south Wales traffic area for 1986–87; and what was the number of public service vehicles and goods vehicles for which they were responsible.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figures for the vehicle inspectorate districts that cover approximately the south Wales traffic area are as follows:
  256
  in (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland who are citizens of another member state of the EEC; how many of these citizens of each of these states are in each of the areas listed above; and of these how many have the right to vote in (i) parliamentary elections and (ii) local government elections in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: Information on the estimated numbers of nationals of other European Community countries usually resident in the t sited Kingdom is given in the table. Nationals of EC countries other than the Republic of Ireland do not have the right to vote in parliamentary or local elections. It is estimated that some 95 per cent. of citizens of the Republic of Ireland who are resident in the United Kingdom are aged 18 or over, and therefore are entitled to register to vote in parliamentary elections and, if resident in Great Britain, in local government elections; those resident in Northern Ireland have the right to vote in local government elections provided they were included in the electoral register published in 1962 and meet the residence qualifications required. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has indicated the Government's intention to introduce legislation to amend the qualifications for local government elections in Northern Ireland in order to align them with those in Great Britain.

  1986–87

  Vehicle examiners in post

  23

  Public service vehicles over one year old

  3,509

  Heavy goods vehicles over one year old

  27,537

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the numbers of vehicle examiners in post at May 1987, by traffic area.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The vehicle inspectorate is organised into 53 districts, grouped into four regions. Statistics are not kept by traffic area. The information by regions is as follows:
  257

  Number of vehicle examiners in post (May 1987)

  Number

  South East Region

  183

  South Wales and West Region

  115

  North Region

  132

  Scottish Region

  54

  TOTAL

  484

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many public service vehicles failed their annual test, by operator group, for the south Wales traffic area for 1986–87;

  (2) what was the number and percentage of annual tests which resulted in immediate prohibition of public service vehicles in (a) Great Britain and (b) Wales for 1986–87, broken down by operator group;

  (3) what was the number of vehicles that failed the annual public service vehicle test in 1986–87 in Great Britain, by operator group;

  (4) what was the number of vehicles that failed the annual public service vehicle test in 1986–87 in Wales, by operator group;

  1986–87

  Number of spot checks

  Number of spot checks as a percentage of the total PSV annual tests Per cent

  Number of immediate prohibitions issued at spot checks

  Number of immediate prohibitions issued as a percentage of vehicles spot checked Per cent.

  17,767

  26

  942

  5·3

  Passenger Car Miles (Greater London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest available official estimate of the number of billion passenger car miles travelled in Greater London, together with the source; and what means he has available for maintaining subsequent measurements of that figure.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  About 25 billion passenger car miles were travelled in London in 1986. This estimate, which will be updated periodically, is derived as follows:14 billion car miles (source: On-going National Traffic census)
  × 1·77 passenger per car (source: 1985–86 National Travel Survey)
  = 25 billion passenger miles.

  The estimate of car mileage is provisional pending completion of work on a new series drawing on data from the national traffic census and other sources including surveys which the Department of Transport continued on abolition of the GLC. Methods of restructuring traffic surveys in London to support more accurate monitoring of year on year changes are also being studied.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will print in the Official Report the
  258
  (5) what was the number of public service vehicles, by operator group, which (a) failed the annual test, and (b) failed the annual test after rectification of minor faults, for each traffic area in Great Britain in 1986–87.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following the reorganisation of the bus industry, it is no longer possible to split the statistics into the former operator groups. Separate information is not kept for Wales as such. The following are the statistics on failure rates for Great Britain and for vehicle inspectorate districts covering approximately the south Wales traffic area.

  Great Britain

  South Wales

  Number of PSV annual tests

  68,376

  3,509

  Number of initial failures

  26,448

  1,575

  Number of passes after rectification of minor faults

  12,841

  698

  Number of final failures

  13,607

  877

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Immediate prohibition rate at annual test

  0·34

  0·51

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the results of spot checking of public service vehicles and the immediate prohibition rates for(a) Britain and (b) Wales for 1986–87.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Separate information on spot checks is not available for Wales as a whole. The information for Great Britain is:

  "Statement of Strategy" he set out for London Regional Transport in 1985, his reasons for planning a revised statement to be published in June, and a list of the persons and bodies he and London Regional Transport are consulting concerning its contents.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  LRT has a duty to publish statements setting out its policies under section 7 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. The June 1985 "Statement of Strategy" referred to was the last (and only) statement published in discharge of this duty. A copy is in the Library of the House. Under section 7(8) of the 1984 Act statements of policies must be published at least every three years. A new statement is therefore due by June 1988. Those to be consulted are specified in section 7(4) of the Act.

  Motorway Service Stations
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals there are for further motorway service stations on the M62, M63, M66 or M67.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None. The existing MSA network in the general Manchester-Liverpool-Stoke-on-TrentPreston area is generally adequate to meet travellers' needs
  259
  and there have been no complaints about their adequacy. However, a new site is planned at Hapsford on the M56 to cater for traffic to and from the Wirral and north Wales.

  Railways (Scotland)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about any improvements which are planned for the rail network in Angus, Scotland.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand from British Rail that it is planning to introduce Sprinter trains on the Dundee to Arbroath local services in May 1989 and Sprinter express trains on the Aberdeen to Glasgow services in October 1989.

  Blood Tests
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the course of the interdepartmental road traffic law review, he will consider the current position which disallows the use of blood tests taken from an unconscious suspect following a road traffic accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect shortly to receive the report of the independent road traffic law review under the chairmanship of Dr. Peter North. We shall consider carefully any recommendations which the review may make on this issue.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the ports through which spent nuclear fuel was imported in 1985, 1986 and 1987 and the number of flasks imported through each port.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The ports through which flasks containing irradiated fuel were imported, and the total number of flasks for each of the three years in question, are as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Barrow

  88

  76

  88

  Harwich

  6

  none

  none

  Dover

  1

  2

  2

  Immingham

  4

  6

  4

  New construction and substantial improvements

  £ million

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Shire county

  Capital allocation

  Otturn

  Capital allocation

  Outturn

  Capital allocation

  Outturn

  Capital allocation

  Outturn

  Avon

  3·736

  3·019

  3·140

  2·149

  3·000

  2·387

  5·620

  13·598

  Bedfordshire

  5·794

  5·435

  4·530

  3·912

  4·370

  2·200

  5·570

  7·343

  Berkshire

  8·758

  7·260

  10·239

  11·645

  10·280

  11·468

  11·060

  11·659

  Buckinghamshire

  6·252

  4·000

  8·160

  4·775

  6·160

  6·041

  5·330

  5·320

  Cambridgeshire

  5·686

  4·125

  6·193

  5·436

  6·930

  5·028

  5·070

  4·198

  Cheshire

  4·469

  6·891

  5·834

  6·530

  7·110

  4·671

  8·536

  8·173

  Cleveland

  8·476

  8·701

  9·479

  9·053

  10·587

  10·673

  7·460

  7·037

  Cornwall

  5·385

  5·159

  6·964

  7·489

  6·830

  5·103

  6·280

  6·359

  Cumbria

  3·695

  6·113

  3·931

  4·123

  3·790

  4·273

  2·710

  1·610

  Derbyshire

  5·130

  3·924

  6·087

  6·539

  5·690

  6·331

  5·900

  7·987

  Devon

  7·673

  8·640

  8·772

  7·865

  10·019

  11·246

  10·400

  111·897

  260
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many nuclear fuel flask transport wagons British Rail has taken out of service since 1983; and at what cost.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Since 1983, 10 wagons have been withdrawn from service as part of the normal replacement programme. They cost £90,000 each at today's prices.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will update the information in the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 16 February 1987,Official Report, column 430, on notifiable incidents reported to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate involving flasks designed to transport nuclear fuel.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  There have been no such incidents since February 1987.

  British Airways
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date he expects British Airways plc to comply with the requirements of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to divest itself of certain routes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  British Airways has already applied to the Civil Aviation Authority for the revocation of those of British Caledonian's European and domestic licences which it told the Monopolies and Mergers Commission it would return.

  British Rail
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I shall be meeting the chairman on 11 February to discuss matters of current interest.

  Roads
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report tables showing (a) the expenditure allocation to English shire counties for road construction and repair and (b) the actual expenditure outturn, for the years 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is in the following tables. No local authority allocations are made for maintenance expenditure which does not class as capital expenditure covered by the capital controls system.
  261

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Shire county

  Capital allocation

  Otturn

  Capital allocation

  Outturn

  Capital allocation

  Outturn

  Capital allocation

  Outturn

  Dorset

  10·900

  13·445

  13·427

  13·473

  12·800

  14·488

  12·100

  15·066

  Durham

  6·122

  5·830

  6·913

  6·836

  6·160

  5·380

  5·460

  5·796

  East Sussex

  4·256

  5·154

  4·960

  8·326

  6·700

  7·146

  6·780

  6·177

  Essex

  13·246

  12·129

  14·492

  15·272

  14·200

  15·442

  18·220

  19·819

  Gloucestershire

  5·392

  4·306

  4·599

  4·848

  4·500

  5·054

  3·880

  4·919

  Hampshire

  13·382

  16·809

  15·700

  14·839

  15·550

  11·805

  15·650

  17·522

  Hereford and Worcester

  7·429

  5·684

  8·422

  3·978

  6·270

  3·387

  6·480

  7·923

  Hertfordshire

  9·430

  6·081

  9·855

  7·786

  11·800

  6·937

  11·600

  9·019

  Humberside

  10·720

  11·920

  11·180

  10·506

  8·640

  9·871

  7·780

  17·714

  Isle of Wight

  2·337

  1·730

  2·116

  2·075

  2·600

  2·450

  2·340

  1·925

  Kent

  14·080

  16·596

  16·295

  16·380

  17·020

  20·433

  17·950

  27·212

  Lancashire

  11·441

  14·686

  14·969

  14·282

  15·700

  15·296

  15·880

  14·272

  Leicestershire

  11·846

  9·591

  13·413

  10·909

  13·000

  13·242

  12·040

  18·163

  Lincolnshire

  4·699

  3·742

  5·585

  4·800

  4·560

  3·610

  4·040

  5·111

  Norfolk

  6·351

  5·736

  7·849

  4·289

  5·590

  4·979

  4·110

  4·653

  North Yorkshire

  7·537

  7·464

  7·700

  5·054

  8·500

  7·821

  9·050

  10·340

  Northamptonshire

  6·799

  2·651

  12·457

  9·081

  15·562

  16·351

  14·000

  11·101

  Northumberland

  3·603

  4·238

  3·686

  2·755

  3·320

  3·049

  3·060

  2·747

  Nottinghamshire

  10·865

  7·518

  9·516

  7·391

  9·010

  7·203

  7·080

  7·392

  Oxfordshire

  3·503

  2·699

  5·088

  6·757

  5·210

  3·638

  5·330

  2·077

  Shropshire

  4·594

  4·424

  4·400

  4·293

  3·600

  2·461

  3·890

  3·312

  Somerset

  5·974

  5·313

  6·024

  6·251

  5·690

  5·273

  4·190

  13·262

  Staffordshire

  9·521

  10·340

  8·695

  9·954

  12·000

  12·850

  12·060

  11·456

  Suffolk

  7·068

  7·806

  8·334

  6·524

  7·960

  8·021

  7·360

  7·008

  Surrey

  8·995

  8·332

  9·349

  6·318

  8·080

  10·097

  9·520

  14·106

  Warwickshire

  4·928

  4·485

  1·781

  1·666

  2·347

  1·717

  3·768

  3·773

  West Sussex

  7·292

  3·782

  8·500

  7·164

  8·300

  9·804

  8·370

  10·799

  Wiltshire

  4·222

  4·602

  5·426

  3·448

  7·400

  3·456

  6·450

  4·932

  Total

  281·586

  269·360

  314·780

  284·771

  316·835

  300·682

  312·374

  132·277

  1 Estimated.

  Road maintenance

  Shire county

  1983–84 £ million

  1984–85 £ million

  1985–86 £ million

  1986–87 £ million

  Avon

  12·070

  12·903

  13·770

  17·596

  Bedfordshire

  6·920

  8·886

  8·854

  10·078

  Berkshire

  6·889

  6·991

  6·211

  7·904

  Buckinghamshire

  9·244

  10·303

  10·625

  13·173

  Cambridgeshire

  11·619

  11·253

  10·901

  13·295

  Cheshire

  5·392

  5·702

  6·435

  7·303

  Cleveland

  9·384

  9·011

  9·950

  13·775

  Cornwall

  10·770

  10·833

  11·337

  12·305

  Cumbria

  8·761

  9·460

  8·735

  14·421

  Derbyshire

  13·969

  14·160

  14·785

  17·497

  Devon

  21·635

  25·122

  26·553

  29·146

  Dorset

  9·284

  10·130

  10·850

  13·843

  Durham

  9·746

  7·987

  7·449

  11·299

  East Sussex

  7·925

  8·348

  9·875

  11·322

  Essex

  21·001

  21·548

  23·698

  30·161

  Gloucestershire

  8·333

  8·967

  8·524

  11·460

  Hampshire

  19·101

  18·767

  20·942

  24·919

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  10·046

  10·688

  13·300

  12·977

  Hertfordshire

  13·354

  13·741

  14·728

  18·705

  Humberside

  15·312

  16·371

  16·798

  21·552

  Isle of Wight

  2·695

  2·589

  2·456

  3·006

  Kent

  22·126

  21·884

  25·187

  32·579

  Lancashire

  21 090

  20·129

  22·483

  33·021

  Leicestershire

  13·756

  14·495

  14·910

  18·212

  Lincolnshire

  14·525

  14·389

  15·089

  17·039

  Norfolk

  10·994

  11·980

  13·405

  13·935

  North Yorkshire

  17·616

  18·509

  19·731

  21·459

  Northamptonshire

  7·104

  7·733

  6·369

  10·172

  Northumberland

  6·646

  7·109

  6·488

  9·395

  Nottinghamshire

  12·989

  13·642

  14·651

  18·933

  Oxfordshire

  7·508

  5·035

  8·224

  9·673

  Shropshire

  6·729

  6·586

  6·495

  9·730

  Somerset

  9·980

  10·114

  10·642

  12·694

  Staffordshire

  13·249

  11·952

  14·310

  19·583

  Suffolk

  10·118

  10·945

  11·452

  13·380

  Surrey

  13·131

  14·705

  13·652

  16·558

  262

  Shire county

  1983–84 £ million

  1984–85 £ million

  1985–86 £ million

  1986–87 £ million

  Warwickshire

  8·427

  8·301

  8·583

  10·162

  West Sussex

  9·809

  9·662

  11·380

  13·884

  Wiltshire

  8·456

  9·347

  9·749

  13·664

  TOTAL

  446·703

  460·277

  489·576

  609·810

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the average waiting period in each regional health authority for cataract operations.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1985, the latest year for which information is available centrally, the estimated median interval between the times a patient was placed on the waiting list and admission to an NHS non-psychiatric hospital was as follows:

  Region of Treatment

  Operations on eye lens1 Median Wailing Time (weeks)

  England

  16

  Northern

  13

  Yorkshire

  21

  Trent

  16

  East Anglia

  15

  North West Thames

  17

  North East Thames

  11

  South East Thames

  16

  South West Thames

  14

  Wessex

  18

  263

  Region of Treatment

  Operations on eye lens1 Median Waiting Time (weeks)

  Oxford

  24

  South Western

  21

  West Midlands

  27

  Mersey

  11

  North Western

  16

  Special Health Authorities

  10

  1 OPCS Classification of Surgical Operations (CSO) codes 170–179.

  Dentists
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many dentists were in practice in(a) the Burnley constituency and (b) the Pendle constituency in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information of the kind requested by the hon. Member is not available centrally on a constituency basis.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will express the value in real terms of the 1987 £10 Christmas bonus for pensioners compared with its value in 1979, taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Scott
  The 1979 Christmas bonus was worth £17·02 at December 1987 prices.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimates are available to him of the cost in terms of state retirement pension of reducing the male retirement age to 60 years.

  Regional health authorities

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Northern

  29

  28

  30

  34

  33

  32

  31

  28

  28

  27

  Yorkshire

  39

  38

  37

  40

  38

  37

  37

  35

  34

  34

  Trent

  42

  41

  40

  44

  44

  43

  42

  39

  37

  38

  East Anglian

  16

  16

  16

  17

  16

  12

  16

  13

  16

  16

  North West Thames

  48

  45

  44

  46

  45

  38

  41

  38

  35

  35

  North East Thames

  58

  54

  53

  58

  55

  60

  59

  58

  53

  49

  South East Thames

  46

  43

  42

  40

  40

  39

  38

  39

  36

  35

  South West Thames

  34

  31

  31

  34

  33

  30

  31

  28

  26

  27

  Wessex

  21

  21

  21

  22

  19

  22

  22

  21

  21

  22

  Oxford

  21

  20

  19

  20

  20

  18

  18

  17

  15

  15

  South—Western

  26

  26

  27

  28

  27

  27

  26

  26

  25

  25

  West Midlands

  45

  45

  47

  49

  48

  49

  48

  46

  48

  50

  Mersey

  27

  26

  26

  27

  25

  24

  24

  23

  22

  23

  North—Western

  44

  42

  42

  43

  43

  43

  43

  37

  38

  39

  Total

  498

  479

  479

  503

  490

  482

  480

  453

  441

  439

  Notes:

  (1) The figures for each year are based on the estimates given in (Official Report, 13 January columns 327–28).

  (2) Entries in the table are at 1986–87 constant prices and have been rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services pursuant to the reply by his Under-Secretary of State on 14 December,Official Report columns 400–1, if he will publish the outcome of the
  264
  Mr. Scott
  Our current best estimate is that the net cost to public funds would be in excess of £3,000 million in a full year.

  Nurses
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive(a) the preliminary report and (b) the full report on the survey of nurse shortages from the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  A sample survey of the number of whole-time equvalent funded nursing and midwifery posts vacant for more than three months at 31 March is carried out by the regional chairmen's secretariat on behalf of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine.

  I am advised that whilst some preliminary results of the survey at 31 March 1987 have been sent to the review body, the final report will not be submitted to the review body until February 1988.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to bring forward legislation to require private hospitals to contribute towards the cost of nurses' training.

  Mr. Newton
  We expect shortly to open discussions with the private sector with the aim of encouraging a contribution to training needs which more closely matches their contribution to health care overall. We have, however, no present plans for legislation on this matter.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, columns 327–8, on nursing training expenditure, he will now break down these figures by regions.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is in the table.

  departmental review of the policy of centralising of radiotherapy treatment centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department's Standing Medical Advisory Committee is expected to give its views on the organisation of radiotherapy services shortly. Ministers
  265
  will consider these views as part of their review. An announcement will be made as soon as conclusions are reached.

  Out-patient Appointments (Fees)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce a modest fee for out-patient appointments refundable in all cases except for belated cancellation or non-attendance.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by name and location(a) private nursing homes in the Northern regional health authority area, (b) the owners of such nursing homes, (c) the number of beds available in each home, (d) the amount of regional development grant and regional selective assistance grant moneys made available for each home in each of the last two years and (e) the date of opening of each home.

  Mrs. Currie
  The "Directory of Private Hospitals and Health Services", available in the Library, lists residential care and nursing homes. I regret that the remaining information requested by the hon. Member is not available centrally, and he may, therefore, wish to contact the chairmen of the health authorities concerned for further details.

  Allergy-related Illness
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if Her Majesty's Government has any plans to increase the amount of money available for research into and treatment of allergy-related illness.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is for health authorities to decide how much of their resources they will allocate to the treatment of any particular condition, including allergy-related illness.

  The Government are already supporting research in this area. The main Government-funded agency for the promotion of medical and related biological research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. I understand that the council is currently supporting research on allergies in 20 centres at a total cost in 1986–87 of £540,000. The council is always willing to consider well-founded proposals for further research in competition with proposals in other fields.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is funding studies into intolerance reactions to food at a cost of £500,000 over the next three years as a follow-up to the work already completed on intolerance reactions to food additives. The Department of Health and Social Security has awarded an annual grant of £10,000 for the years 1987–88 to 1989–90 to the Asthma Society and Friends of the Asthma Research Council.

  St. James' Hospital, Portsmouth
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest estimate of the likely date for releasing on to the market surplus land and buildings on the site at St. James' hospital, Milton, Portsmouth.
  266
  Mrs. Currie
  This is a matter for the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority but I understand that preliminary negotiations are in progress between the health authority and the Portsmouth city council, prior to the submission of a formal planning application for the future use of surplus land and buildings at St. James' hospital, Portsmouth.

  The health authority is unable at this early stage of the disposal process, to say when it may be possible to market this property. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman if he requires further details.

  Health Authorities (Administration)
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the annual administration cost of the East Hertfordshire health authority and of the West Essex health authority since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is in the table. It is derived from the annual accounts of the authorities since their establishment on 1 April 1982:

  Expenditure on headquarters administration

  East Hertfordshire district health authority £000

  West Essex district health authority £000

  1982–83

  1,694 (2·15)

  1,142 (3·82)

  1983–84

  1,686 (2·02)

  1,147 (3·72)

  1984–85

  1,841 (2·02)

  1,279 (3·93)

  1985–86

  1,070 (3·75)

  1,486 (4·03)

  1986–87

  1,012 (3·29)

  1,493 (3·70)

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on headquarters administration includes all current expenditure on the pay and pay related costs of staff of all disciplines (including general managers) employed at district headquarters levels and their office costs and overheads. It excludes the cost of secretarial and clerical support staff employed in departments at hospital and unit levels: such costs arc regarded as operational.

  2. Prior to 1 April 1985 the East Hertfordshire Health Authority had an associated family practitioner committee (FPC) and the authority's expenditure figures shown for the years before that date include elements relating to the FPC's administrative expenses which are not separately identifiable.

  3. The figures in brackets show that expenditure on headquarters administration as a percentage of each authority's total revenue expenditure for the relevant financial years. In the case of East Hertfordshire Health Authority the totals used for the years prior to 1 April 1985 include expenditure on family practitioner services incurred by the FPC.

  4. Prior to 1 April 1982 each authority's predecessor health district formed part of a multi-district area health authority and district based figures were not collected centrally.

  Plastic Surgery
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest number of plastic surgeons and the number in 1983 and 1978; and what steps are being taken to recruit, train and retain plastic surgeons.

  Mrs. Currie
  The numbers of medical staff in the specialty of plastic surgery are set out in the table. Numbers of training grade posts are related to the numbers of expected consultant opportunities. We are satisfied that there are sufficient doctors in training to meet planned developments, but the position is closely monitored by the joint planning advisory committee.
  267

  Numbers of hospital medical staff1 in the specialty of plastic surgery at 30 September each year: England

  1978

  1983

  1986

  Consultants2

  79

  88

  98

  All staff3

  198

  212

  225

  1 Permanent paid and honorary staff.

  2 Including senior hospital medical officers with allowance.

  3 Excluding hospital practitioners and doctors with paragraph 94 appointments (clinical assistants).

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of plastic surgeons per 1,000 people in the United Kingdom and the comparable figure for France, West Germany, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium.

  Mrs. Currie
  The number of consultant plastic surgeons per 1,000 people in the United Kingdom at 30 September 1986 was 0·002. Comparable figures for other countries are not available.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department is considering a network as an alternative to his Department's participation in the Government data network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department is working with others on the proposed Government data network. The work includes the assessment of alternative ways of meeting our data communication requirements. Final decisions will be taken after tenders are received.

  General Practitioners (Equipment)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals his Department has to encourage general practitioners to purchase desk top analysers and other technological equipment.

  Mrs. Currie
  General practitioners are not encouraged at present to purchase desk-top analysers. It is not yet obvious that the acquisition of technological equipment by GPs is more cost-effective than their continued use of the specialist services provided by hospital pathology departments.

  Family Income Supplement
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were in receipt of family income supplement in(a) Vale Royal and (b) Winsford in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available. Family income supplement claims are dealt with by one centre at Blackpool and no information is maintained about claims from particular local areas.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people have been registered as claimants for supplementary benenfit in Winsford at a convenient date in each of the last five years.
  268
  Mr. Portillo
  The table sets out the information requested giving the earliest data available. The district of Winsford is served by Northwich local office but the boundaries are not conterminous.

  Northwich Local Office

  Date

  Number of supplementary benefit claimants

  18 December 1984

  6,464

  17 December 1985

  6,526

  16 December 1986

  6,647

  17 November 1987

  6,579

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the hospitals in the Greater London area that have special provision to care for people suffering from AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  In the majority of cases, any general hospital would be able to provide necessary care and treatment for people with AIDS. Some hospitals in the Greater London area, for example St. Stephen's, Fulham, St. Mary's, Paddington and the Middlesex hospital, have special provision for people with AIDS, such as designated wards, clinics and outreach teams.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the number of reported cases of AIDS in the Greater London area in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Newton
  It is regretted that the information is not available in the form requested. The cumulative totals of cases of AIDS reported to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre from district health authorities which are either wholly or partly within the Greater London area for the last three years are as follows:

  Number

  1985

  189

  1986

  399

  1987

  852

  St. James' Hospital, Balham
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff employed at St. James' hospital, Balham, have found employment at St. George's hospital, Tooting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  This information is not yet available. The transfer of services from St. James' hospital is not expected to be completed until later in the year and the process of interviewing staff is still under way. Assurances have been given that no staff will be disadvantaged by the relocation and that there will be no compulsory redundancies.

  Correspondence
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he received letters from the hon. Member for Gateshead, East dated 16 November 1987 and 17 December 1987 concerning the incidence of child leukaemia on Tyneside; and when he expects to reply.
  269
  Mrs. Currie
  I replied to the hon. Member on 22 January 1988.

  Leicestershire Family Practitioner Committee
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the outcome of the recent meeting between an official of his Department and the Leicestershire family practitioner committee regarding financial allocations to the committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The purpose of the meeting on 8 January 1988 was to discuss with the chairman and administrator how a potential overspend on the committee's cash limit for administration this year might be avoided in the light of increases to funding referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend on 22 January 1988 at column 895. The Department has now received a revised assessment to the effect that the committee expects to remain within its cash limit.

  Vitamin Deficiency
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has concerning any relationship between vitamin or mineral deficiency in the diet of children and inattentiveness or delinquent behaviour; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  A number of theories have been put forward linking diet or vitamin and mineral supplementation with children's behaviour. I am advised that the results so far published of studies designed to validate such theories appear to have been vitiated by inadequate research. The Department's medical advisers are studying the report published in the Lancet on 23 January relating to vitamin and mineral supplementation among Welsh schoolchildren which was the subject, together with a study in the United States of America, of a recent television programme. The Welsh study did not address inattentiveness or delinquency. Apparently the United States study was concerned with delinquency, but no details have yet been published.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what account he takes, when considering additional funding to district health authorities, of the attitude of those authorities, or hospitals within those authorities, towards the contracting out of services currently provided in-house.

  Mr. Newton
  Allocations to district health authorities are a matter for regions.

  Table one: Numbers of single people in Great Britain in receipt of the long—term rate of supplementary benefit—by age group

  Year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1986

  Age group

  16

  —

  49

  99

  —

  —

  50

  —

  17

  —

  2,342

  1,898

  2,197

  2.497

  2,300

  2,747

  18

  1,349

  3,292

  5,398

  5,094

  5,893

  7,399

  7,290

  19

  3,345

  6,234

  6,545

  7,640

  9,887

  10,098

  11,139

  20

  5,458

  6,882

  8,291

  10,539

  12,685

  14,040

  15,834

  21–24

  30,402

  43,161

  51,759

  58,678

  65,101

  73,217

  84,017

  25–29

  43,638

  56,355

  64,675

  71,919

  79,630

  93,665

  111,781

  30–34

  50,890

  60,163

  61,073

  71,501

  79,385

  83,714

  94,908

  Benefits
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the criteria used by his Department's adjudication officers in establishing whether an unmarried claimant is living as husband or wife.

  Mr. Portillo
  Guidance for adjudication officers on the interpretation of social security legislation is given by the office of the chief adjudication officer, which is independent of the Department.

  Guidance from the office of the chief adjudication officer to adjudication officers gives the following criteria to be considered when establishing whether an unmarried claimant is living as husband or wife:

  1. Membership of the same household;

  2. Stability of relationship;

  3. Financial support;

  4. Sexual relationship;

  5. Children;

  6. Public acknowledgement.

  For adjudication officers considering the question of living together as husband and wife in connection with a claim to supplementary benefit this guidance is in the S Manual (S2501-S3000), which is published and available to the public. Similar guidance for adjudication officers dealing with the question in connection with a claim for a national insurance benefit is contained in the insurance officer's guide. This code is' not published but a copy is held in the Library.

  From April 1988 guidance for adjudication officers for all social security benefits will be contained in the adjudication officer's guide, which will replace existing material and will be published before 11 April.

  In addition to the guidance issued to adjudication officers by the office of the chief adjudication officer, the Department also publishes a leaflet for the public which lists the criteria used by adjudication officers when considering the question of living together: Leaflet N1247, "Social Security: Living together as husband and wife", which is available from local social security offices.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people, shown by age and marital status, are in receipt of the long-term rate of supplementary benefit for the latest date and for equivalent dates in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 9 December 1987]: The available information is shown in the tables. Table one shows the numbers of those who are claiming supplementary benefit as single people; table two shows the numbers of those who are claiming for a partner.
  271

  Year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1986

  35–39

  34,597

  44,394

  53,767

  58,492

  66,854

  70,034

  85,823

  40–44

  32,444

  35,093

  34,028

  39,050

  42,633

  47,087

  55,948

  45–49

  25,585

  25,459

  31,615

  31,207

  35,299

  36,538

  40,612

  50–54

  26,900

  29,358

  31,292

  29,722

  32,651

  39,343

  40,345

  55–59

  40,814

  40,960

  40,678

  42,846

  44,346

  47,872

  49,919

  60–64

  113,028

  124,232

  132,896

  157,357

  179,492

  185,471

  194,784

  65–69

  271,807

  255,551

  255,938

  247,235

  210,104

  201,685

  212,921

  70–74

  348,462

  338,988

  330,060

  352,892

  306,106

  328,081

  307,545

  75–79

  319,280

  320,707

  329,111

  354,041

  332,983

  324,077

  347,014

  80–84

  205,032

  221,245

  235,460

  240,300

  241,035

  255,163

  258,395

  85–89

  105,966

  107,179

  114,333

  103,886

  113,785

  124,464

  127,887

  90 and over

  31,911

  34,343

  40,382

  36,449

  40,915

  45,834

  50,659

  Total

  1,690,906

  1,755,988

  1,829,300

  1,921,046

  1,901,283

  1,990,132

  2,099,570

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiry

  Table two: Numbers of couples in Great Britain in receipt of the long—term rate of supplementary benefit—by age group of claimant

  Year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1986

  Age Group

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  —

  50

  —

  —

  —

  50

  —

  20

  —

  —

  50

  —

  —

  —

  100

  21–24

  —

  150

  50

  50

  249

  300

  500

  25–29

  200

  199

  300

  100

  498

  649

  848

  30–34

  598

  349

  500

  949

  750

  1,201

  1,547

  35–39

  498

  596

  949

  1,351

  1,249

  2,648

  3,795

  40–44

  749

  1,542

  1,149

  1,198

  2,647

  3,697

  4,846

  45–49

  1,350

  1,746

  1,948

  1,650

  2,647

  5,353

  6,698

  50–54

  3,052

  2,942

  3,348

  4,894

  5,994

  9,298

  10,340

  55–59

  6,243

  5,878

  6,797

  8,089

  13,883

  20,553

  24,773

  60–64

  9,484

  11,399

  21,035

  38,145

  99,729

  118,105

  123,182

  65–69

  99,132

  84,679

  94,741

  87,050

  64,123

  61,902

  63,171

  70–74

  111,606

  99,020

  98,584

  106,833

  90,653

  86,563

  80,757

  75–79

  73,507

  64,708

  72,872

  74,963

  74,951

  71,017

  66,110

  80–84

  24,534

  23,060

  24,830

  31,707

  31,307

  36,617

  34,183

  85–89

  6,899

  8,126

  6,165

  7,251

  7,715

  5,452

  7,800

  90 and over

  1,185

  774

  763

  1,976

  2,360

  —

  1,766

  Total

  339,029

  305,220

  334,082

  366,206

  398,755

  423,404

  430,417

  Source:—Annual Statistical Enquiry

  Public Funds
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals for the dispersal of public funds were discussed at a meeting of senior officials of his Department and the leaders of major voluntary organisations on 15 January.

  Mr. Scott
  Officials had a preliminary meeting with representatives from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Community Service Volunteers, the Volunteer Centre, the Community Projects Foundation and the Charities Aid Foundation on 15 January 1988.

  The purpose of the meeting was to seek their assistance and advice on the disbursement of the funds arising from the error in relation to the retail price index.

  Health Advisory Service
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which district health authorities in the west midlands have been visited by the Health Advisory Service since its inception and when these visits took place.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The information required is in the table. The Health Advisory Service makes visits to monitor services provided for the elderly and the mentally ill.
  272

  Visits in respect of services for

  District Health Authority

  The elderly

  The mentally ill

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  1974

  1973, 1981

  Central Birmingham

  1970, 1986

  1972, 1982, 1986

  Coventry

  1973

  1981, 1984, 1986

  Dudley

  1974

  1972

  East Birmingham

  1974, 1986

  1972

  Herefordshire

  1973, 1980, 1984

  1970, 1985

  Kidderminster

  1981

  1986

  Mid-Staffordshire

  1974 (twice)

  1972

  1975, 1980

  North Birmingham

  1974, 1982, 1984

  1972, 1979, 1985

  North Staffordshire

  1974, 1978

  1972, 1984

  North Warwickshire

  —

  1984

  Rugby

  1980

  1984

  Sandwell

  1974, 1984

  1979

  Shropshire

  1974 (twice)

  1972, 1981

  Solihull

  1987

  1972, 1981, 1984

  South Birmingham

  1974, 1986

  1972, 1980

  South Warwickshire

  1974

  1984

  Walsall

  1974

  —

  West Birmingham

  1973, 1983, 1986

  1979

  Wolverhampton

  1974, 1975

  1972

  Worcestershire

  1973, 1974 (twice)

  1972 (twice)

  1981

  1985

  There were also visits to examine services for the elderly mentally ill specifically to Coventry, South Warwickshire and Wolverhampton in 1981 and Wolverhampton again in 1987.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will take urgent steps to ensure that all providers of accommodation for people needing residential care are subject to a national registration system;

  (2) if he will urgently seek the abolition of any distinction between residential care and nursing homes providing long-term care.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: Any changes in the existing arrangements for registration and inspection would need to take account of what is said about homes in the reports expected shortly of Lady Wagner's review of residential care, Sir Roy Griffiths' overview of community care, and the social services inspectorate's report on the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984. The registration and inspection system for homes in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when next he expects to meet the chairman of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve Association to discuss the future of the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has no plans scheduled for a meeting with the chairman of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserves Association at the present time. However, formal consultative machinery exists in the shape of the bi-annual Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserves Advisory Committee, which is next due to meet on 12 July 1988. The council of TAVRAs does, however, have the right to make representations to the Department at any time it sees fit to do so.

  Category Z Berths
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of all category Z berths in the Clyde area.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The locations of Z berths in the Clyde area are as follows:

  Coulport

  Rothesay (two berths)

  Arran (two berths)

  Campbeltown (four berths)

  Loch Fyne—Tarbert

  Inverary

  Rosebank

  Loch Goil

  Loch Striven

  Glen Mallan

  Clyde Naval Emergency Monitoring Team
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1979 the Clyde naval emergency monitoring team has been called out to incidents.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Naval Emergency Monitoring Organisation (Scotland) has been called out on three occasions since 1979. In April 1985 it was asked to provide 274
  assistance to the civil authorities under the national arrangements for incidents involving radioactivity (NAIR scheme) when a suspect package was found on a beach on the outskirts of Helensburgh which subsequently proved not to contain any radioactive material. In October 1985 it was called out when an alarm sounded at the Clyde submarine base. This was subsequently found to be spurious. In May 1986 it was called to the royal naval armaments depot, Coulport, when a slighter higher than normal radioactive reading was detected within a sealed item of equipment. It was quickly established that there was no hazard.

  Clyde Area Public Safety Scheme
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions are made under the Clyde public safety scheme for an accident involving a nuclear weapon.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The aim of the Clyde area public safety scheme is to safeguard the public, not only in the unlikely event of a submarine reactor accident, but in the event of any other accident in the Clyde area which might lead to a release of radioactivity, and which interferes with the normal activities of the local population.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names, dates and locations of exercises held under the Clyde public safety scheme since 1979.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our practice to discuss details of nuclear accident response exercises.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amendments made to the Clyde public safety scheme since 1983.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There have been two amendments to the Clyde area public safety scheme sine 1983, one issued in July 1985 and the other in September 1986. A copy of the scheme is held in the Library and a copy incorporating the amendments since 1983 has now also been placed in the Library.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his West German counterpart to discuss the future of the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend holds frequent and regular meetings with his West German counterpart at which a wide range of matters of mutual interest is discussed. The last such occasion occurred on 20 January.

  Mr. Martin Kettrick
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the question of compensation payments for disabled ex-Marine Martin Kettrick was first raised with his Department by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South; on how many occasions it has been raised since and in what form; when he expects a decision to be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The right hon. Gentleman first raised the case of Martin Kettrick in a letter to my Department in March 1982. It has been raised since on a considerable number of occasions, both in correspondence and in the House. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, Mr.
  275
  Kettrick has submitted a case for consideration by the Defence council under the procedures which provide for submission for redress of grievance. A decision is expected to be made on this shortly.

  Ex-Service Personnel (Injury Payments)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-service people have claimed ex-gratia payments after being injured whilst serving; what payments have been made; how many people are still awaiting settlement; and when he expects to reach decisions on the outstanding claims.

  Mr. Freeman
  Complete records are not available for the period before 8 December 1986, when my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that, pending repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, claims for personal injuries to service personnel would be considered for settlement on an ex-gratia basis. In respect of the period from 8 December 1986 to 15 May 1987, when section 10 was repealed, seven claims have been received from ex-service people. A decision to make a payment has been taken in one case, two claims have been rejected and four are still under investigation. Decisions will be taken on the four outstanding claims as soon as inquiries have been completed.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any plans to deploy his Department's police in connection with nuclear materials convoy duties in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to give details of the movement of defence nuclear materials.

SCOTLAND

  Housing
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet the chairman of the Scottish Special Housing Association to discuss housing in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many firms in the Arbroath travel-to-work area applied for regional development grants in 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  In 1987 applications for revised regional development grant were received from 28 firms in the Arbroath travel-to-work area. Information on applications under the old regional development scheme is not available.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the announcement on the withdrawal of regional development grant for Scotland.
  276
  Mr. Lang
  I have not received any representations following the announcement of the ending of regional development grant for Scotland.

  Mr. McCleish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the likely impact of recent changes in regional aid policy on the attraction of inward investment to Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Scotland is an attractive location for inward investment. Since 1981 Scotland has attracted £2·6 billion of planned investment with related employment amounting to 46,000 jobs. I am satisfied that the change in regional assistance announced recently together with Scotland's other attractions will enable us to be similarly successful in the future.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of the changes announced on 12 January 1988,Official Report, columns 145–47 on the one-door approach adopted by the Dundee project.

  Mr. Lang
  The changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 12 January 1988 will improve the effectiveness of the work of the Dundee project. The administration of the new Department of Trade and Industry advisory service in Scotland by the Scottish Development Agency, allied to the agency's new regional structure, will increase the range of business support services on which the Dundee project can draw.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on any changes in the relationship between his Department and the Scottish Development Agency as a consequence of the recently announced proposals to alter regional financial assistance.

  Mr. Lang
  As I announced on 13 January 1988 in the context of the launch of the Industry Department for Scotland booklet "Regional Development: Encouraging Enterprise in Scotland", the agency will, together with the Highlands and Islands Development Board, act as agent for the Department of Trade and Industry's business development initiatives in Scotland. It will also take over from April 1988 the administration of the better business services scheme in those parts of Scotland where it is currently administered by my Department. Otherwise, there will be no changes in the present relationship between the Scottish Office and the Scottish Development Agency.

  "The Way Forward"
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Nirex since the publication of the executive's document, "The Way Forward".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no discussions with Nirex since this document was published on 12 November.

  Education (Strathclyde)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he next expects to meet Strathclyde regional council representatives to discuss education within the region.
  277
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of Strathclyde regional council to discuss problems in the educational field within the region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet representatives of Strathclyde regional council to discuss education.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received concerning the proposed reorganisation of school education in Strathclyde; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  At the most recent count I have received 2,555 representations including three petitions in connection with the proposed reorganisation of school education in Strathclyde. I recognise that difficult decisions will have to be taken by Strathclyde and other education authorities in rationalising school provision so as to reduce surplus capacity. But I am also concerned that the options being considered include the closure of schools which are so highly regarded by parents that they remain full to capacity even at a time when school rolls generally are falling.

  I have therefore decided to take powers to review in certain circumstances education authorities' proposals for school closures. I am laying regulations today — the Education (Publication and Consultation etc.) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 — which will require education authorities to submit for my consent any proposal to close or reorganise a school where the pupil numbers exceed 80 per cent. of the school's capacity.

  Cardiac Facilities
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete his review of hospital cardiac facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The national specialist services advisory committee is nearing the end of its review of cardiac surgery provision throughout Scotland. Its report is expected in the next few months.

  Municipal Rents
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of municipal rents in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for setting rent levels for council housing lies with the individual local authority concerned. Average local authority rents in Scotland in 1987–788 stand at £14·65 per house per week. They have risen from an average of £4·92 per house per week in 1979–80, some 75 per cent. of the average for local authorities in England and Wales, to a level which is now 84 per cent. of the England and Wales average of £17·40 per week.

  Student Grants
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many university students in the Strathclyde area have been refused all or part of their grant allowance due to the fact that the student's parent has failed to complete part 2 of the application form.
  278
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We are aware of seven such cases among students attending Glasgow and Strathclyde universities in session 1987–88.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students from Scotland to whom covenants are made and who are also entitled, after means testing, to a full university or further education award, currently have a deduction made from their awards relative to the amount of the covenant.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available.

  School Closures
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on representations received about school closures in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I have received representations about many of the schools currently being considered for closure in Strathclyde region. In particular we have received over 2,000 representations and a petition with 7,300 signatures protesting about the proposal to close Paisley grammar school.

  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department has had with the Scottish Special Housing Association regarding the transfer of its tenants in Shetland to the Hjaltland Housing Association.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Officials of the Scottish Development Department met officials of the Scottish Special Housing Association on several occasions last year to discuss proposals for the association's tenants in Shetland to be given the opportunity to transfer to Hjaltland housing association. The tenants are now considering this matter.

  Crown Estates Commission
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received urging a review of the powers of the Crown Estates Commission over the development of fish and shellfish farming in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from several hon. Members, local authorities, other bodies and individuals. The majority of such representations have concerned both the role of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the exclusion of marine fish farms from the scope of planning controls.

  Court Actions (Costs)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the costs incurred by the Crown Office in bringing(a) interdict proceedings against The Scotsman and (b) contempt proceedings against The Glasgow Herald and its editor, in each case indicating the cost incurred: (i) before any writ was lodged in the Court of Session and (ii) thereafter; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The actions have been brought by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the
  279
  Government. The expenses of these actions and liability for their payment will only be known once the actions are concluded.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional resources he will give to the Scottish Development Agency following the announcement of regional aid cuts.

  Mr. Lang
  There have been no such cuts. On the contrary, the 1988 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288), published on 20 January by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shows total expenditure on the Scottish industry programme for 1988–89 as £266 million, an increase of £25 million over the planned provision in the 1987 expenditure White Paper (Cm. 56).

  Primary Schools (Pupil Costs)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1985–86 net expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Scotland at outturn prices was £961. This is 24 per cent. more than the comparable figure in 1978–79 which, at 1985–86 prices, was £774.

  School Management
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the comments expressed in the responses to the consultation paper "School Management and the Role of Parents" are reflected in any ensuing legislation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's conclusions on school management were published on 18 January in the booklet "School Management — the Government's Conclusions" and they reflect many of the helpful comments expressed during the consultation. Copies of the booklet have been sent to all Scottish Members and have been placed in the Library. A Bill to give effect to our intentions will be brought forward shortly.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to publish the Scottish commentary on public expenditure.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to publish "Public Expenditure to 1990–91: A Commentary on the Scotland Programme" around 17 February. As in previous years a copy will be sent to each Scottish Member. Copies will also be placed in the Library.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the financial implications for each of the regions of Scotland of the failure to introduce a uniform business rate at the same time as is proposed for England and Wales; and what will be the financial implications for Scotland as a whole of the non-introduction of a uniform business rate for Great Britain.
  280
  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to his questions on 27 November 1987 at column 132, 17 December 1987 at column 643 and 14 January 1988 at column 367, which explained policy on the reform of non-domestic rates in Scotland. Detailed estimates of the kind requested have not been made.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to amend the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 so that married students, who depend on their spouse's income for grant purposes, will not be jointly and severally liable for that spouse's poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Newbattle Abbey College
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what processes of consultation he undertook before announcing the withdrawal of funding from Newbattle Abbey college in Dalkeith.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There was no public consultation before the decision was announced, but there will be adequate opportunity for the governors and others to express their views before the decision takes effect.

  Disabled People (Transport)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will make a statement on the provision of transport for the disabled in the Strathclyde region since deregulation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that Strathclyde passenger transport executive, on behalf of the regional council, last year carried out a review of dial-a-bus services for the mobility handicapped within the Glasgow area. As a result of the review an extension of the concept of door-to-door dial-a-bus services was recommended and the council has now approved changes in the style and scope of the service.

  The extended network, which is subsidised by the council, will start on 1 February in the following operating areas:

  Glasgow North West

  Glasgow North East

  Glasgow South East

  Glasgow South West

  Hamilton/East Kilbride

  Renfrew

  Clydesdale

  I understand that there are, in addition, three community transport schemes operated by the voluntary sector which provide transport for the mobility handicapped within the conurbation.

  Job Creation
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry about new industries coming to Scotland during the past year and on how many jobs will be created.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend keeps in regular touch with the Confederation of British Industry on a range of issues, and addressed its annual conference in Glasgow in November when he drew attention to the continuing attractiveness of Scotland as a location for
  281
  industrial investment. Last year there were announcements of over 50 major new industrial projects with the prospect of over 12,000 jobs.

  Housing Finance
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the provisional non-housing revenue account and housing revenue account capital allocations for 1988–89 for(a) Scotland and (b) Edinburgh; and if he will express them as a percentage of the allocation in the 1987–88 financial year.

  Mr. Lang
  The provisional non-housing revenue account and housing revenue account capital allocations for 1988–89 for Scotland as a whole are £122·6 million and £387 million, respectively. These represent 83·1 per cent. and 106·8 per cent. respectively of the equivalent allocations at this stage last year.

  The provisional non-housing revenue account and housing revenue account capital allocations for 1988–89 for Edinburgh district council are £24 million and £26·4 million respectively. These represent 70 per cent. and 107 per cent. respectively of the equivalent allocations at this stage last year.

  This year, as a result of substantial increases in receipts, the housing revenue account allocations at final stage were higher than the provisional allocations. Similarly next year, any receipts additional to those assumed will enhance 1988–89 allocations.

  Roads (North Ayrshire)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Government policy for improving road communications in north Ayrshire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The north of Ayrshire is served by two trunk roads, the A77 and the A78. On the A78 there are plans to bypass the towns of Ardrossan and Saltcoats. On the northern section of the A77, the Ayr road route is a joint central Government-regional authority project, which will provide an all-purpose dual carriageway between the centre of Glasgow and Ayrshire. Roads connecting with the trunk road network are the responsibility of the local roads authority, Strathclyde regional council.

  Legal System
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce legislation to reform the Scottish legal system; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend will continue to introduce well-based proposals for appropriate reforms of the Scottish legal system.

  Paisley Grammar School
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received concerning the proposal to close Paisley grammar school; and if he will make a statement.
  282
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  At the most recent count 2,385 representations and a petition with 7,300 signatures have been received in connection with the proposal to close Paisley grammar school.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of major road improvements projects which are under way or are to be initiated during the current year in Angus, Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are no major trunk road schemes under construction at present, or planned to commence in the current financial year, in Angus.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of new hospital building projects which are planned to take place in Angus, Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The initiative on new hospital building projects lies with health boards in the first instance. Tayside health board has, I understand, long-term plans to provide a new community hospital in Forfar, Angus. These proposals are however currently subject to a detailed option appraisal and if the board decides to proceed, a submission for approval-in-principle will be made to the Scottish Home and Health Department.

  Educational Expenditure
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of any educational projects which are planned for the current year in Tayside.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The educational building projects being undertaken or proposed in the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89, as listed in Tayside regional council's current financial plan, are given in table 1. Table 2 gives details of projects in 1987–88 in central institutions in Tayside and the Dundee campus of the Northern college of education. Comparable information for 1988–89 is not yet available.

  Table 1

  Planned expenditure

  Project

  1987–88 £000s1

  1988–89 £000s1

  Perth academy—alterations and extensions

  1,327

  233

  Educational improvements (including replacement furniture)

  470

  470

  Webster's high school, Kirriemuir— alterations, extension and community provision

  520

  1,869

  Perth grammar school phase IV

  33

  54

  Conversion of former Arbroath high school to FE premises

  340

  836

  Minor works, energy conservation equipment etc.

  1,901

  1,393

  Grove academy—alteration, extension and community provision (met from covenant)

  604

  936

  Montrose academy—alteration and extension (met from covenant)

  175

  1,550

  1 At outturn prices.

  283

  Table 2

  Project

  Planned expenditure 1987–88 £0001

  1. Duncan of Jordanstone college of art

  Access for disabled

  50

  Conversion of boiler

  53

  Remedial work to Springfield facade

  34

  Minor works

  16

  153

  2. Dundee college of technology

  Minor works 3

  15

  Dundee campus of northern college of education

  Re-roofing

  65

  Floor coverings

  12

  77

  1 At outturn prices.

  National Health Service (Resources)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to increase resources allocated to the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes. My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 9 December that the provision for the National Health Service in Scotland would rise by about £130 million next year, to £2,393 million and by a further £100 million in each of the next two years. I also refer the hon. Member to the additional £7·6 million of which details were mentioned in the reply I gave on 18 December 1987, at column 820, to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).

  Meningitis
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of meningitis have occurred in Scotland during each of the past three years; how many of these have been fatal; what evidence he has as to the principal cause of the disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of cases of meningococcal meningitis, which is a notifiable disease, for the past three years in Scotland is as follows:

  1985

  136

  1986

  180

  1987

  159 (provisional)

  The number of laboratory reports of all forms of meningitis received by the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit is as follows:

  1985

  460

  1986

  419

  1987

  432

  The number of deaths from all forms of meningitis is as follows:

  1985

  22

  1986

  25

  1987

  n.a.

  The principal attributable cause of the disease has not yet been identified. The recent position is that meningitis in Scotland appears to be confined to sporadic cases with no significant upsurge in numbers beyond anticipated variation. We are, however, keeping the situation under close review.

  Graduates (Teaching)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the percentage of Scottish graduates who went into teaching as a first job in 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of persons entering postgraduate teacher training courses in Scotland in 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1985 expressed as rates per 100 graduates from academic establishments in Scotland during the previous academic year are 28, 30, 14 and 6, respectively. Information on the proportion of graduates commencing teaching employment for the first time in each of these years is not readily available.

  Teachers
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of teaching posts in Scottish primary schools is held by(a) males and (b) females.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  At September 1984 11·4 per cent. of the full-time teachers in education authority primary schools were male and 88·6 per cent. were female.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average salary of(a) a male and (b) a female teacher in Scotland's schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Scottish teachers, whether male of female, receive the same rates of pay which are determined from a single salary structure. The estimated average salary for all Scottish teachers at October 1987 is £13,200. Information on the separate average salaries of male and female teachers is not available.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average age of(a) male and (b) female teachers in Scotland in 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The average ages of full-time teachers in education authority schools are as shown. Information for session 1970–71 is not readily available; 1984–85 is the latest year for which information is available.

  Session

  1975–76

  1980–81

  1984–85

  Primary

  Males

  43

  42

  42

  Females

  36

  38

  40

  Secondary

  Males

  38

  39

  40

  Females

  35

  36

  37

  Primary and Secondary

  Males

  39

  39

  40

  Females

  36

  37

  39

  Ayr Road Route
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the timetable for completion of the Ayr road route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  All of the statutory orders have now been published for this scheme. The number and nature of the objections received, both to the trunk road section and to Strathclyde regional council's proposals, mean that a joint public local inquiry will be required. A provisional starting
  285
  date for an inquiry of 23 March is being investigated and a press announcement confirming details will be made in due course. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot give an indication of when construction of the Ayr road route might start since whether it goes ahead or not will depend on the recommendation of the inquiry reporter and my final decision.

  South African Consul General for Scotland
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions the South African consul general for Scotland has met any Minister or any official of his Department or the Scottish Development Agency; and what was the purpose and outcome of the meetings.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 21 January 1988]: None of my ministerial colleagues has met the South African consul general for Scotland. An official of the Industry Department for Scotland attended a lunch in Glasgow on 26 November 1987, along with others from Scottish industrial and commercial interests, to mark a visit to Scotland by the South African ambassador.

  In addition, Scottish Office officials have occasional meetings or discussions with consular officials in the normal course of their duties.

  Peterhead Prison
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what role he envisages for Peterhead prison within the Scottish penal system;

  (2) what is his policy on the conclusion of the Buyers report into prisoners' grievances at Peterhead, that on balance the building of a new prison at Peterhead is justified;

  (3) whether he will accept the recommendation of the Buyers report into prisoners' grievances at Peterhead on the establishment for new alternative secure units in Scottish prisons;

  (4) when he intends to respond to the recommendation and points of note in the Buyers report into prisoners' grievances at Her Majesty's prison, Peterhead;

  (5) if he will make a statement on Scottish prison policy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: My right hon. and learned Friend made a speech on 25 January on penal policy and the operation of the Scottish prison service in Scotland. Copies of his speech have been placed in the Library. My right hon. and learned Friend indicated in his speech the main measures which he is pursuing in response, inter alia, to the advice put to him by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons (following his special investigation into grievances of prisoners at Peterhead).

  For the time being Peterhead prison will operate with a reduced capacity. At present places are available for up to 60 long-term prisoners who present management or control problems; this capacity will be increased when D hall becomes available in December this year. There is also capacity for up to 50 long-term prisoners who are unable to go into normal circulation and for 20 local prisoners serving short sentences.

  For the longer term, my right hon. and learned Friend is considering a range of options including the possibility of changing the plans for building a new prison at
  286
  Peterhead. He has made it plain, however, that nothing has been decided yet and that this possibility is only one of the options for the future of Peterhead prison.

  The Government's initial response to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on his inquiry into prisoners' grievances at Peterhead prison was published on 6 May. A number of recommendations have already been implemented. Action on other matters will be announced in due course.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Experimental Husbandry Farms
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many experimental husbandry farms there are; what is the purpose of these farms; and if he will make a statement on his future policy in respect of such farms.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There are 12 experimental husbandry farms throughout England and Wales representing all the main farming enterprises on a range of soil types and under a variety of climatic conditions. The primary purpose of these farms is to conduct developmental work in general areas and on specific projects where there is a demonstrable need within the farming industry, with the aim of the early adoption of these systems or techniques by the industry. The development work at the centres is an integral part of the ADAS R and D programme and as such is inseparable from the future decisions on support for agricultural R and D.

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost of running each experimental husbandry farm; what revenue is received in respect of each farm; and how much of that revenue comes from charges to visitors.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The table shows the running costs and the revenue received in respect of each experimental husbandry farm for the financial year 1986–87. None of these receipts are attributable to charged visits.

  Total costs £'000s

  Receipts £'000s

  Boxworth

  796

  409

  Bridgets

  1,006

  477

  Drayton

  630

  201

  Gleadthorpe

  1,225

  381

  High Mowthorpe

  977

  530

  Liscombe

  520

  185

  Pwllpeiran

  475

  180

  Redesdale

  568

  284

  Rickwood

  514

  77

  Rosemaund

  945

  364

  Terrington

  1,147

  359

  Trawscoed

  1,503

  704

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of visitors to each experimental husbandry farm in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The table shows the numbers of visitors to experimental husbandry farms for the years 1984 to 1987.
  287

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Boxworth

  2,861

  2,932

  1,821

  1,958

  Bridgets

  2,915

  2,215

  1,831

  1,925

  Drayton

  1,147

  1,390

  1,106

  950

  Gleadthorpe

  1,758

  2,387

  1,467

  1,129

  High Mowthorpe

  1,187

  2,327

  1,219

  2,269

  Liscombe

  5,144

  3,407

  2,078

  3,356

  Redesdale

  1,197

  1,035

  1,185

  733

  Rickwood

  1,727

  1,788

  1,743

  1,016

  Rosemaund

  7,317

  3,643

  3,403

  3,191

  Terrington

  1,412

  1,880

  1,886

  1,761

  Trawscoed/Pwllpeiran

  2,479

  4,398

  4,184

  2,014

  Basking Sharks
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received from the Marine Conservation Society concerning the fishing of basking sharks in British and European waters; if he will seek their current views on this matter; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many tonnes of basking shark liver have been taken by the Norwegians from British waters during 1987;

  (3) what currently is the quota of Norway in respect of basking shark fishing in British and European waters; and if he intends to make any representations or take any action in respect thereof.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The 1988 Norwegian quota for basking shark in Community waters is 400 tonnes of basking shark liver, as in 1987. Details of catches against this quota for 1987 are not yet available.

  Officials of my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland have had a number of contacts with the Marine Conservation Society about the fishery for basking sharks and its effects on stocks. The Government are aware of the views of the Marine Conservation Society and see no need for further consultation at this stage. Fisheries and Environment Ministers are, however, giving further consideration to the case for inclusion of basking sharks in schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Forestry
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the implications for forestry of the Government's and the EEC's proposals for set-aside in agriculture.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Community set-aside scheme, on which discussions are continuing in the Council of Ministers, is expected to include provision for land taken out of arable crop production to be used for woodland. The consultation document issued by the Agricultural Departments on 8 December 1987 contained suggestions as to how this option might be put into practice in the United Kingdom and linked with the new farm woodland scheme. I and my colleagues will wish to consider the matter further in the light of the Community's final decisions, and of views expressed during our current consultations in this country.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the criteria which are used for the review of pesticides under the control of pesticides regulations.
  288
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: Pesticides under review are evaluated in relation to a wide range of criteria, including their chemical properties, function, efficacy, residues, toxicity and environmental effect. Each product is considered individually, but the fields of interest are those set out in appendix 4 of the volume "Approval for Data Requirements for Approval under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986" which is in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Agricultural Development Programme
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will announce the details of the Northern Ireland agricultural development programme; which items will be grant-aided; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1942/81 under which the Northern Ireland agricultural development programe was introduced, was recently amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3156/87 to permit its continuation. An amended programme has been drafted by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland but it is still subject to the formal approval of the EC Commission. However, I hope that approval will be obtained soon, and that I will be able to make an early announcement about the details of the programme.

  Amusement Machines
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation to regulate the growth of fruit machines, slot machines and video machines in shop premises in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Fruit machines and other slot machines which are used for gaming are already illegal in these premises under the provisions of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. However, I am aware that there are problems associated with the illegal use for gaming of certain types of machines which are designed for amusement only, for example video poker machines and I am considering what action, needs to be taken in regard to these.

  Terrorist Attacks
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the casualty figures due to terrorist attacks for the last three months; what were the figures for the same period for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information is as follows:

  October-December

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Number of persons murdered by terrorists (also includes those murdered as a result of internal disputes)

  28

  8

  9

  10

  19

  289

  October-December

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total injuries associated with terrorist activity

  178

  159

  193

  260

  332

  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration his Department has given to the problems presented by mentally disordered prisoners in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  In Northern Ireland prisoners who are diagnosed as suffering from mental illness or severe impairment (as defined in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986) of a nature or degree which warrants detention in hospital for medical treatment, may be transferred to hospital for such treatment. Male prisoners who do not require hospitalisation but who need treatment for mental disorders are housed in the psychiatric unit in Belfast prison where they are assessed and treated by consultant psychiatrists and prison medical staff. A new purpose-built psychiatric unit in the male prison at Maghaberry is due to open later this year to replace the existing unit in Belfast prison. Female prisoners who need psychiatric attention are treated in Maghaberry (female) prison.

  Students (Republic of Ireland)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report the estimated cost to public funds for students from the Republic of Ireland now receiving their higher education in Northern Ireland as a result of European Community regulations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the cost of reimbursing the tuition fees of these students in the 1987–88 financial year will be about £450,000.

  Police Meetings
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many meetings have taken place between the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Irish Republic's police force since 15 November 1985(a) within Anglo-Irish conferences and (b) outside Anglo-Irish conferences;

  (2) how many meetings have taken place between the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Irish Republic's police force since 15 November 1985 (a) within Northern Ireland, (b) within the Republic of Ireland and (c) elsewhere;

  (3) during how many of the meetings between the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Irish Republic's police force held since 15 November 1985 a Minister or official of his Department was present.

  Mr. Stanley
  Since 15 November 1985, the Chief Constable and the Garda Commissioner have attended eight meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference, four 290
  of which were held in Belfast, three in London and one in Dublin. They have also participated in a further six meetings within the ambit of the conference attended by officials from both sides, five of which were held in Belfast and one in Dublin. In addition, the Chief Constable has had a number of private discussions with the present and former commissioner, both in Dublin and Belfast.

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total capital cost of the construction and equipping of Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry; when work commenced; when it was first used to accommodate prisoners; and if it is now complete.

  Mr. Stanley
  The prison complex at Maghaberry has cost some £35 million to construct and equip. Construction commenced in 1976 and prisoners were first accommodated there in March 1986. The complex is now essentially complete.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the annual(a) maintenance costs and (b) operating costs at Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry for each year that it has been in use.

  Mr. Stanley
  Maintenance costs in the first full financial year of use (1986–87) were £333,939 and in the same period, operating costs were £7,023,058. Corresponding costs in the current financial year to date (April to December 1987) are £227,941 and £7,127,330 respectively.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the prisoner capacity of Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry; and what has been the average annual prison population for each year it has been in use.

  Mr. Stanley
  The female prison at Maghaberry has 56 cells and was designed to accommodate all the female prisoners in Northern Ireland. The male prison has a capacity for 432. The average weekly female population during 1986 was 29 and in 1987 it was 30. The corresponding figures for male prisoners are eight and 16 respectively.

  Students (Covenants)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students from Northern Ireland to whom covenants are made and who are also entitled, after means testing, to a full university or further education award, currently have a deduction made from their awards relative to the amount of the covenant.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available.

  Salmon Tagging
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to combat salmon poaching by the introduction of a tagging scheme.

  Mr. Viggers
  I have no plans at present to do so.

  Fish Disease UDN
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the disease in fish known as UDN was first recorded in a Northern Ireland river; what were
  291
  the peak years of incidence; which rivers were most affected; when the incidence of this disease became so low as not to cause concern over the future of salmon stocks; and what were the principal effects on salmon stocks.

  Mr. Viggers
  I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to UDN (ulcerative dermal necrosis) which was first recorded in a Northern Ireland river in 1966. The peak years of incidence were 1966–68. No information exists to allow an accurate assessment of which rivers were most affected. By the early 1970s the incidence of UDN had become so low as to stop concern over the future of salmon stocks. The principal effect on salmon stocks in Northern Ireland was to reduce the number of adult fish surviving to spawn, thus lowering the amount of ova deposited.

  Extradition
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were extradited from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland in each of the last three years where the charge was in respect of(a) terrorist activity and (b) non-terrorist activity.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information is as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Numbers of persons extradited in respect of terrorist activity

  0

  0

  0

  Number of persons extradited in respect of non-terrorist activity

  4

  1

  0

  On 14 January 1988, the Irish Supreme Court ordered the extradition of Robert Peter Russell, who escaped from the Maze in 1983. He will be returned to Northern Ireland on completion of a three-year sentence imposed in the Republic.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken, in conjunction with the security forces to draw up a list of persons believed to be living in Republic of Ireland, for which applications for extradition might be appropriate, what percentage of such persons are being sought by the Royal Ulster Constabulary for terrorist offences; and if the list has been extended as a result of changes in extradition law in the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Stanley
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 10 November at column 66 it is not the practice to give details of possible individual extradition cases. I can assure him, however, that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has always given consideration to possible extradition cases involving both terrorists and non-terrorist offences.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for extradition of persons from the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland have been made since the recent changes in extradition law in the Irish Republic came into effect; and of these how many were for(a) terrorist offences and (b) non-terrorist offences.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: The Extradition (ECST) Act 1987 came into force on 1 December and the Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987 came into force on 14 December. I understand that between 1 and 14 December there were three new
  292
  applications for the extradition of persons from the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland. There have been no further new applications since 14 December.

  Salmon and Grilse
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what numbers of salmon and grilse have been taken by(a) rod anglers, (b) draft nets, (c) drift nets in the Foyle System and other fixed engines in each of the last 20 years to the end of 1987.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information requested for the years 1985 and 1986 is shown below. Information for 1987 is not yet available. The information for previous years is given in the annual reports of the Foyle Fisheries Commission which are laid before Parliament.

  1985

  1986

  Reported rod catch

  1,814

  1,172

  Draft nets

  14,066

  12,709

  Drift nets

  24,528

  32,280

  Fixed engines

  1,927

  1,365

  Crime Statistics
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what factors he attributes the fact published in the 1986 statistics that overall crime rates in Northern Ireland are consistently lower than in most other regions of the United Kingdom; how the Royal Ulster Constabulary's clear-up rate now compares with that of mainland forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 21 January 1988]: The reasons for the overall crime rate being lower in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales or Scotland must necessarily be somewhat speculative. Adherence to traditional values and the strength of the family unit in the Province may be contributory factors. The RUC's clear-up rate for all forms of crime in 1986 was 37 per cent. compared to 32 per cent. in England and Wales and 34 per cent. in Scotland in the same year. The RUC is to be congratulated on this performance, particularly as it is achieved amidst a terrorist campaign which makes conventional police work that much more difficult.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the number of days off work sick reported for members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for each of the last five years; and if he will express this as an average figure.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: The following number of days were lost by members of the regular RUC as a result of sickness and injury on duty for each of the last five years:

  Days lost

  1983

  91,388

  1984

  110,048

  1985

  132,669

  1986

  148,307

  1987

  1

  1 Figures not vet available.

  In 1986 these figures represented an average loss of 18·01 days per member.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 14 December 1987,Official Report, column 338, if he will list the area of buoyant labour demand where new claimants will be provided with information on available jobs.

  Mr. Lee
  This will be a matter for regional and local managers in the employment service to decide, based on the prevailing circumstances in their areas.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen in the northern region since July 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 December 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the northern region, adjusted for seasonality and excluding school leavers, was 191,400, a fall of 34,500 since July 1986.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department takes to help reduce the problem of seasonal unemployment.
  294
  Mr. Lee
  Seasonal fluctuations in unemployment have always occurred here and in other countries, reflecting seasonal patterns of demand. They occur even when unemployment is very low. Those affected usually remain unemployed for only short periods.

  In tourism, one of the industries particularly affected by seasonal unemployment, it is Government policy, and that of the national tourist boards, to encourage year-round tourism through marketing and investment in tourism facilities.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Cornwall.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 December 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the county of Cornwall was 23,972.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the present level of job vacancies in the Blackpool travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Lee
  On 4 December 1987 the number of unfilled vacancies at the jobcentres Blackpool central, Blackpool south, Thornton Clevelys, St. Annes, Kirkham and Fleetwood, which cover an area closely corresponding to the Blackpool travel-to-work area, was 864.
  295
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage change in(a) employment levels and (b) unemployment levels of those aged under 25 years, 25 to 54 years, and 55 years and over (i) from mid-1979 to mid-1986 and (ii) from mid-1986.

  Mr. Lee
  The regularly published working population series does not separately identify those in employment by age. Also estimates by age from the monthly unemployment count for 1979 and 1986 are not comparable because of changes in coverage. The Labour force survey (LFS) provides information on a different basis.

  LFS estimates of the percentage change in the number of persons in employment in Great Britain between spring 1979 and spring 1986, for the age groups requested, are as shown:

  Age (Years)

  Change per cent.

  16–24

  +2·7

  25–54

  +2·0

  55 and over

  -20·8

  LFS estimates of the percentage change in the number of persons unemployed in Great Britain are not available for 1979 on a basis consistent with later years. The estimated percentage changes from spring 1981 to spring 1986 are as follows:

  Age (Years)

  Change per cent.1

  16–24

  +2·92

  25–54

  +29·0

  55 and over

  -12·3

  Table 1

  Employees in employment: Percentage changes between June of each year in the categories listed in Table 1·3 of 'Employment Gazette'

  Great Britain

  Division Class or Group of SIC1

  Change 1979–80

  Change 1980–81

  Change 1981–82

  Change 1982–83

  Change 1983–84

  Change 1984–85

  Change 1985–86

  Change 1986–87

  Change 1979–87

  Production Industries

  1·4

  -3·9

  -9·6

  -5·5

  -5·7

  -2·4

  -1·2

  -2·9

  -1·8

  -28·9

  Manufacturing Industries

  2·4

  -4·3

  10·3

  -5·7

  -5·8

  -2·1

  -0·8

  -2·3

  -1·3

  -28·7

  Energy and Water Supply

  1

  0·7

  -2·3

  -4·2

  -4·7

  -5·0

  -4·5

  -8·6

  -7·4

  -31·0

  Coal extraction and solid fuels

  111

  -0·4

  -4·2

  -5·0

  -5·3

  -8·8

  -6·6

  -16·5

  -15·9

  -48·7

  Electricity

  161

  -0·6

  -3·1

  -4·8

  -3·6

  -3·1

  -2·4

  -1·2

  -0·5

  -17·8

  Gas

  162

  1·1

  0·0

  -1·8

  -3·5

  -3·9

  -4·0

  -4·1

  -4·5

  -19·0

  Other Mineral and Ore Extraction Etc

  2

  -5·9

  -12·8

  -5·6

  -7·8

  -2·3

  0·1

  -2·6

  -0·9

  -32·5

  Metal Manufacturing

  22

  -10·0

  -19·6

  -10·0

  -13·9

  -9·5

  -3·7

  -7·4

  -4·8

  -56·9

  Non-Metalic Mineral Products

  24

  -4·9

  -12·1

  3·4

  -4·3

  2·7

  3·6

  -1·0

  1·2

  -17·7

  Chemical Industry

  25

  -3·5

  -8·9

  -4·1

  -6·0

  -0·6

  0·6

  -0·6

  0·2

  -21·1

  Basic industrial chemicals

  251

  -3·1

  -11·1

  -7·6

  -8·4

  -1·0

  1·2

  -0·6

  0·0

  -27·3

  Other chemical products and preparations

  255–259/260

  -3·8

  -7·6

  -1·8

  -4·5

  -0·3

  0·3

  -0·5

  0·3

  -17·0

  Metal Goods, Engineering

  and Vehicles

  3

  -3·2

  -10·6

  -6·5

  -6·7

  -3·2

  -1·7

  -3·7

  -2·6

  -32·6

  Metal Goods nes

  31

  -4·3

  -15·2

  -6·1

  -10·5

  -3·7

  -3·5

  -5·5

  -1·9

  -41·2

  Mechanical Engineering Industrial plant and

  32

  -2·7

  -10·4

  -6·3

  -8·9

  -2·3

  -0·3

  -3·3

  -1·9

  -31·3

  steelwork

  320

  -7·5

  -12·5

  -3·9

  -7·6

  8·0

  -3·1

  -6·7

  -1·3

  -30·8

  Mining and construction

  machinery etc Other machinery and

  325

  -4·4

  -13·0

  -8·6

  -6·2

  -5·4

  -4·1

  -2·2

  -3·0

  -38·6

  mechanical equipment

  328

  -2·1

  -10·0

  -6·1

  -9·4

  -2·8

  1·1

  -2·7

  -1·4

  -29·4

  Office Machinery, Data

  Processing Equipment

  33

  4·8

  -0·7

  3·4

  2·3

  3·3

  9·1

  -0·5

  3·6

  28·1

  Electrical and Electronic

  Engineering

  34

  -2·1

  -8·6

  -6·9

  -3·4

  -0·8

  -2·2

  -4·1

  -2·4

  -27·0

  296

  1 Estimated change in the number unemployed on the definition adopted in the Department of Employment's estimates of the Great Britain labour force.

  2 The 1981 LFS estimate for 16 to 24-years-olds is on a slightly different basis from later years and the estimated change since 1981 is therefore less reliable than for the older age groups.

  Figures on this basis are not yet available for 1987. However, the percentage changes in claimant unemployed in Great Britain from July 1986 to October 1987, for the age groups requested, are as shown:

  Age (Years)

  Change per cent.

  16–24

  -22·6

  25–54

  -14·1

  55 and over

  -9·8

  These claimant unemployed figures are affected by seasonal influences.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been(a) the annual percentage change since 1979 in the total (i) employed and (ii) unemployed, and (b) the aggregate percentage change since 1979 to the latest available date in the total (i) employed and (ii) unemployed, in each of the categories of employment listed in tables 1·2 and 1·3 of the Employment Gazette.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: The available information is as follows:
  297

  Great Britain

  Division Class or Group of SIC1

  Change 1979–80

  Change 1980–81

  Change 1981–82

  Change 1982–83

  Change 1983–84

  Change 1984–85

  Change 1985–86

  Change 1986–87

  Change 1979–87

  Wires, cables, batteries and other electrical equipment

  341/342/343

  -3·2

  -9·6

  -7·6

  -6·9

  -3·8

  -1·3

  -5·7

  -4·6

  -35·7

  Telecommunication equipment

  344

  2·0

  -3·7

  -4·5

  -2·4

  -2·7

  -2·8

  -4·5

  -1·8

  -18·9

  Other electronic and electrical equipment

  345–348

  -4·2

  -11·7

  -8·3

  0·0

  4·7

  -2·5

  -1·9

  -0·8

  -22·9

  Motor Vehicles and Parts

  35

  -6·3

  -16·8

  -12·9

  -6·0

  -6·1

  -4·2

  -5·3

  -4·6

  -48·2

  Motor vehicles and engines

  351

  -6·2

  -16·7

  -14·3

  0·3

  -5·6

  -1·2

  -4·4

  -7·1

  ·44·5

  Bodies, trailers, caravans and parts

  352/353

  -6·3

  16·8

  -12·1

  -9·4

  -6·4

  -6·1

  -5·8

  -3·0

  -50·2

  Other Transport Equipment

  36

  -3·0

  -4·4

  -3·4

  -5·5

  -9·0

  -3·9

  -3·6

  -5·9

  -32·8

  Aerospace equipment

  364

  1·3

  -2·8

  -4·1

  -3·2

  -1·5

  -1·1

  -1·2

  -2·2

  -14·0

  Ship and other transport equipment

  361–363/365

  -7·1

  -6·0

  -2·8

  -8·0

  -17·3

  -7·5

  -6·9

  -11·4

  -50·7

  Instrument Engineering

  37

  -3·0

  -9·3

  -3·3

  -6·3

  0·0

  0·9

  1·1

  -2·1

  -20·4

  Other Manufacturing Industries

  4

  -5·0

  -8·9

  -4·7

  -3·9

  -0·9

  -0·1

  -0·6

  0·0

  -22·0

  Food, Drink and Tobacco

  41/42

  -1·1

  -5·8

  -4·0

  -6·1

  -2·7

  -1·6

  -3·7

  -1·3

  -23·6

  Meat and meat products, organic oils and fats

  411/412

  0·5

  -4·3

  -4·5

  -2·7

  -4·3

  -0·2

  -1·6

  -0·9

  -16·8

  Alcoholic and soft drinks manufacture

  424/428

  0·7

  -7·4

  -4·2

  -8·4

  -0·6

  -4·3

  ·4·9

  -2·1

  -27·6

  All other food, drink and tobacco manufacture

  413–423/429

  -2·0

  -5·7

  -3·8

  -6·3

  -3·0

  -1·2

  -3·9

  -1·2

  24·1

  Textiles

  43

  -12·6

  -15·9

  -6·2

  -6·8

  -2·2

  -0·3

  0·7

  -5·1

  -40·1

  Footwear and Clothing

  45

  -8·6

  -12·9

  -6·1

  -3·2

  2·1

  1·0

  0-6

  -1·6

  -26·2

  Timber and Wooden

  Furniture

  46

  -5·1

  -8·0

  -7·4

  1·2

  0·1

  -0·4

  2·6

  0·7

  -15·7

  Paper, Printing and

  Publishing Pulp, paper, board and

  47

  -0·8

  -5·1

  -2·9

  -2·8

  -0·9

  0·7

  -1·2

  2·5

  -10·3

  derived products

  471/472

  -5·5

  -12·8

  -7·0

  -7·3

  -3·4

  -0·5

  ·0·8

  4·4

  -29·3

  Printing and publishing

  475

  1·9

  -1·1

  -1·0

  -0·9

  0·1

  1·2

  -1·3

  1·7

  0·5

  Rubber and Plastics

  48

  -5·3

  -11·2

  -4·5

  -2·2

  3·5

  1·5

  2·8

  4·2

  -11·6

  Other Manufacturing

  49

  -10·9

  -10·5

  -3·1

  -2·5

  -4·6

  0·6

  3·8

  3·7

  -22·1

  1 Standard Industrial Classification.

  Table 2 Employees in Employment: Percentage changes between June of each year in those categories listed in table 1.2 of 'Employment Gazette' which do not appear in table 1.3

  Great Britain

  Division Class or Group of SIC

  Change 1979–80

  Change 1980–81

  Change 1981–82

  Change 1982–83

  Change 1983–84

  Change 1984–85

  Change 1985–86

  Change 1986–87

  Change 1979–87

  All industries and services

  (0–9)*

  All employees

  -0·8

  -4·8

  -2·2

  -1·6

  0·8

  1·3

  0·4

  1·3

  -5·6

  Production and construction industries

  (1–5)

  All employees

  -3·3

  -9·4

  -5·6

  -5·2

  -2·2

  -1·2

  -2·9

  -1·3

  -27·4

  Service industries

  (6–9)

  All employees

  0·9

  -1·8

  -0·2

  0-4

  2·5

  2·6

  2·2

  2·6

  9·5

  Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

  (01–03)

  -1·9

  -2·6

  -1·5

  -2·4

  -3·0

  0·3

  -3·4

  -3·2

  -16·4

  Coal, oil and natural gas extraction and processing

  (11–14)

  0·3

  -3·1

  -4·7

  -5·2

  -7·1

  -6·2

  -15·1

  -14·3

  -44·4

  Electricity, gas, other energy and water supply

  (15–17)

  1·1

  -1·4

  -3·7

  -4·4

  -2·7

  -3·1

  -2·9

  -2·0

  -17·6

  Metal manufacturing, ore and other mineral extraction

  (21–24)

  -7·5

  -15·3

  -6·8

  -8·9

  -3·7

  -0·2

  -4·3

  -1·6

  -39·8

  Office machinery, electrical engineering and instruments

  (33–34, 37)

  -1·7

  -8·1

  -5·5

  -3·3

  -0·3

  -0·5

  -3·1

  -1·6

  -21·8

  Textiles, leather, footwear and clothing

  (43–45)

  -10·5

  -14·2

  -6·0

  -5·0

  -0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  -3·1

  -33·5

  Timber, wooden furniture, rubber, plastics, etc.

  (46, 48–49)

  -6·3

  -9·7

  -5·4

  -0·8

  0·6

  0·4

  3·0

  2·7

  ·15-2

  Construction

  (50)

  0·4

  -8·6

  -5·8

  -2·2

  -0·5

  -1·4

  -2·8

  2·4

  -17·5

  Wholesale distribution and repairs

  (61–63, 67)

  3·2

  -3·0

  0·3

  0-8

  2·8

  1·2

  1·4

  2·8

  9·6

  Retail distribution

  (64–65)

  nil

  -3·9

  -3·3

  -1·0

  2·4

  1·6

  1·2

  0·3

  -2·9

  Hotels and catering

  (66)

  3·0

  -3·0

  3·1

  -1·0

  4·8

  5·1

  2·3

  2·3

  17·6

  Transport

  (71–77)

  -0·8

  -5·9

  -4·4

  -3·2

  -0·6

  0-3

  -0·8

  0·2

  -14·3

  Postal services and telecommunications

  (79)

  3·4

  0·2

  ·0·2

  -0·9

  nil

  0·5

  0·7

  2·8

  6·5

  298 299

  Great Britain

  Division Class or Group of SIC

  Change 1979–80

  Change 1980–81

  Change 1981–82

  Change 1982–83

  Change 1983–84

  Change 1984–85

  Change 1985–86

  Change 1986–87

  Change 1979–87

  Banking, finance, insurance

  (81–85)

  2·9

  2·6

  3·4

  4·3

  5·0

  5·9

  5·8

  6·0

  42·2

  Public administration etc.

  (91–92)

  -1·1

  -4·2

  -1·0

  2·0

  1·0

  1·3

  1·1

  2·6

  1·4

  Education

  (93)

  -1·2

  -1·7

  -1·2

  -0·4

  0·6

  1·0

  2·4

  3·0

  2·5

  Medical and other health services: veterinary services

  (95)

  -2·0

  2·7

  0·9

  -0·9

  0·4

  1·2

  0·3

  -0·2

  6·6

  Other services

  (94, 96–98)

  -1·9

  -0·3

  1·8

  0·8

  6·7

  6·0

  4·2

  3·9

  27·6

  As a result of the change to a claimant-based unemployment count, statistics of unemployment by industry have not been available since May 1982. Figures prior to 1982 are not available by the 1980 standard industrial classification (SIC) definitions as given in tables 1.2 and 1.3 of the Employment Gazette.

  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how, for the purpose of its flotation, the valuation of Professional and Executive Recruitment will be taken, given the service/knowledge orientation of its work;

  (2) what safeguards are proposed to ensure the autonomy of Professional and Executive Recruitment;

  (3) what consultations have taken place with trades unions concerning the proposed privatisation of Professional and Executive Recruitment.

  Mr. Cope
  These issues do not yet arise. On 2 December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the appointment of Lloyds Merchant Bank Limited to advise early in the new year on the options for transferring Professional and Executive Recruitment out of the public sector. We are awaiting Lloyds' advice and recommendations before taking a decision.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the income to Professional and Executive Recruitment in each year since 1979 from(a) social welfare subvention and (b) the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Social subvention1

  Manpower Services Commission2

  MSC/DE Grant3

  £

  £

  £

  1979–80

  3,535,000

  205,000

  Nil

  1980–81

  4,914,000

  131,000

  Nil

  1981–82

  4,920,000

  370,000

  Nil

  1982–83

  4,591,000

  618,000

  Nil

  1983–84

  Nil

  2,886,000

  123,000

  1984–85

  Nil

  2,179,000

  170,000

  1985–86

  Nil

  2,754,000

  170,000

  1986–87

  Nil

  3,514,000

  271,000

  1 Until 31 March 1983, PER operated with the assistance of a subvention from public funds to cover the identifiable costs of PER's non-commercial activities. On 1 April 1983, this subvention was withdrawn. PER was given a new "break-even" objective requiring that operating costs are met in full from earned revenue.

  2 Net income from recruitment work for MSC programmes.

  3 Grant from MSC/Department of Employment for non-commercial work.

  Tourism
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures he has on tourist-related employment in the county of Durham.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest data relate to September 1984 when there were an estimated 11,800 employees in employment in tourism-related industries in the county of Durham. This figure does not include self-employed persons for whom a comparable estimate is not available.

  Flammable Gases and Liquids
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement, pursuant to his answer,Official Report, 15 December 1987, column 914, on the consideration by the Health and Safety Commission of the report by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances on proposals for the future controls over flammable gases and liquids, including standards relating to the keeping and use of liquefied petroleum gas.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission sought the advice of its Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances on controls over flammable gases and liquids. The committee recommended a number of specific initiatives to improve controls and standards and to fill particular gaps. These initiatives include the development of up-to-date standards and guidance in close co-operation with industry, in such fields as piped gas transmission and distribution, the keeping and use of liquefied petroleum gas at residential premises, and the construction and operation of petrol filling stations. The commission has accepted the committee's advice and the Health and Safety Executive has embarked on discussions and consultations to carry the initiatives forward.

  Mines and Quarries Act 1954
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many responses to "Restrictions in Employment of Young People" and the "Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation" are in favour of repealing section 93 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 which prohibits women and young people from lifting, carrying or moving a load so heavy as likely to cause injury at a mine.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No responses have been received to date concerning section 93 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. The closing date for comments on the consultative document is 29 February 1988.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the average fine for breaking the health and safety laws in 1985 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 1 December 1987 at column 504.

  Manpower Services Commission Programmes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the number of projects, the

  Great Britain1 planned starts and expenditure 1987–882 by region3, expenditure expressed as a percentage of Great Britain total

  Business enterprise programme

  Private enterprise programme

  Local grants to employers4

  Region

  Starts5

  Expenditure

  Per cent.

  Starts

  Expenditure

  Per cent.

  Starts

  Expenditure

  per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  South East

  5,790

  0·718

  11·21

  5,561

  0·293

  7·71

  15,360

  2·708

  11·48

  London

  8,962

  1·102

  17·21

  6,180

  0·502

  13·21

  11,665

  2·184

  9·26

  South West

  7,855

  0·770

  12·02

  6,892

  0·121

  3·19

  5,555

  1·618

  6·86

  West Midlands

  4,617

  0·445

  6·95

  3,872

  0·466

  12·27

  13,328

  3·620

  15·35

  East Midlands and Eastern

  4,615

  0·555

  8·67

  8,154

  0·739

  19·45

  10,173

  2·697

  11·44

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,846

  0·428

  6·68

  5,150

  0·414

  10·90

  6,101

  1·550

  6·59

  North West

  8,592

  1·008

  15·74

  10,007

  0·712

  18·74

  11,652

  3·365

  14·27

  Northern

  3,359

  0·389

  6·07

  3,442

  0·146

  3·84

  8,015

  1·901

  8·06

  Wales

  3,339

  0·313

  4·89

  2,996

  0·133

  3·50

  6,648

  1·502

  6·37

  Scotland

  3,836

  0·677

  10·57

  4,006

  0·273

  7·19

  9,282

  2·431

  10·31

  GREAT BRITAIN

  54,811

  6·405

  100·00

  56,260

  3·799

  100·00

  97,779

  23·581

  100·00

  Expenditure per head of the regional population6 in Great Britain

  Business enterprise programme

  Private enterprise programme

  Local grants to employers

  £

  £

  £

  Region

  South East

  0·07

  0·03

  0·27

  London

  0·16

  0·07

  0·32

  South West

  0·17

  0·03

  0·36

  West Midlands

  0·09

  0·09

  0·70

  East Midlands and Eastern

  0·09

  0·11

  0·42

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0·09

  0·08

  0·32

  North West

  0·15

  0·10

  0·49

  Northern

  0·15

  0·06

  0·73

  Wales

  0·11

  0·05

  0·53

  Scotland

  0·13

  0·05

  0·47

  1 Figures for the United Kingdom are not available.

  2 April 1987—March 1988.

  3 Manpower Services Commission regions have been used, as figures are not recorded by standard region.

  4 Local Grants to Employers include two complementary schemes, Local Training Grants and Local Consultancy Grants. It is not possible separately to identify Local Training Grants by region.

  5 Records of projects are not recorded; starts to schemes have been given.

  6 Manpower Services Commission population projection for calendar year 1987.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Dollar-denominated Bonds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the extent of the United Kingdom's present commitments in the form of dollar-denominated bonds, broken down between the public and private sector; and what is his estimate of the losses incurred on these bonds(a) since their original purchase, (b) over the last 12 months and (c) since 19 October 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is not the practice to publish a currency breakdown of United Kingdom's official reserves,302
  amount of expenditure, the percentage of United Kingdom expenditure, and expenditure per head of regional population, in each United Kingdom standard region for the following Manpower Services Commission programmes (a) the business enterprise programme, (b) the private enterprise programme and (c) training grants to small employers.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: It is not possible to provide the information in the precise form requested. The available information is shown in the tables.

  including any overseas bond holdings. Comprehensive recent information on United Kingdom residents' holdings of dollar-denominated bonds is not available.

  Trading Fund Status
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of the establishment of the Atomic Energy Authority as a trading fund, any other authorities or Government organisations will be brought into the category of a trading fund.

  Mr. Major
  Trading fund status is an option for organisations whose operations make it a suitable method
  303
  of financing. There are no firm proposals to establish additional trading funds at present, but cases will continue to be considered on their merits.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers invested in the business expansion scheme in 1984–85, by the marginal rate of tax and the amount of business expansion scheme investment, as set out in table 5.7 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1987."

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is as follows:

  Investors by marginal rate of lax and amount of BES investment for 1984–85

  Percentages

  Amount of BES investment (£'000)

  Marginal rate of tax per cent.

  0–5

  5–10

  10–20

  20–30

  30+

  Total

  30

  12

  6

  1

  —

  1

  20

  40–55

  35

  9

  3

  2

  1

  51

  60

  11

  7

  7

  2

  4

  30

  Total

  58

  22

  11

  4

  6

  100

  Note:

  This table includes later information not available when "Inland Revenue Statistics 1987" was compiled; hence the final column does not correspond exactly with that in table 5.6.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Michael Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether(a) a jaffa cake, (b) a chocolate chip cookie, (c) a cereal bar, (d) a chocolate bar and (e) a chocolate-coated biscuit are subject to value added tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  The liability to value added tax of confectionery is governed by excepted item No. 2 of group 1 of schedule 5 to the VAT Act 1983. Under this provision chocolate bars and chocolate coated biscuits are liable to VAT at the standard rate. Jaffa cakes and chocolate chip cookies are regarded as zero-rated. The liability of cereal bars, of which there are a wide variety, falls to be determined in individual cases.
  304
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Her Majesty's Customs and Excise intend to make available the value added tax annual accounting scheme under section 11(1) of the Finance Act 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  The scheme will be available from 1 July 1988 and a copy of the proposed draft Value Added Tax (Annual Accounting) Regulations 1988 has been placed in the Library today.

  Nuclear Establishments (Payments)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the formula employed by the Crown Estate Commissioners to calculate the payments due to them in respect of pipelines and associated works on the seabed at Dounreay, Sellafield and Hunterston nuclear establishments.

  Mr. Lawson
  The Crown Estate Commissioners use the district valuer to assess the value of their foreshore and seabed dealings. In assessing these values the district valuer acts on the basis of instructions from the valuation office to the effect that the price or rent should be the best which is obtainable in the open market and estimates should therefore be capable of justification on normal considerations of supply and demand, including the demand of the particular purchaser or lessee. The objective is to get the best price or rent obtainable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. In the case of the disposal of rights or interests in the foreshore or seabed, the commissioners often hold the monopoly. They do not, however, wish any element of monopoly value to be included. In such cases, therefore, the district valuer assumes, for the purpose of making his valuation, that there is a measure of competition and that, if the negotiations with the commissioners break down, equally suitable facilities could be obtained from other landowners on payment of a consideration which is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.
Baroness Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn—Took the Oath.

Education Support Grant: Allocations
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their latest plans for the funding of education support grants.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the education support grant allocations for the 1988–89 programme were announced on 17th December last year. They total £115·5 million. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will shortly announce allocations of £7·3 million for the programme in Wales. We are currently considering what activities should be included in the programme for the financial year 1989–90.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that interesting information. Can she say as to what degree Her Majesty's Government consider this scheme a complete success?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend alongside says 100 per cent. Most certainly the Government consider that the education support grant programme has been a success. There has been a great deal of valuable activity covering all age groups and many areas of the curriculum as well as aspects of local education authority management. All the local education authorities have received some ESG support over the three years of its existence, and for the 1988–89 round each category was overbid. In total, the bids for activities other than those which are essentially formula based amounted to 2·6 times the envisaged expenditure.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, one of the proposed pilot projects for the year 1986 was,
"to improve the use of the spoken word by pupils of compulsory school age."
May I ask the Minister what the take-up on the part of local authorities has been for this particular project since it seems to be one of the greatest importance and interest? She may not be able to let me know now, and if she cannot perhaps she would be kind enough to write to me.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should certainly he happy to write to the noble Lord with the detail he requested. I can in general respond that there appears
626
to have been an extremely successful result. Indeed, in terms of the GCSE examinations, where oral assessment is an essential part, this too is proving successful and is welcomed.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, would the Minister agree that there is a considerable problem so far as grant is concerned with the 16 to 19-year-old group? Many young people of that age are prevented from going on to further education because of lack of financial support. Is the noble Baroness further aware that the settlement made in December last year does nothing to improve the situation? Can it be reexamined?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not sure that I can agree with the noble Lord. Last week I visited two colleges of further education, both of which welcomed very much the influence and effect of the education support grant provision in their establishments. In fact, taking a particular example, over £28 million of expenditure on IT in non-advanced further education has been supported, and local education authorities have had the opportunity to bid for around £40,000 worth of equipment for each of their colleges.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Secretary of State for Wales will shortly announce a grant of £7.3 million for Wales. In view of the fact that she has just announced it, what more will he say?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that he will say the same thing, but no doubt in an inimitably Welsh way.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it true that he is going to say it in Welsh?
Baroness David: My Lords, how much money is going to be allotted to No. 11 on the schedule presented in December for the development, provision and appraisal of courses of initial training for school governors? Am I right in thinking that only £100,000 was allotted over the last two years, going to just 10 authorities? If the present Bill goes through, governors will need a great deal more training. Why should that be confined to so few authorities?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the details of the 1989–90 programme have yet to be finalised. Certainly, the training needs of school governors is an important issue in the light of the educational reforms and will be considered when the ESG programme is drawn up for the next period.

Human Rights in Kenya
2.42 p.m.
Lord Mulley: 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 representations are being made regarding human rights cases in Kenya.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we make our views clear on these matters in our regular contacts with the government of Kenya.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I have greatly admired the progress and achievement of Kenya since I visited it as a member of a parliamentary delegation at the time of Mau-Mau and again after independence. Does the noble Lord not agree that its reputation has been gravely tarnished by the allegations of serious violations of human rights? His right honourable friend the Prime Minister is inevitably extremely well briefed. Did she not make representations on these matters during her recent visit to Kenya, and can he tell us something about the results?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I can. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that some anxiety has been expressed, not least by Amnesty International recently. My right honourable friend raised the matter when she was in Kenya and it was therefore particularly satisfying to have the very robust response to her representations which emerged from President Moi's speech at the banquet at the end of her visit. Perhaps I may let the noble Lord have the words that he used, which were most reassuring.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what have been the results of that robust response? Can the Minister say what Her Majesty's Government's reactions are to the recent report of Amnesty International, which makes the most grave allegations? This a matter which saddens all of us in view of our high regard for Kenya and its government. Can he say whether anything has been done in relation to political prisoners since the Prime Minister was there?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the case, as the noble Lord said, that Amnesty International issued a report last year saying that there were some problems in this area in Kenya. We have been making representations on that matter, including in particular those made by my right honourable friend. Perhaps I could let the noble Lord have the detail of some of the matters that have emerged and some of the very satisfactory responses we have observed in Kenya since the issue of the Amnesty International report, not least, as I said earlier, the response of President Moi on the occasion to which I referred.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, many of us will be glad to hear the Minister's response and to learn that representations have been made in private. Can he also give us some assurance that when government Ministers at any level go on official visits to countries where human rights are in question no impression will be given that everything in those countries is in order, but there should be a public indication to make people aware of the anxieties which have been caused by the policies of such governments?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not without sympathy for the point that the right reverend Prelate makes, but I would, if I may, counsel a little caution.
628
I recall on one occasion being asked to make such representations in a country I was visiting. I was told, yes, there was one political prisoner remaining in prison, waiting for a visa to enter the United Kingdom. Needless to say that slightly took the wind out of my sails. But the right reverend Prelate is right. It is necessary to make representations at the appropriate level but not in too scatter-gun a fashion, because in that way we lose the effect of what we can do in specific cases.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his encouraging reply. I do not wish for him in any sense to have the wind taken out of his sails, which I should think is a rare occurrence. Can he not say now whether anything of substance has happened, in the sense that some people have been let out of gaol or put on trial? Can we assume that the threat to arrest any members of Amnesty International who should chance to arrive in Kenya is now withdrawn?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, we have made our views known that any such action would not meet with our approval. I certainly have not heard of any such action having been taken. I am aware of at least one political prisoner who has been released recently and I hope that more will be in the future.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord assure the House that Her Majesty's Government arc completely behind the work of Amnesty International and will let this be known in any country where its representatives may be visiting?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly think that Amnesty International does a great deal of very useful and worthwhile work. But whether it would be of benefit to make the public representations to which the noble Lord is referring I am not quite so sure.

Crown Suppliers: Future
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have anything to add to their Answer given on 7th December 1987 (HL Debates, col. 3) on the future of the Crown Suppliers.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we hope to make an announcement about the future of the Crown Suppliers shortly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. If the financial return on capital of the Crown Suppliers is better than the Government call for, will that be a prime factor in deciding the future of this department? If it is not a main feature, ought it not to be?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is the Government's policy to consider whether all aspects of government activity really need to be in the public sector or could be run more efficiently and economically by private enterprise. As the Crown Suppliers operates as a trading fund it is possible that it could be run appropriately in the private sector.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as one of the answers to a Question I asked in the House in December showed that the return on capital was in excess of what even the Government required, does this not make it appear that the decision is being delayed so that the Government can produce some squalid excuse for selling off a department that is a benefit both to the Government and to the taxpayer generally?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we undertook to consider carefully representations made to us by staff representatives before coming to a decision. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met staff and union representatives in December. The issues they raised have needed to be examined in depth, so that we can be sure that a decision will be reached which takes all the important factors into account.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be wiser to wait for this statement to be made, rather than try to bring forward a smear campaign now?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I did say in my original Answer that the decision would be made shortly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I rather regret the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, about a smear campaign. I have been in your Lordships' House for four years and that is not a tactic to which I would stoop.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister mean that the House must wait for the Government to make up their mind—if they have a mind—before it tries to influence them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government do have a mind.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the question was when are they going to make up what they call a mind?

Child Abuse
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 new measures have been taken to tackle child abuse.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government place a high priority on child abuse matters and have taken the following measures: the publication of a White Paper entitled The Law on Child Care and Family Services; the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill on children's evidence and sentencing of offenders; new arrangements for disclosure of criminal backgrounds of those seeking to work with children—a circular to the NHS will be issued next month and we are consulting the voluntary sector; the introduction of annual statistics on children on child protection registers; the establishment of a DHSS centrally-funded training initiative; the setting up of three working groups to provide practice advice to doctors, nurses and social workers; and the redrafting of Working Together which will be issued to social services departments, the NHS, the education service and the police. This will be issued following receipt of the Cleveland report.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that admirable reply, but I should like to ask one supplementary question. As one who was instrumental in starting social work training in the 1930s, perhaps I may draw the attention of my noble friend to the report by Mr. Blom-Cooper on the death of the small girl, Kimberley Carlile, in which it was stated that most of the social workers in that case were trained. Is he satisfied that today social work training is adequate to deal with these very serious child abuse cases?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are mindful of the need to effect improvements in the quality of child abuse social work training. I have already mentioned the DHSS-funded training initiative in child abuse. We are discussing with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work proposals for reforming social work training generally and ways of improving knowledge and competence in the particular area of child abuse.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of all the measures that the Minister has listed to take care of child abuse, does he think that eventually it may become necessary to find parliamentary time for the passage of a child care Bill?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we made clear in the White Paper entitled The Law on Child Care and Family Services that we shall overhaul child care law as soon as parliamentary time is available. Our proposals will provide a clearer and fairer framework for the provision of services and for the protection of children at risk. As my right honourable friend the Minister for Health announced on 12th January, we shall need quickly to review our proposals for the protection of children at risk when the Cleveland report is published.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend in his possession any information as to when the Cleveland report is likely to be in the hands of the public?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the answer to my noble and learned friend is that we very much hope

631
that we shall have the Cleveland report in the first half of this year.
Baroness Faithful!: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether one of the committees to which he has referred will set out to define what is child abuse in all its aspects—physical, emotional and social? Also, does he agree that in different parts of the country child abuse is thought of in different ways and that there needs to be clarification from the legal point of view, the social point of view and the medical point of view as to exactly what is child abuse?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have no plans to set up such a working group. Child abuse is already defined in the draft DHSS guide Working Together. Further guidance will be issued when the Cleveland inquiry report, and when the reports of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee sub-committee on clinical diagnosis of sexual abuse and the two groups producing practice guidance for social workers, nurses and midwives have been received and considered.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I welcome the various steps which the noble Earl has announced to the House. Can he say whether efforts will be made, and urgently made, to ensure that local authorities' social services departments work much more closely with general practitioners?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course that is in hand. We recognise that working closely with other government departments is important and a number of steps have been taken to facilitate this. One example is the setting up earlier this year of an interdepartmental group on child abuse which meets as required.
Lord Diamond: My Lord, as this is the last Question in Question Time, can the noble Earl inform me, or can the Leader of the House inform me, what would be a convenient opportunity to express the pleasure which I feel, and which I dare say is shared by all your Lordships, at the return of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to your Lordships' Chamber?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, what a splendid and wonderful final supplementary question!

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the debate in the name of the noble Earl, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes and in that of the noble Lord to 11 minutes. I think it would be apposite to remind noble Lords
632
who are speaking that, were they to allow the figures eight or 11 respectively to appear on the clock, their speeches would already be too long.

Scotland: Land and Sea Use
2.57 p.m
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth rose to call attention to land use and sea use in and around Scotland; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in 1992—only four years away—Scotland's market with no trade barriers will be 350 million people. We, with Portugal and Greece, will be on the extremities of this vast market and perhaps the least well-off of all the nations. In degree this is cause and effect. How are we to overcome the handicap of distance?
Above all, our communication system, whether by land, sea or air—I think that the technical name is our infrastructure—must be absolutely first-class. And what do we find today? I ask your Lordships to take our North-South lines of communication and, first, our road links with England. The English M-roads stop at Newcastle and Carlisle. After that, all we find are the A-roads; the notorious A-road going up to Glasgow with only the last few miles converted to M-road, and the A1 and several smaller A-roads going up to Edinburgh. Is it right that the M-roads should stop before the borders with Scotland? Are the English still afraid of raids from Scotland? I wonder! I shall not go into further detail about the roads except to observe that almost all the roads in Scotland are A roads. It is true that we have a small M system from Edinburgh to Perth—very welcome it is too—and from Glasgow to Stirling. I also recognise that the Government have been trying hard in some respects to improve the road system further north. But I sense that there is no urgency in this endeavour; that one does the ordinary repairs and every so often a little bit more.
It is fair to say that our road system in Scotland is lamentable compared to that in England. We have only 7.4 per cent. of the M roads in the whole of Great Britain. It could be argued that our traffic flow does not warrant more. That comment, if I may say so, is a chicken and egg answer. Scotland is handicapped by great distances and must. I repeat must, have a superlative road system to compensate for that disability.
What about the railways? Here matters are even worse. British Rail, in order to save £500,000, is brutally cutting the west coast route—the London-Midland-Scottish—the pride of Scotland in the old days. Soon passengers, whether they be from Stranraer or from Dumfries, will have to stop at Carlisle and change trains. I know that British Rail must to some degree be commercial, but with Scotland that should not be the only criterion. Otherwise I can see that by the year 2000 there will be no west coast railway route. Therefore I ask the Government to look into this matter and to use their influence on British Rail, as they have, for example, on private interests in relation to the Channel Tunnel.
We in Scotland are nearly 500 miles away from the Channel Tunnel. It will not be of much value to us. We must rely on other means of transport, especially the sea. There are great deep harbour ports on the west coast and there are those on the east coast such as Aberdeen, Dundee, Leith or Grangemouth.
Some of your Lordships will recall that in 1970 there appeared a report by Sir James Lithgow and others which was commissioned by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, a body that has done so well for us over many years. The report bore the title Oceanspan and it is something which should be reread. Its theme was that our deep sea anchorages on the west coast—Hunterston, Greenock and other Clyde ports—should be the reception area for raw materials brought by big ships from all over the world. Their conversion should take place in central Scotland and the resultant goods should be shipped from the eastern ports, as I have said—Leith, Grangemouth, Dundee and so forth. Your Lordships may remember that this idea was floated before we became members of the European Common Market, which is shortly to be without harriers. The Conservative Government said:
"We accept in principle the main idea behind Oceanspan."
But, sadly, little has happened since then. It is true that we have one or two good M roads in the centre of Scotland, but otherwise I think that Oceanspan has been pigeon-holed.
Let me illustrate what I have in mind. For example, let us take Hunterston and Ravenscraig. The future of Ravenscraig is assured for, say, five years. But what happens after that? Now is the time to look ahead at Hunterston and its deep-sea advantages; its ability to use cheap oil and coal from all over the world and to start great development works so that it can be pre-eminent in Europe for the conversion of metals under modern technology.
Even now it is almost too late to start this study. The area we are talking about is most beautiful. The planning and the amenities need to be carefully taken care of. We already have skilled labour nearby, but I ask that this matter should be looked at again, and looked at now.
I turn now to the eastern ports as opposed to those of the west. Peterhead, Montrose and even Perth are flourishing and are ready to serve incoming ships at all times of the night and day, all day Sundays, weekdays and holidays. That is why they have done so well. I should like to give some detail of what has been happening in Perth. The port is run by three and a half people: the harbour master, his deputy, a boy and a half-time secretary. However, I shall not go into that subject except to say that there the traffic has quintupled over the past 10 years. It is now over 250,000 tonnes and its markets are what you might expect—in the Low Countries, the Baltic countries, Finland, Poland and so forth. There is an example of enterprise. The support of the Tayside region has been valuable and more will be forthcoming.
But what of the other big eastern ports—the Dock "scheme ports" such as Aberdeen, Dundee and Leith? I sense that things are not going so well there, and yet they will have a great opportunity in the coming years. I hope that the Scottish Ports Authority and the Government will try to stir matters up.
I have one last point to make on Oceanspan. There is a concept which I think is mentioned on page 24. It says that a central Scotland ship canal might be looked at, especially with barges in mind. I ask the Government to re-examine that project. It may be expensive but with modern technology it should not he beyond the bounds of our abilities. When all our revenues—and I stress "our", Scottish revenues—from North Sea oil are drying up, it would perhaps provide a most valuable way to create other industry and generally to improve the country's well being. I could say that it would be Scotland's answer to the Channel Tunnel.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, recently announced that his department was the Department of Enterprise. that is splendid. But, even better, it has been announced that the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board will be the main instruments for channelling funds into the various enterprises. I would make a plea that yet a third body be added, namely, the Scottish Tourist Board.
We in Scotland have certain great advantages: our scenery and our sporting facilities. I shall not go into them; we all know them, whether it is grouse, sailing or golf. Very often there are not adequate facilities for the visitor. What is needed is small local hotels, or not even hotels but boarding houses. I hope that that would also be open to support from the enterprise development board. I think one should remember that "many a mickle makes a muckle", although I am not very clear what a "muckle" is.
I shall leave forestry to others, recalling only that once all of Scotland was covered with trees. Then there is fishing, be it for salmon or trout, wild or farmed. That also will be covered by others. I welcome the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is to speak and I should like to say, "Well done, all those who have done so much for the quick development of salmon farming in Scotland so that it is now a very important industry."
I think that there is a revival of sea fishing, but I am puzzled that when you go to a place like Ullapool you find dozens of foreign factory ships waiting for the catch. I do not know whether there are any Scottish factory ships. Why not? Agriculture I shall leave to others; perhaps it could be the subject of another day's debate.
That brings me to my last point. In the old days we used to have regular debates on Scottish affairs in the House. Today I am only speaking thanks to my fellow Cross-Benchers giving me the time. In future I think that the Opposition and the Government should try and ensure that we have one or two debates a year on Scotland.
In the devolution debate the noble Lord, Lord Home, suggested a Scottish grand committee sitting in Edinburgh. I think that that would be splendid. I go further and suggest that others might participate: representatives of the various bodies in Scotland who would be in a position to make their views known and ensure that Scottish feelings would be known not only to the Secretary of State for Scotland but also to those in Whitehall. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I must first thank the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity of ranging over a very wide canvas. Perhaps it is not irrelevant for me to remark on the subject of the use of land and sea that one might sympathise with my noble friend. I see he is £1,400 out of pocket today as a result of a bull trying to use one of the islands for natural purposes but being drowned on the way across. Perhaps that is a rather cruel example of the use of land and sea.
The noble Earl opened his remarks in a rather condemnatory fashion on the subject of roads. I do not think I can agree that they are deplorable, I feel they are very good considering the density of traffic involved. They are excellent right up to the furthest corner of the Highlands. This does not mean that there is no room for improvement. I am quite certain that the A.74 is probably overloaded. However, I would not go along with the noble Earl in a blanket condemnation of the road system.
As regards rail, it is worth noting the enormous success of the extremely expensive luxury trips on the equivalent of what one might describe as the Orient Express. I understand that the train—going round Scotland—is fully booked. On the other hand, many of the ordinary services, carrying people from Edinburgh to London and back again, slip up occasionally and need a bit of sprucing up.
Although the debate is about land and sea, it may not be irrelevant to mention air. Direct flights into Scotland are improving in number. However, there is a need for more. The tourist industry in Scotland would gain considerably if people did not have to undertake what I regard as a perfectly horrifying exercise: flying into Heathrow and then from Heathrow up to Scotland.
The tourist industry seems really to have taken off. There are many superb examples of what small hotels should be. A large number of those in the Highlands—and this also applies to restaurants are as good as any in Europe. A tremendous amount of credit is due to the Scottish Tourist Board whose advertising this year in particular has been tremendously eye-catching. Perhaps noble Lords will understand why I say this; it may be that the success story of the tourist board has something to do with the modelling of its set-up on the Highlands and Islands Development Board's area tourist system under the responsibility of districts.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, touched on fish farming. This is one of the great success stories, having started only about 25 years ago. Salmon has been the most notable success, and I would have thought there was now an enormous future for mussels and even for the farming of lobsters.
One cannot talk about land use in Scotland without mentioning farming and forestry because they are the basic industries. We are facing considerable changes. The last thing I propose to do today is to enter into the politics of farming. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is going to speak. I would merely say that the Crown estates have done a splendid job in Glenlivet—the best example in the country, I have always thought, of the
636
integration of farming with forestry. I can remember in 1965 when I accompanied Mr. Edward Heath on a tour of Scotland. I told him that in the speech he was going to make he ought to pay a compliment to Glenlivet. He said, "Oh, but I really mustn't discriminate between one malt whisky and another." I said that it was nothing to do with malt whisky. It was the great farming-forestry integration. I see that the Crown estates are now going to try to encourage people into diversification in that area. I wish them great good fortune.
I believe that the diversification with which we are faced will be limited in scope. There will always be entrepreneurs in farming. I do not think there will be all that many of them and, if I were to give advice as to what farmers in Scotland ought to do, I should advise them not to indulge in sunflowers or evening primrose but to continue producing what we know we can produce really well; that is, quality beef and malting barley while keeping an eye on the market. Provided that too many people do not go in for growing oats which is my favourite and most profitable crop, I advise farmers to grow that crop too. I would simply add in conclusion that in order to do this, we beg that we should have fair competition. I shall not mention the green pound.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, when the noble Earl, Lord Perth, indicated his intention to put forward a Motion on Scottish matters he indicated that, as it was coming from the Scottish Peers' Association—an all-party organisation—he thought it would be proper that they should endeavour to find something which would not be party political.
When I saw the terms of the Motion which he put forward I must admit that I was completely in the dark because it seemed at one time either to be exceedingly narrow or to be so wide as to make it difficult to keep political matters out of it.
In the noble Earl's opening remarks it seemed to me that he had opted for the latter. He has certainly made it possible for a very wide-ranging debate to take place. I shall not follow the noble Earl on the subject of roads and I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, on the subject of air. The noble Lord widened the debate still further. He took it away from both the land and the sea and into the air but I think that he did so properly. However, the one thing which he did not do in relation to air was perhaps mention the complaint which I think almost all of us who use the Scottish air services have. Our complaint is that the fare is far too high. A fare of £144 return between Edinburgh or Glasgow and London is very much more than any equivalent fare in other parts of the world. The only benefit that I can receive is through having become a regular user of the British Midlands service. I pay the same fare but I receive a meal instead of the cup of tea and shortbread biscuit that I received from British Airways.
I wish to concentrate on two subjects which have been only lightly touched on, as I am quite certain that other noble Lords will want to go in other directions. I want to talk about forestry and fish farming. I have two reasons for doing so and the first

637
one is historical. When I first landed at the Scottish Office in 1970, having spent all my life in towns, my colleagues decided that the most appropriate thing for me to handle was agriculture and fisheries. I was not terribly enthusiastic about that but I lived to he pleased about it because, in the two years when those matters were my responsibility, I learnt an awful lot about things that I should not otherwise have known. During that time I was very much involved both in the promotion of forestry and in attempting to encourage the promotion of fish farming.
On both those matters I obtained the backing of my noble friend who, immediately on coming into office, recognised that there were opportunities for further employment in parts of Scotland where, to put it mildly, the opportunities were not as good as they might be. His biggest contribution of course was the one which has already been referred to: the creation of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
I remember that in the beginning the then Conservative Leader in Scotland, the late Michael Noble, characterised the Highlands and Islands Development Board as a Marxist imposition on Scotland. Everyone has since realised that it was a very good development. But forestry and fishing were outwith the fields in which the Highlands and Islands Development Board operated and where it has operated so successfully.
Forestry has done very well in Scotland in the intervening years, despite the obstacles put in its way by the Treasury. I say that with some respect as a former Lord Chancellor is sitting in the Chamber today. However, I remember that there was a debate on forestry in your Lordships' House which was initiated by the father of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. He of course was a noted practitioner of forestry himself. The spokesman for the Government, of which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was a supporter, shot him down on the basis that we could get all the timber we wanted very much cheaper from the northern hemisphere than by growing it ourselves and that all past experience showed that prices would not increase by more than 2 or 3 per cent. a year. A month after the debate the Russians increased the price of timber by 95 per cent. So much for timber and forestry.
Fish farming was almost unheard of in 1970 because the obstacles were so great. I am very glad to see from a document from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland the extent to which fish farming has grown. I venture to suggest that there is still a long way to go. The union points out that:
"Since 1970 … over 370 new businesses have been established. Around 1,700 new jobs have been created directly in the industry."
The Highlands and Islands Development Board believes that in the spin-off from that fish farming another 1,200 jobs in processing and other areas have already been generated. I hope that much more can be done in that direction.
I find myself in the invidious position of having to agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right honourable Malcolm Rifkind, who a fortnight ago gave the go-ahead for 5,000 acres of forestry to be planted in what is called the Flow country.
638
Perhaps a noble Lord who speaks later could tell me what that is. The Secretary of State for Scotland this week gave the go-ahead for fish farming in Loch Ness although some people think that that may frighten Nessie.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for having introduced this debate. He will forgive me if I do not share his lack of enthusiasm for the Channel Tunnel. The debate gives me the opportunity to talk on my favourite subject which is forestry in Scotland.
I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in praising the endeavours of the Forestry Commission. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the changed pattern of forestry in Scotland. In 1980 24,000 acres were planted in Scotland. Of that the commission planted 15·8 acres and the private sector 8·6 acres. In 1987 the figure was 5,000 acres for the Forestry Commission and 19,000 acres for the private sector.
I am not against private investment in forestry and I hope that it will be encouraged, but it does represent a considerable diminution of the place and status of the Forestry Commission in the development of this important industry. I should like some assurance from the Minister that that trend will not continue and the role of the commission will not be reduced. It is a good neighbour in the countryside. It does research for the forestry industry and makes that available to the private sector. It administers grants to the private sector. It has opened up the country—that is important to the tourist industry—with facilities for recreation. Last year, 25 million day visitors visisted the estates of the Forestry Commission. That in itself would justify continued support for the commission.
Turning to forestry in general, it is not well recognised that it is now responsible for employing 11,200 people in Scotland. That is a not inconsiderable number in a small country. I refer to the commission, the private sector and also to the wood processing industry, which has been built on the basis of early planting. I am sure that the Minister will be encouraged to observe that as a result of the much-criticised early planting of the Forestry Commission and the private sector, a Finnish company decided last year to build a new plant in Irvine, an area of high unemployment. That company plans to invest £100 million in downstream activity. The Dalcross plant in Inverness is another example of downstream activity, which is only possible because of the present harvesting from early planting. Therefore, forestry can, and I hope will continue to, make a substantial contribution to the employment situation.
Perhaps I may say a word about forestry's public relations. Forestry is currently getting a bad name from two sources. First there are the environmentalists, most of them based in the South-East of England, who read the glossy Sunday magazines with their pretty pictures. (There are not many copies of the Sunday Times and the Telegraph sold in Loch Aber.) People in the South of England have apparently a great feeling for the wilderness areas of Scotland and very little feeling for the people

639
who work there. I have always thought that the saddest sight in those areas is the closed-down school and the deserted croft. Forestry makes a contribution to a living countryside.
The critics of forestry are not confined to people living in the South-East. I noticed recently that a Conservative MP said that he did not want his constituency planted up with a series of lavatory brushes. Anyone who walks through the woods, as I do regularly, and witnesses the Sitka spruce in wintertime will realise that it is a special feature of the winter scene. I hope that we can free forestry from those ignorant prejudices and give it its proper place in the Scottish economy.
The management of the Forestry Commission is broken up into conservancies. They are called conservancies because the people who work there are concerned about conservation. That is why they work in the countryside. They are not manufacturing a dull product. Talk to people who work in the countryside. They love the countryside and they are not in the business of desecrating it.
I should like to pay a tribute to the Secretary of State for Scotland for his wise and balanced decision in connection with planting in the Flow country. The Flow country is not the best place to plant trees. The much criticised investment companies in that area may find great difficulty in attracting the Terry Wogans and the Steve Davises to planting on a 1 per cent. return when farmland is likely to become available shortly which is better land for planting and which may yield 5 per cent. Therefore, I am not sure that the opening of that area will necessarily mean substantially more planting.
Criticism of the Forestry Commission comes not only from environmentalists but also from those who criticise the tax advantages which are given to rich people for planting trees. Who else is going to plant on a 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. return? Perhaps such critics would prefer that Terry Wogan took his money and bought US government bonds or villas in Spain. The mere fact that there are tax advantaages makes it possible to attract capital to an industry which would not otherwise attract it. One gets a higher and safer return by buying government stock than from investing in forestry. We should be careful not to bow to the prejudiced view that by giving tax incentives we are making a gesture for social justice, when in fact it restricts the development of a useful industry in Scotland.
Finally, I noticed recently that CoSLA advocated planning for forestry. CoSLA has enough on its plate in carrying out its obligations, which are substantially in urban areas. To introduce planning controls into forestry would mean substantial delays. There is perfectly good protection in the consultative committees that exist on a regional basis. We should not necessarily impose further planning strictures. I commend to the House further support for that useful and important industry.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Goold: My Lords, I also welcome this wide-ranging debate which has been introduced by the noble Earl. I should like to concentrate on the use of
640
surface land, which is clearly no longer needed to the same extent as in the past to grow food. On such land there is a need for diversification. Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I am a supporter of forestry. It is an increasingly important industry. With a predicted shortage of timber world-wide by the end of this century, it is an industry which needs to be expanded. The Government recently announced incentives to encourage farm forestry. That has been well received by the National Farmers' Union in Scotland. In addition to the smaller woodland areas, there is a great need for more large-scale forestry. The perceived need in the United Kingdom is for 30,000 hectares a year of forestry planting.
It is imperative to safeguard the environment and the important tourist industry in some places by preventing planting and in others, where possible, by mixed planting of conifers and deciduous trees. However, in areas which are not of such high scenic and tourist importance, we must not let environmental demands outweigh commercial ones. Some people are opposed to conifers. But the fact is that those are the trees which are in commercial demand. For example, in Scotland Caledonian Paper is at present constructing a new plant at Irvine employing 450 people, with a further 500 employed in related forestry and haulage. That factory needs Sitka spruce; no other will do. Similarly, Highland Forest Products in Inverness makes an alternative to plywood. It employs around 100 people. That factory requires pine; no other will do.
As I have said, we must safeguard the environment but we must guard against too many unnecessary safeguards, which would destroy the economic viability of commercial enterprises and destroy much needed jobs in Scotland. In that matter I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
So far as surplus agricultural land is concerned, we should also consider the possibility of improving the quality of our new housing by making more land available. In that connection I declare an interest as a director of a Scottish housebuilding company. Because of the shortage and consequent high cost of development land, plots on which houses are built are getting smaller and smaller.
I believe that there are areas where surplus agricultural land could be used for pleasant housing developments without in any way destroying the beauty of the countryside. Similarly, if a person wants to build a house in the country, with five or 10 acres as a paddock, would this really destroy the ambience of the countryside? I suggest not and I believe that, had our present planning restrictions existed a century and more ago, many of the most beautiful castles and manor houses in Scotland would not have been built. I hope that a more enlightened look will be taken at planning applications in future. While green belt is of course important, it need not be maintained everywhere with quite the same vigour and intensity as in the past.
A paper produced recently by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries states that approximately 20 per cent. of land in Scotland is surplus to agricultural requirements. If that land is not to revert

641
to marsh, heather and bracken, it has to be used sensibly and planning authorities have to be less negative than many are at present. With a shortage of forestry products and housing, good sense would seem to indicate that one surplus should help to satisfy another shortage.
Fish farming has been mentioned by other noble Lords. This is a very important new industry in Scotland, over 1,000 people being employed directly on cage sites, many in remote and very vulnerable communities which have little other employment. It is estimated that up to 3,000 people in the Highlands and islands are directly and indirectly employed in fish farming and that is an ever-increasing figure.
However, there is a need also to recognise other interests—for example, yachting, tourism, fishing, and environmental interests. I believe that with proper guidance all of them can live together without conflict. Certainly aquaculture is very important and must be encouraged. The Crown Estate Commissioners must act as sensible landlords, as I know they will under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I welcome their recent document laying down some guidelines for siting fish farms in the sea.
I mentioned the need to recognise the interests of yachtsmen and tourists. In Scotland, where some of the finest sailing exists, this is particularly important. It is essential to preserve safe passage to anchorages, particularly at night. I know that the Royal Yachting Association of Scotland is consulted by the Crown Estate Commissioners in connection with the granting of leases for fish farms in coastal waters, but safe passage is a major problem. In 1977, 27 applications for leases were referred to the association; in 1987 there were 253 referrals. These are nearly always for sheltered waters which were previously a haven for sailors.
The economy of the islands of Scotland is also of great importance. I am delighted that this Government's agricultural development programme for the islands will give a much needed boost to the whole economy.
The Scottish islands off the west coast, with their unrivalled scenery, are an area of great potential for tourist development, but one of the difficulties is the cost of sea transport for goods, cars and people. Perhaps I should again declare an interest as a frequent user of the ferry between the mainland and the island of Arran. The ferry services are almost exclusively in the hands of the nationalised monopoly carrier, Caledonian MacBrayne, who receive a substantial subsidy from public funds for their operations.
The Government have recently provided the means to purchase several new vessels and provide harbour facilities for roll-on/roll-off operation. Because of all that modernisation there is a need to ensure that maximum use is made of the facilities by an efficient, business-like operation. I suggest that the time might now be appropriate to consider some cooperation with the private sector on these routes, either by licence or by other method of tender. I believe that this would lead to lower costs, which would help to encourage more tourists to explore this
642
remote part of the British Isles; it would benefit small industry on the islands; and there would be a resultant increase in employment. I hope that it will be considered by the Government.
A lot is happening in the land and sea areas of Scotland. There is a lot of exciting potential which is being encouraged by the actions of this Government. Much more can still be achieved.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, it is always a great advantage when speaking in Parliament to be able to follow up the remarks of the previous speaker. That I shall do on the subject of fish farming. However, before doing so I should like to echo the cry of anguish from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about the cost of flying to the north of Scotland. I hope very much that the further amalgamation of the airlines will not lead to even greater increases in fares.
I should like to talk about fish farming and in particular the position of the Crown Commissioners. I am in a very happy position to do that because the chairman of the Crown Commissioners, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is here with us and the proposer of this excellent Motion, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was a commissioner, although I do not think that he is any longer. There may be other commissioners present.
In case there is anyone present who is so ignorant as not to know what the Crown Commissioners are or what they do, I shall explain very briefly—subject to correction by the noble Earl. They have inherited the management of Crown lands and they hand over the profits—the consolidated fund. Apart from the salaries that they receive—which may be large; I do not know—they are not in any way engaged in private profit. Under their statutes the Crown Commissioners are under an obligation to maximise profits on behalf of the Crown. They own a considerable amount of property—houses in London and land in Wales and in Scotland. In particular they own the bed of the sea. In Orkney and Shetland this is from the low tide mark, and in the rest of the country, except I believe for the Duchy of Cornwall, they own it from high tide mark out to the national limit.
I am bound to say that the Crown Commissioners are a rather tough lot. In Shetland and Orkney they have been known to arouse some opposition. I had a long and fairly amicable negotiation with my friend Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve before he would forgo a claim to high tide mark in Orkney and Shetland. Of course it is well known to everybody that under udal law the land down to low tide mark belongs to the proprietors in Orkney and Shetland.
I should like to make one general point about the commissioners. I understand that under their statute they are bound to make the most profit that they can, not on behalf of themselves but on behalf of the Treasury ultimately. There is a question as to what principles they apply. I am informed—and again I may be corrected—that as far as concerns fish farming they will probably impose a rent or levy of some 1.25 per cent. on turnover, If that is so it is a fairly large amount, bearing in mind that fish farmers cannot use much of the bed of the sea. I should like

643
to know whether that is the rate being applied to the Channel Tunnel, because if it is the proceeds will be very large. I understand that they have made an arrangement with the Government over the Channel Tunnel. Ultimately it is in the public interest to know what the Channel Tunnel is being charged and I do not think that it is a matter which can be hidden under plea of a commercial negotiation. Some of the activities of the Crown Commissioners are a matter of general public concern.
As I said, the Crown Commissioners charge a rate or levy on the use of the sea-bed and other facilities by fish farmers. As I understand it, in the case of the mainland of Scotland there is no planning authority which can with legal sanction deal with the problem of the control of fish farms. Negotiations take place but I believe that there is no legal sanction for any body to be in charge of planning. The Crown Commissioners have stepped in and have tried to reconcile the various interests. They hear representations and no doubt they do a very good job. However, as I say, they probably do so without any statutory authority in the last resort, and I understand that it takes a very considerable time.
Around Orkney and Shetland the matter is dealt with under the Orkney and Shetland Acts. It seems to me that there the matter is handled much more satisfactorily. For instance, in Sheltand, the Shetland Island Council—I think under Sections 11 and 13 of the Shetland County Council Act 1974—exercises control. I understand that it gets on rather well with the Crown Commissioners and there is no great problem at the moment. However, inherent in the position of the Crown Commissioners is a conflict of interest. They are, so to speak, the landlords of the seabed. No one would dream of placing the whole planning procedure of housing or land in the hands of the owners. However well intentioned they may be, there is an inevitable danger and likelihood of a conflict of interests. Furthermore, apart from the very important present industry, about which noble Lords have previously spoken, experiments in fish farming and other forms of fishing are taking place. Here, too, it is not apparent to me that it is desirable that the owners of the seabed shall be in a position to control the planning.
I need not mention again what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Goold, about moorings and passage at sea. Lately near my home at Orkney there was a conflict between a man who wished to raise the jetty or breakwater which joins the island up to the mainland and a local oyster farm. There is a difficulty there. I hope that the Government will give some thought to it and will give statutory powers to somebody to adjudicate between the various claimants to the seabed.
There has been very considerable anxiety, in particular in Norway, about the dumping of atomic waste at sea. I do not quite know whether the Crown Commissioners are involved in that but presumably they own the Stormy Bank—one of the places mentioned—and therefore would come into the situation. I should be grateful if the Government will tell us who is the ultimate authority for deciding where on the seabed atomic waste may be buried.
644
There are many interesting subjects that could be gone into in this debate. That is the one to which I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Earl for inaugurating this debate today. I agree with him that from time to time it would be an excellent idea if we could have debates on the development of Scotland, not so much because it is Scotland alone, but because Scotland plays a very important part in the United Kingdom and in the European world. I think it is most important that we should be able to discuss a variety of matters because we still have a tremendous influence outside the bounds of our own country. That is still of very great importance.
Scottish people have always been interested in European and foreign affairs, and I believe that we should continue to be so. We have made many contributions to the government of the United Kingdom by very distinguished Scots people. I hope that it will continue as it has in the past. I have not disagreed with any of the remarks made by noble Lords. That shows that we have a general feeling in Scotland that we wish to do the best we can for everybody in the country.
Noble Lords will know that my main interests are in the hill country and wildlife country, in what in the agricultural world are technically called the less favoured areas. I have always believed them to be the most favoured areas because I like them best, but that is the technical term. In some of those areas we are developing agriculture. Some of the produce is not over supplied. That is a very rare thing to say of many agricultural areas today when everyone is suffering from overproduction. However, in the less favoured areas, whether in the Borders the Highlands, or the West Country, sheep are not overproduced. It is an agricultural fact that I hope will continue. There seems to be no reason why it should be cut down in any way.
I was very glad when the Government, in discussions over the CAP in the EC, stood firm against the idea of cutting down on the support for the sheep industry today. I also agree that there is no reason why a certain amount of land should not go over to trees. Living as I do in the middle of the biggest forest area, it is a little difficult to talk about more trees, but, if one takes a general view, trees and grazing land can be combined. On the whole I think the Government are right to encourage it.
Then there is the question of diversification. This can be very varied. In suitable areas it means different uses not only of land but also of buildings, and it means encouraging tourism and handicrafts. I should like to mention one village in my area called Newcastleton, where a new industry of making rugs on a small scale has been started by enterprising people. This enterprise has meant that many people in the village are learning to make hook rugs and are selling them all over the United Kingdom. It is only a small matter but it shows that there are people ready to start new industries of different kinds. Diversification must still maintain agriculture as the

645
central role in the rural areas. To allow agriculture to become redundant would be a disaster. That is most important.
The National Union of Farmers in Scotland has made this point to me. If diversification includes restoring or changing use of farm buildings—which is something that happens—those farm buildings should remain at the same rateable value. It would be of very little use to the farmer trying to vary his production if he found himself faced with enormous rate increases when he was trying to diversify and use the buildings for something else. Otherwise they might simply go to rack and ruin.
In this debate we have talked about the sea and sea fishing, which is at the moment fairly prosperous, and the new industry of fish farming, which has been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Goold. That industry is very important indeed because it is growing all the time. Someone has already mentioned that there are 370 new fish farm businesses that have started up and are bringing in 1,700 new jobs. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has encouraged this very successfully. This industry finds employment all the year round and in particular for young people. As the fish farming develops and increases more transport and other services are required for that industry. I believe that there are now at least 25 plants throughout Scotland that pack and process the produce of fish farming. The Highlands and Islands Development Board estimates that there are 1,200 jobs in that section in addition to those which are related directly to the production.
I believe that, with the encouragement that the Government give to Scottish industry and with encouragement to try to introduce new schemes, we can play an important part in the development of the United Kingdom both here in this country and abroad. I commend this debate and encourage the Government to do everything they can to increase the enterprise and the production going on in Scotland today.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, it is clear that the wide-ranging nature of the Motion by the noble Earl is well worth considering. When I heard him speak I was reminded of a Hindu lawyer who once said to me, "If you want to be vague, be very vague". Indeed it enables the span of considerations to be so wide that it is difficult to decide what to say when, like myself, people are interested in many aspects of Scotland's anxieties.
I believe I am right in saying that fish farming really started when this House persuaded the Government to adopt a proper rating system. The rates were so high that they could not be compared with rates for ordinary farmers. We asked why so much had to be charged for fish farming, but this was 25 or so years ago.
So many subjects have been touched upon that it is difficult to decide what to say. Forestry was referred to both by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I am guided in my comments by the memory of a kinsman of mine who
646
was concerned about the cost of roads in Argyll. The place is now closed off, but he told me that he had calculated that the cost of maintaining and reconstructing the road between Argyll forest and the factory would be more than the value of all the timber. Let us remember that.
My mind goes straight from that to the Irvine proposal, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. It is very important, but, goodness me, the timber for it has to come a long distance. We must remember that the cost of the roads, their maintenance and reconstruction is a charge on the people rather than on the factories. That is a fact which we must remember clearly.
While talking of Irvine—I live near Ayr—I am reminded about transport. British Rail is awfully proud of its performance in Scotland. I cannot understand why, because it is rotten. How is it that one cannot catch a through train from Ayr to Edinburgh? You have to change. You may have to change trains or change platforms; sometimes, you have to change stations. The rails are there but the will is not. My view is that it is not the fault of the railway board in Scotland, but the fault overall of British Rail who is so fussed about its blooming tunnel that it is spending thousands of pounds on this harebrained scheme. The money would he far better spent on the nitty gritty of transport in Scotland.
Why does the train from Stranraer to Euston not stop at Prestwick? Can you believe it? We are told that British Rail is to build a Prestwick airport station, but when? The line has been electrified to Glasgow, but British Rail has not improved the service on the railway which is so important to Scotland. There are miles of potential developments. I am thinking particularly of the Waverley line. That should never have been closed. It was parsimony that did it. But who is to pay for the transport of all the timber from the forests? Will it travel by road? If so, the cost of replacing the road is about the same as the value of the timber. Why cannot the railway be reconstructed? Why cannot a more modern approach be made to the problem?
The railway system needs thorough overhaul. The design of vehicles needs revision. The sleepers are insanitary because they are not properly constructed. For example, there are only two lavatories in a coach containing 30 bunks. They are both at one end of the corridor. How the devil does one travel from A to B down a rocking corridor at 90 miles an hour in the middle of the night? No wonder everybody says "To hell with it. I'll fly". Some serious thinking ought to be given to transport in Scotland.
I am picking and choosing out of my notes subjects which mean a lot to me. As I said, fish farming was given a boost by this House. We have heard much about forestry and we should work on that and develop it; but I believe there must be a transport supremo who will judge what the right system of transport is for carrying the timber.
I believe it is necessary to redevelop the railway system. I hope that can be done. That is my chief contribution to the position as I see it in the light of the debate. There is much more. The noble Earl mentioned that sea transport might easily be

647
developed, if one was not worrying about the tunnel, to Leith, Copenhagen, Hull, Zeebrugge and so on. I believe serious attention should be given to the problem in the light of what the noble Earl has tried to persuade us. We must take an overall view of what Scotland needs and carry it out.
4.7 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has spoken about the infrastructure, the necessity for better roads and improvements to harbours, all of which I heartily endorse. I should like to follow him a little further down that path and speak about roads. It was good news to hear that the notoriously dangerous A.74 is to be upgraded to a motorway in the near future, and not before time. But that is not nearly enough.
The A.9 from Inverness to Perth should at the very least be a dual carriageway all the way and preferably a motorway, as should the Aberdeen to Perth road and the A.1 from Edinburgh to Newcastle. The A.9 from Wick to Inverness, the roads from Inverness to Aberdeen, from Fort William to Glasgow and the A.68 from Edinburgh to Newcastle should at least be dual carriageway all the way. The A.93 from Perth to Braemar and Aberdeen is not even a trunk road, at least I do not think it is. From Aberdeen to the Cairnwell, where the ski centre is, it is a good road thanks to Grampian Regional Council. But as soon as one goes over the top into Tayside it becomes one of the worst roads in Scotland. Every time I drive over it, it is worse than I remember and I cannot believe it. Yet it is the only road from the south to the ski centre, and is very busy too in the tourist season, carrying huge buses to and from Royal Deeside, which is one of Scotland's biggest tourist attractions. What happens when two of those buses meet I know not. I only hope that I am not there. Soon there will be a very nasty accident. I do not know whether it should be redesignated a trunk road or whether Tayside Regional Council might be given some special grant to improve it, but something needs to be done.
Apart from anything else, the Channel Tunnel, which the noble Lord. Lord Ferrier, so deplored, will not do Scotland much good unless she has better roads over which to get her goods to it or to the railheads, now so few and far between, which lead to it.
The noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, Lord Hughes and Lord Goold have put very strongly the case for forestry and its expansion in Scotland. I am most grateful to them because that has saved me a lot of time. The Forestry Commission's functions as forestry authority are central to the private sector. I hope that if the Government are still toying with any idea of privatising the commission, which I believe they once were, they will abandon it forthwith.
I join with other noble Lords in applauding the decision of the Secretary of State announced on Monday to authorise the planting of some 2,300 hectares of trees in the flow country in Caithness. It is a very welcome decision. I hope that it will be the forerunner of more courageous decisions in the face of those who would like the flow country to remain
648
a dreary, unproductive bog. Plenty of it always will remain so, for there are conditions under which no tree will grow.
I have one or two small suggestions to make regarding areas where I think there is a ready market for products which could be grown in Scotland. One is cashmere. I understand that there is a world shortage of cashmere. Kashmir goats can be bred and reared successfully in Scotland. There could be a real opportunity there. Although they are not the very best milking goats, the production of goats' milk cheeses could be a profitable sideline.
There is, I understand, a world shortage of honey. I know that Scotland cannot rely on having enough sunshine every year to make honey production reliable as a sole source of income; yet I know of a man who started about 10 years ago with a few hives and who now owns a large and thriving business. He produces mustard, marmalade and chutneys as well. Any honey producer would be wise to have a second string to his bow.
Finally, I wonder whether rather more of Scotland's vegetable requirements could not he home-grown. The demand for fresh vegetables and unusual vegetables has increased quite dramatically in recent years. And that demand is being met very largely by imports. Only last week I found salsify in my local supermarket; I had never dreamed that I would ever find it there. It had come from Belgium. I used to grow it perfectly easily in the garden. That is just one example. I think it might be possible to grow quite a variety of vegetables, fruit and herbs, which are at present imported or just not available.
My message is: come into the kitchen, farmer, find out what the cook wants and see if it is possible for you to grow it.
4.14 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was absolutely right in putting primary emphasis on transport. Access has been the problem of Scotland from the very earliest times. Some noble Lords may have heard of General Wade who is said to have made the first road in the Highlands. I do not know whether it was a cause or not, but certainly a transformation of the economy followed the making of that road, for good or bad reasons.
One must not underestimate the tremendous transformation that has taken place in Scotland since the days when we had what were called the heavy industries. Scottish coal was being sent by ships all over the world and half the ships in the world were made on the Clyde. They used to say of Coatbridge that it was the vulcan of Great Britain. It must have been very unpleasant; I believe the sun was invisible at all times of the year. That is how industry was in the early days.
It came to an end after the First World War. Since then we have been trying to develop light industry. The basis on which that industry developed was trading estates. I ask the noble Lord—I do not suppose he will answer—how many trading estates there are in Scotland today. They can be immensely important. I believe that in the next 20 years we are going to find a lot of people trying to get away from

649
the overcrowding in London which is becoming intolerable. Trading estates, with proper areas for parking cars and other facilities, will attract people.
I had the honour before the war of taking the chairman of Rolls-Royce around Scotland where he was planning some development. I did my best to sell Coatbridge, Airdrie, Motherwell and Hamilton. But he came straight back to Hillingdon estate just south of Glasgow. I do not blame him; it was probably the right place. These industries are of tremendous importance for the future.
I find myself tremendously opposed to what the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, said about the roads. If one thinks about it for a moment, we have had motorways for just on 30 years. You can go to Exeter, Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool, Leeds and York on motorways. But can you go to Edinburgh? Can you go to Glasgow? The noble Lady said that the A.741 is a dangerous road. I suppose it is. I would say that the road to Edinburgh is a good country road with a few cows and one thing and another. It is quite a pleasant road to travel along. However, it is totally out of touch with the modern motor car. It is time something was done.
Three important developments have taken place since the war. I will not talk about oil, except to say that the industry has had the decency to pipe supplies. That has been done extremely well. The standard of amenities with which the oil piping has been carried out has been of a very high order as far as I can see.
The second development is tourism. There of course is the whole question of transport and access. I am going to say this quite bluntly. We have been let down by British Airways. I think British Airways has done much less than its share in making it clear that Scotland is available, particularly from North America. We have no British Airways aeroplanes flying from Scotland to the American continent. That is absurd. It is true that there is an American company coming in at the present time, but British Airways has not done its share.
Indeed, I think that British Airways has been unduly influenced by the travel agencies in London. I know more than one person who has been told that the only way to get from Scotland to North America is through London. That is untrue, but if it were true it would be quite wrong. Many people in Scotland are in close contact with all parts of that continent, and with Canada particularly. Almost half the population of Scotland have letters from time to time from Canada and are very anxious to go there. One never knows how to bring pressure on airways but I hope that some pressure can be brought to bear.
I was going to say something about fish farming but I do not think that I will. The noble Earl has been telling us all about it. We have had a number of figures, some of which I disagree with.
I have a very interesting paper here from the Crown estate. There are questions some of which were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about what exactly is happening. Here the Crown estate has made a tremendous development, on which I offer it warmest congratulations; but is it really the right body to do this? Do we have a sufficiently broad outlook on this?
650
There is the question of disease. There are various places such as Aberdeen, Stirling and so on where this subject is dealt with. There is the story that some of the rainbow trout were brought in from Denmark with a disease and nobody seems to care about it. These are important factors.
It is an interesting proposition to make money out of the bottom of the sea. I do not know anybody who has done it before. It is quite an achievement and I think everyone wants to support such efforts. What do you do about it? Will there be a licence on tonnage? Should it be registered in the Register of Seisins? Is it indefinite? Is it transferable, or is it purely personal? These are factors which should be brought out quite clearly. This is a new and tremendous development.
I shall stop now because I should like to give the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, as much time as possible. But I am sure that nothing is more important than improving access for Scotland.
4.20 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I share the gratitude of other speakers in the debate for the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has opened the debate so wide: to almost anything which occurs in the sea, under the sea, on the sea, on the land, in the land or under the land. I do not propose to follow him everywhere; I propose to confine myself to the area of Scotland north of the Highlands line. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and I are probably the only two noble Lords who live there. I should like to point out to the House how fragile is the economy in that area.
I submit to your Lordships that the primary purpose of land use is for the communities which live on that land. The primary purpose should not be to supply a month's holiday to people in the far corners of the land; it should be to keep the communities alive in the areas where they have existed. That purpose is difficult to achieve. I should like to share with noble Lords some statistics about the district of Caithness. As a result of the census taken the year before I was born, in 1921, there were returned 940 fishermen; 310 coopers; 447 fish curers; 255 water transport workers; 781 associated trades such as ropemakers, netmakers, sailmakers, boilermakers, shipwrights, basketmakers, and so on. For the fishing industry therefore there was a total of 2,733 fully employed persons. That leaves out of account the girls who came in to cure the herring, and the people who came in during the height of the herring season and boosted the population of Wick from a figure of approximately 7,000 to over 10,000. At the same time there were employed in agriculture 4,271 farm workers and 212 people in associated trades such as seedsmen, blacksmiths, wheelwrights, and so on. There were therefore 4,483 people employed in agriculture and the combined total was 7,216.
The 1981 census showed that the combined number of people employed in fishing and agriculture had dropped to 1,040. That is the kind of decline that these areas have faced in their basic industries. Were it not for the fact that we have in our midst the Dounreay atomic research establishment, we should

651
literally be a desert. If it were to be decided not to follow the road of atomic energy as a source of electricity, and that were to be removed, we should be decimated. It would be like an implosion or a supernova. We should shrink into a black hole and the population would fly outwards like a lot of neutrinos.
We face this very real threat the whole time. I beg your Lordships, particularly those on the Government Benches, to remember the fragile economy of the Highlands. It is not a simple success story; it is a constant struggle to find new industries to replace old. In that context we look, for instance, at forestry. The best that can be said for forestry in our part of the world is that by coming into the area it has provided jobs to replace those that have disappeared over the past few years. However, it has not created an enormous surge of employment in what is known as the flow country. For the sake of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I should like to say that the flow country is an emotive term that has been invented by journalists over the past three or four years. A "flow" is a certain kind of bog with dubh lochs in it. The flow country refers to the whole area, whether or not it contains flows, in which flows are to be found. Therefore, in the so-called flow country—so-called by journalists—one will find flows but also areas which do not have flows. One will find areas that are agricultural and others that are suitable for forestry, and so forth.
While sharing with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe the pleasure that at least some sense has been brought into the forestry argument, I should like to endorse his remarks about the importance of the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission has carried out some of the best and most sensitive forestry developments in the whole area. It now has approximately 5,000 hectares of land which it bought and paid for but which it is not being allowed to develop. It is a piece of land about which I know a great deal. It is approximately 500 hectares in extent which the commission bought from me and my sons and which it has fenced, roaded and all but developed to the point of ploughing and planting. That has been held up for no particularly good reason. Are we seriously to force the commission to demolish and to reinstate £50,000 worth of infrastructure on that land? I suggest not—it would be crazy. When the land was taken over and development began the site was not of special scientific interest. Therefore I cannot see why the Forestry Commission is being treated worse than private forestry. I plead with the Government to look at that matter.
Finally, I should like to comment on the iniquitous effect of the high cost of petrol on the whole Highlands area. It has a harmful effect on every industry: on the tourist industry, agriculture and even on the cost of goods to the housewife. It is a sick joke that the most expensive petrol one can buy is to he found just outside the boundary fence around the Sullom Voe oil terminal. Apart from being harmful to the area, it is unfair that an area which produces and handles so much oil should be forced to buy the final product at an extraordinarily inflated price. It is
652
about time that there was a national price for petrol so that everyone, wherever he may be, pays the same price. If that were done it would have little effect on the oil companies but an enormous effect on tourism, forestry, agriculture, fishing and on the people living in the Highlands of Scotland.
4.28 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I owe the noble Earl, Lord Perth, profuse apologies because I arrived just after he sat down. That was not completely my fault; I am pro-British Rail but I was let down on this occasion. I apologise to the noble Earl. As I deserve a penalty for not hearing his opening speech, I shall be brief.
The fashion this afternoon appears to be fish farms. For about 12 years I have had a salmon fish hatchery on my estate in the west of Scotland on Mull. The attraction of fish hatcheries is that one cannot have them everywhere. One can have fish farms anywhere in the sea provided that the wave height is not above approximately two and a half to three feet. We supply the smelts to fish farms when they are about 20 months old and about 10 inches.
A fish farm has started on Mull hut I cannot have any cages in my own sea loch because of the wave height; I am on the west coast. I have had correspondence with my noble friend Lord Mansfield and I have spoken with him, about fish farming. When fish farming first became popular the Crown Commissioners, with great respect. appeared to go a hit mad. They presumably took a map of the Western Highlands and appeared to grant fish farm licences to anyone all over the sea lochs without first ascertaining whether the lochs were suitable, who owned the foreshore, and so on.
If you have a fish hatchery what you are terrified of in particular is disease. You must have exactly the right water at the right temperature. It is convenient to have it near the sea because, as your Lordships know, when the smelts go to sea in their wild state they hang about in the estuaries so that they become acclimatised to the salt water. Of course, if you threw them straight into the sea cages the shock would be too great. Therefore, a fish hatchery should be fairly near the sea.
The other matter is acidity. There is more acidity now and it has to be watched extremely carefully. I do not want to cross swords with the foresters—I have been planting trees all my life and am pro-trees—but if one has a lot of sitka spruce on the river then there is increased acidity. That is a question of fact. I have seen it proved.Therefore. it is understandable why one has to be very careful if one has a fish hatchery.
The other matter which has rather surprised and horrified me is that I read in The Times or the Telegraph about three or four days ago that some very eminent scientists believe that there is a danger in the future of people catching the flu virus through over fish farming. I do not think we need worry about that for quite a few years but it is rather a horrifying thought. Apparently it is due to the food that the salmon in the cages are fed on. However, it is a very technical subject and I am not a biologist so I will leave it alone.

653
However, apart from that, if there are a great number of fish cages in the sea, eventually there is bound to be pollution and if there is pollution there will he disease. I am sure that the Crown Commissioners fully realsise that and I understand that they have cut down on the granting of licences for sea cages.
Before I end I should just like to say a few words about forestry. I have nothing against sitka spruce provided they are planted in the right places and regard is given to the flow country in Caithness; I have been to Caithness and I have seen it. Some of it can of course be planted with sitka spruce but it will grow very slowly as the soil is extremely poor. You can also plant lodgepole pine, pines contorta. However, on the question of employment—and of course I am all for employment—if you are going to destroy a really important area of the environment I do not believe that employment should interfere with that too much. Planting trees involves fencing and planting, which of course creates employment, but once the trees are growing it does not create a great deal of employment.
I should just like to say to my noble friend Lord Goold that I do not know whether he knows the West Highlands but he can rest assured that certainly in Mull there are hundreds and thousands of tourists and the whole island is flooded with them for six months of the year. I do not think the island can take any more. I agree with what he said about MacBrayne's. It has always had a monoply and it is time that that was intruded on.
4.37 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on giving us the opportunity of discussing a number of matters both of fascination and import. If I have a criticism of this Motion it is that it is so widely aimed that it could have encompassed a number of interesting and important Scottish matters. I should love to have worn my Scottish hat and talked about a transport policy for Scotland; I should love to have talked about an integrated land-use policy, which does not exist and never has existed in Scotland, and I should love to have talked about the regeneration of industry with the right amount of encouragement, but I shall not.
I declare my interest as the First Crown Estate Commissioner, while acknowledging my distinguished predecessor, the noble Earl. A considerable amount of ignorance exists as to the Crown estates; what they consist of, how they are managed and who does the management. To some extent that has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
In 1760 George III found himself strapped for cash and he came to an arrangement with the House of Commons by which he was relieved of his duties to pay for the Navy. The trusteeship, for want of a better word, of the Crown lands was vested in the House of Commons and he was given pocket money in the shape of the Civil List, which Her Majesty the Queen still enjoys today. That was not a bad bargain for the taxpayer because we paid over a bottom line
654
profit to the consolidated fund last year of £30 million and the Queen received £5½ million for herself. However, that is by the way.
After many vicissitudes over the centuries, the modern statute which deals with the composition, duties and powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners is in the Crown Estate Act 1961. I quote from Clause 1(3), which states:
"It shall he the general duty of the Commissioners, while maintaining the Crown Estate as an estate in land … to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management".
I say that particularly for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and others in the islands. He said that we were regarded as a tough lot.
I was previously in a ministerial career dealing with Highlanders and crofters from Barra to the north of the Shetlands, and anybody who has done that will know that one cannot do it with kid gloves and at the same time have any form of success in whatever one is trying to achieve. Nevertheless, I maintain that our tenants, in areas from Taunton to Wick on the mainland, with large chunks of London in between, recognise the fairness with which they are dealt. While they appreciate that we are not a charity, as indeed we are not, they recognise that they are treated fairly and with much consideration for their position and not least their difficulties. That is certainly applied in the case of fish farming.
As I have said, the vast bulk of the Crown estate is in land, mostly tenanted agricultural land consisting of many hundreds of thousands of acres, and also large portions of London including such places as Regent Street, St. James's and other areas. But an altogether different part of the estate lies round the shores of the United Kingdom; it lies in the sea-bed within the territorial waters, which your Lordships will know were recently extended from three to 12 miles. It is the ownership of such waters which gives the Crown estate rights over every marine-based fish farm and the duty in effect of regulating the development of the industry.
I shall resist the temptation to discuss matters of udal law with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. He slipped it in quite quickly, but there is a legal dispute as between the Shetlanders and the Crown Estate Commissioners, and I say nothing about this slightly tricky subject.
As many noble Lords have said, the fish farm industry scarcely existed 15 or 20 years ago. Ten years ago the industry was just starting but production really became measurable in 1980 when it was 1,000 tonnes. By 1986 it had risen to 10,000 tonnes. Last year, in 1987, there were 16,000 tonnes, and it is likely to be 25,000 tonnes this year. The figures are likely to rise to over 50,000 tonnes by the early 1990s. So your Lordships can appreciate the tremendous rise in production which there has been over this period. There has also been a rise in the production of shellfish and there are expanding markets for mussels, scallops and oysters. One noble Lord tempted us by talking about lobster farming, but I regret to say that scientifically at the moment it seems impossible to raise the brute from being very small to table-size.

655
Salmon farming alone is approaching an annual production value of £100 million and it employs directly somewhere in the region of 1,500 people. When one considers that this activity occurs mainly in remote coastal areas, the beneficial economic effect on otherwise fragile landward areas can be estimated. Then there are the spin-off or the downstream activities such as fish processing and marketing, which employ several thousand people as well. So this activity, which has arisen only in the last 10 years, has provided great opportunities for employment in Scotland and, much more importantly, great opportunities for young people to find gainful employment to enable them to marry, settle down and raise their families in those parts from which they themselves hail. I think that that is as important as it could be.
This economic explosion has come about as a result of a very large investment in money terms on the part of some large companies. It is right to say that the state has played its part. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has poured over £20 million into the industry, and the Scottish Development Agency has also played its part, particularly over fish processing. The Government have also had a role through the activities of the Department of Agriculture, the marine laboratory and various other government agencies.
Where then have we got to? For the first seven years the Crown Estate Commissioners, who are the landlords, took the view that the industry should assert itself and see whether it was profitable, and the commissioners took no rent other than a peppercorn rent. That seven years came to an end at the end of the year before last. There is now a graduated scale of rents which in effect amounts to a turnover imposition of about 1.25 per cent. There are various reliefs for new entrants to the profession, for fish farmers in the isles and for fish farmers who produce less than 75 tonnes a year. Above all, that price is pegged to the Billingsgate price of fish. I should like any other farmer or landlord to consider whether they know of any other instance where tenants' rents are pegged to the price of the product which they produce. So I would suggest to your Lordships that that is a reasonably fair way of doing it.
There is the other side of the coin, and several noble Lords have touched on it. You cannot have these fish farms without having the cages which upset people. Some of them believe, rightly or wrongly, genuinely or not, that they interfere with the scenic beauty of the loch in which they are placed. You cannot have a fish farm without there being a risk of pollution and disease; and you cannot have a fish farm without considerable activity, as these cages are serviced.
Considerable thought has to be given as to where they should be sited and in what quantity. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said he thought that the commissioners had been rather generous with the granting of licences in the early days. Perhaps they were. So little was known about the industry scientifically that it was perhaps a question then of accepting the people who came along and giving them a lease.
656
That has now all changed. There is a great deal of scientific work going on at various government establishments and also at the University of Stirling. The Crown Estate Commissioners, who are now obtaining a rent from their farms, are contributing to this research to the tune of £100,000 a year, and last year we introduced a consultation procedure which means that any body or any organisation that wishes to institute a fish farm has to consult no fewer than 30 organisations and individuals from local landowners to the local authority. That is then considered by the commissioners before they will give a licence.
I should like to have debated the legalities of this with my noble friend Lord Selkirk but I fear that time has run out. I can continue by correspondence if he would like, but I assure him that in all we are doing we are within the law and we have the best advice.
I should like to have talked about the estate of Glenlivet, to which my noble friend Lord Stodart referred, where we are making an exciting series of innovations which I hope will provide alternative sources of income for very hard-pressed farmers, but again time does not permit. What I would say is that the Crown Estate Commissioners are very mindful of their responsibilities, and I hope that your Lordships will see that, particularly in relation to fish farming, the industry, which is now a big one, is looked after carefully and with every regard for the public good.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if the Crown Estate Commissioners do as well out of rents as they do out of the time allotted, they will make a good profit. I do not think they would be doing quite as well if they still had to pay for the Navy, so perhaps they have not done as well as they think. But I must say that they appear to be playing the traditional role of the landlord, if I may say so to the noble Earl, letting something ripen off before you proceed to tar it. One-and-a-quarter per cent. on 50,000 tonnes of fish would appear to me to be a reasonable rent to get, and I hope and trust that they will use it to encourage the industry through the stiff times which are bound to come with the expansion of production.
I should like first of all, as everyone else has done, and rightly so, to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on allowing us all to talk about exactly what we wished, which is very good for the width of debate. In Scotland we have more land. sea and air per person than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and we have to make the most of it. As has been said by my noble friend and others, people are the most important thing in our countryside, particularly in the Highlands. Without the people it does not matter how attractive the scenery looks. The Highlands are also for the immense numbers in urban communities.
Tourism is one of the main planks in the development of our land. The old plea must be made to the Minister—for whom I have high regard, if flattery will get me anywhere—to release the Scottish Tourist Board, in common with the Highlands Board, to advertise on its own. Specialised advertising to come to Scotland is important. It has

657
been wrong to keep it for years in the hands of the British Tourist Board, good enough job though it does. I would plead with him to use his common sense—of which he has an abundant quantity—to reverse this rather ridiculous scene that we have been putting up with for a long time.
Tourism is one of the biggest sources of money and income, seasonal though it may be, that we can hope for in Scotland, and we should direct more attention to Europe. We are enormously popular with a lot of people in Germany and in other countries, but particularly in Germany. More of our attention should be devoted to Europe, at least as much as we devote to North America, where they are no longer as rich as we used to think they were. That is one aspect of our land, sea and air that we can still develop a great deal further.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, said agriculture must remain one of the main planks of the economy of Scotland, and it has to be integrated with forestry. The Government and the Minister might turn their attention to stopping this extraordinary obsession with privatisation. It appears to me like the story of the recruit who was being advised by an old sweat when he joined the Army: if something moves, salute it; if something is still, whitewash it. It appears to be the motto of this Government to privatise anything and then sell it, and it really does not apply.
We have the case of the private forestry companies. There is nothing wrong with Terry Wogan, who seems to be quoted the whole time, investing his money in forestry. It may be a good thing. But it is totally remote. It is done by another company in order to make money for it. The motivation is not to grow trees for profit. People are perfectly prepared in many cases to accept the 1 per cent. for the tax advantages, inheritance taxes and other advantages that they get. That is not a good motivation for forestry. It is not a good motivation for integration.
The Government of course are losing money because of it. They are not receiving the taxes which they might well spend on restoring the Forestry Commission to its position of being the main planter. Its directions as to planning and to the mixing of pine with larch, and the way it has done it recently, have been excellent, and it should be released from the restrictions under which it is at present because of the policy of the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Goold, made a good point when he said that a lot more people could live in the country and contribute to it if we would give more planning permissions. I do not think that we should relax any of the planning restrictions. In other words, people should certainly not be allowed to despoil the countryside, but good buildings and good houses could be built in the Highlands and in other parts of the countryside to the great enjoyment of the people and to the benefit of the countryside itself. The Government have made certain motions in this direction, and they should make a great deal more. That in itself would help our country.
When we come to agriculture again the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, said a true thing, and that is that we should develop what is good in our present product. Certainly we can grow good malting
658
barley, but we can also grow excellent sheep. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, if I may say so, has mentioned the subject before (and quite rightly too) but we should market lamb far better. The Danes changed the breakfast habits of this country in past years, and we could sell a lot of good lamb into Germany if we set about marketing it there.
The people who eat the most lamb are the French at the present time, but there are immensely prosperous areas where we could persuade them to buy more sheep and better sheep. They could be better marketed, and we could avoid the undoubted overproduction that we may well run into. I shall not take up any more time. It is an enormous subject. I trust that the Government will look at it with great good sense—which I would find unusual, but I live in hope.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think we all give due thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for raising this subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has just said, it gave us the opportunity to speak as we wished. Listening to the debate it was interesting how it came down to one or two subjects. Perhaps I should confess that I was not sure what the noble Earl would like me to discuss when I read the Order Paper, and I had a word with him. I knew that he was concerned about certain things, but I felt that the debate may have gone rather wider.
I looked up one or two facts about Scotland. It is not a line I am going to take now other than to introduce it briefly in the hope that at some time we can have a debate on the fundamental point of Scottish land ownership. When one looks at the statistics carefully you find that Scotland has the most concentrated pattern of private ownership in Europe. Seventy-five per cent. of all privately-owned land in Scotland is held in estates of 1,000 acres or more, and something like one-third of the land in Scotland is held in estates of 20,000 acres or more. In many ways that is the kind of debate I thought we would be having today. However, there is something about this place that makes it rather more difficult to get involved in these problems.
I reflected on the fact that of all those who have spoken only the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and my noble friend Lord Hughes are not fairly substantial landowners. I am certainly Scottish enough. In the 25 years that I have been coming up and down to London I have spent only half a dozen weekends here and three of them were when Scotland was playing England at Wembley. We won two of those games. I go back to Scotland every weekend.
Virtually every noble Lord mentioned the question of transport. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, who opened the debate, made a number of points. Compared with many of my colleagues, I have always had a peculiar attitude to transport in Scotland, perhaps because I was a junior transport Minister and had an interest in the subject. I went into it fairly fully. It was self-defence in a way against my colleagues from Scotland because I was in a United Kingdom ministry. If in Scotland we had adopted the

659
criteria used in England for deciding whether a road should be a dual carriageway, a three-lane road or a motorway, there would have been only one fairly short stretch of three-lane carriageway in Scotland; and that, if I remember correctly, was the road from Glasgow to the airport at Abbotsinch. As nearly all of us are Scots we should combine together and get rid of some of our problems.
I have no doubt that many of our roads need to be improved, but by and large they are uncongested, as English people tell me when they come up to Scotland. The traffic is not nearly so dense. That does not mean that we should not be looking at the A.74–M.74 with a view to upgrading it. However, when a road is upgraded to motorway standard another road must be provided for those people who cannot use the motorway—the cyclists, local people on short journeys and so on. It is an expensive business.
I think a great deal could be done with the M.74 by having junctions and flyovers instead of the crossroads we have at the moment. I agree with those noble Lords who spoke about the Stranraer road. That needs to be upgraded particularly because of the heavy traffic that uses the land route to the ferry to Ireland. However, if I were in charge of the Scottish budget I do not think that I would spend a great deal more on roads. There are other ways that I would spend the money.
Several noble Lords referred to the air fare to London. British Airways has now been privatised and with competition the fares should come crashing down. That is the theory at least. We all look forward to that day. On the question of direct links to Scotland, I want direct links as well but we have to make up our minds. We have to decide between Prestwick, Glasgow and Edinburgh. I remember as a very young boy—and I have been trying to discover whether I was dreaming—the suggestion in the 1930s that a new airport should be built in Shotts. It was going to be flooded because no one thought that an aeroplane could travel across the sea. There were going to be sea planes. That opportunity has gone. We have to accept that we must decide between Prestwick, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Prestwick now has more than 4 million passengers a year and so we must think seriously about extending the Glasgow runway.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the Scottish economy and especially the economy north of the central belt. We all empathise with the problems of the area. There was slight confusion between the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who thought that we were overdoing the emphasis on tourism—and I sympathise with his view that we sometimes think it will solve all the problems—and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who thought that we should encourage it even more. There probably is a line down the middle.
This confusion illustrated the fact that we had an idea and then for a period the whole salvation of Scotland was thought to lie with tourism. Today the idea is fish farming. I would not decry it, and I know the importance of it, but are we not putting too much
660
emphasis on the idea? Many noble Lords have pointed to the importance of fish farming. I had a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who apologetically—I do not know why—raised a number of small points. She referred to cashmere, growing her own vegetables, honey and so on. It was slightly refreshing to hear her when the other matters being discussed were fish farming and so on.
It has been an interesting debate, which should be read with some care. I have one minor suggestion which I ask the Minister to take back to his friends in government and in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We could create a certain amount of social mobility in Scotland by getting rid of the tolls on the bridges. That is a small point in a debate of this kind. Perhaps I should say that I believed originally that tolls on bridges were necessary. If the Scottish roads programme was distorted at one point it was because a great deal of money was spent on building bridges, some of which are now socially highly desirable but would not have been high on the list of priorities.
The total indebtedness of the Erskine bridge, which I use frequently, is about £80 million. The total income from the bridge is £1·4 million. The charges are growing every year. Such a move would be of great advantage because 4·6 million people crossed the bridge in 1986–87. I never saw them doing it and most people I know see very few people on the Erskine bridge. It is a small point but it would be of great help psychologically if we could get rid of the tolls. I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and in particular the noble Earl for initiating it.
5.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I should like first of all to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for initiating a wideranging and constructive debate. I am perhaps the only person who cannot choose what I am going to speak about. I have to try to pick up the points that have been made during this valuable debate. I would say to my noble friend Lady Elliot and to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that a Scottish debate is a good thing to have in this House and that from the wideranging subject matter we on the Government Front Bench have learnt a great deal about what concerns noble Lords.
Perhaps I may begin by referring to Oceanspan, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I read the speech he made in this House on 16th July 1970 and was most interested that he should return to the subject today. Incidentally, I noted that he praised the work of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry in attracting industry to come to Scotland and called it "bringing back the haggis". I think that it is an appropriate phrase to be used this week in this debate.
The Oceanspan concept was, of course, prompted in the early 1970s by the Scottish Council advocating the development of major port facilities on the Clyde, using the deep water at Hunterston. I fear that it never caught on with shipping lines, port authorities

661
or other developers, nor did a similar idea floated in 1986 to exploit the opportunities presented by the Channel Tunnel, called Euro Westport. That was a similar development using the Clyde for trans-shipment to and from Continental destinations.
A feasibility study by the Clyde Port Authority was assisted by the Government last year, and the main conclusions were that the reductions in steaming time would not be enough to reduce the number of ships required by the major shipping lines to serve the Atlantic groups, based on the typical weekly service now operated. But even if a vessel could be saved, increased land transport costs would still far outweigh the savings resulting from the saving on vessels—about £6 million savings against £140 million additional costs. And there would be no significant savings in total transit times, and therefore no speedier delivery compared with other European "hub" ports.
It was a very thorough study and I should like to assure the noble Earl that this was gone into very carefully last year, hut. in the face of such evidence, the Government could not support, much less undertake, what seemed to be a development for which there would in the present circumstances be little or no demand.
A lot of the discussion this afternoon has turned on the question of transport, and I am not greatly surprised. However, I am a little surprised at what might be considered to be the less than fair comments of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk about what this Government have done in regard to roads. Since May 1979, the Government have spent almost £690 million in new construction and improvement of motorways and trunk roads in Scotland; 3,130 kilometres of trunk road, including motorways, have been built in Scotland in that period.
Trunk roads are the strategic national through-routes. The need for them is determined by a number of factors, including the requirements of national planning and industry. Here I come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. With his experience in another place of this matter, I am very grateful for what he said. The considerations in deciding on these roads are common to both England and Scotland. There is no difference in the criteria used in Scotland and England to determine the standard of trunk road required; that is, single or dual carriageway, or motorway, and also quality of the road surface.
Moreover, it may interest the noble Earl to know that for every thousand of the population, Scotland has almost three times the length of trunk roads as England. Of course roads and distances are extremely important for Scotland and expenditure on trunk roads in Scotland is substantial. That is borne out by the large number of by-passes and improvements completed in the last eight years.
During the period, 88 major schemes, each costing over £1 million, have been opened to traffic. At present over 100 major schemes are in various stages of contruction or planning, costing a total of over £700 million. This includes the uprating of the A.74 route to motorway standard, which represents 60
662
miles at a cost which is estimated to be well over £200 million. Obviously, I will relay the message of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about tolls to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, matters of that sort are very much in his domain and not in mine, but I take note of what the noble Lord said. I believe that, from the figures which I have given, it is clear that the Government treat the improvement of road communication within Scotland extremely seriously and will continue to encourage such improvements and carry them through.
I should like to speak about one other matter in regard to roads. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned the A.73 Perth to Glenshee road and, with my responsibilities for tourism—
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The A.93.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am so sorry. I know the problems of that road and she put her finger on the problem of the Tayside region in that connection.
I should now like to refer to rail travel in Scotland. I know that many of your Lordships have varying views on the advisability of constructing a Channel tunnel. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has made that very clear to me but I have to say that I disagree with him. Also, my noble friend Lord Stodart mentioned rail travel. I have to say that Scotrail has embarked on an investment programme for Sprinters, a major part of which was announced last weeek, costing £17 million. I hope that by general pressure from members of the public we are going to achieve a much more efficient rail service in Scotland. I feel that the remarks of many of your Lordships were very apposite.
The noble Earl mentioned ports, and there is no question that the Government have any plan to change the operation of the National Dock Labour Scheme. But I have to say to noble Lords that the increase in business in the ports of Scotland as a proportion of the British traffic in ports has gone from 10 per cent. in 1965 to 28 per cent. in 1986. The ports operate in competition with each other with the minimum of government regulation. Any spare capacity is mainly the result of market forces, together with the effect of changes in ship design, ship technology and patterns of trade.
I will give your Lordships some figures. There has been new investment in the port of Aberdeen of £8 million, in Ayr of £2 million, in Dundee of £3 million and in the Forth ports of £9 million. All these are scheme ports. Investment has also taken place, and is taking place, in non-scheme ports such as Peterhead and in the Cromarty Firth area. There have been other developments quite apart from the extremely valuable business attributed to the fishing industry. Mention was made of the fishing industry—not the fish farming industry—and I have to assure noble Lords that the sea fishing industry is in good heart.
To ensure that the ports will continue to prosper, the Government have taken various initiatives such as the reform of the administration of marine pilotage so that ports will assume control. They have

663
also invited the industry, without any commitment on future legislation, to consider what advantages there might be in the introduction of equity capital to those ports which are not already owned by companies. They are pressing through the European Commission for greater transparency in the accounts of the European ports, in order that the extent of state and municipal subsidy can be revealed.
Many noble Lords mentioned the tourist industry, and I was very pleased that that happened. I was particularly gratified by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston, who considered that the tourist industry in Scotland, particularly the Scottish Tourist Board, was doing a good job. Your Lordships will like to know that a committee has been set up under my chairmanship to co-ordinate all the groups involved in tourism in Scotland—the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Development Agency, the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. The point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about selling Scotland, particularly abroad. I take that very much to heart. I hope that, with the investment of over £20 million of taxpayers' money in tourism in Scotland in the coming year, we shall be able to ensure not only that last year's excellent figures are maintained, but that they will be increased.
Remarks were made on the subject of air fares from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow. I cannot comment very much on that at the moment, although I also feel that £144, as it now is—and about to go up, I believe—is a very steep fare to pay.
In connection with tourism, we are looking at the on-costs that have to be paid by visitors from foreign countries in taking them from London to Edinburgh or Glasgow. This is going ahead at the moment and we will make representations to the air companies.
I should not like to enter into any discussion on the Prestwick issue with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, at this stage. He knows, as I do, that in 1989 there will be a review, but what he said is very much noted. So far as direct flights into Scotland are concerned, Wardair and Air Canada from Canada, and North-West Orient from the United States, are very good carriers and I am sure that British Airways takes note of their competition.
I shall now talk about forestry. I was gratified by the remarks of noble Lords and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, about what the Government have done about forestry and conservation problems in Caithness and Sutherland. I hesitate to use the words "Flow Country", but I am assured by the Highland Regional Council Working Group that it will define what the words "Flow Country" mean when its report comes out. I am looking forward to reading it.
A parliamentary Answer which was given last Monday, 25th January, in another place provided the framework within which the Government believe an appropriate balance between the needs of conservation and other land uses, especially forestry in Caithness and Sutherland, can be achieved. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso about the fragile economy in Caithness and Sutherland and in
664
other areas in the Highlands and Islands. The Government recognise that much of Caithness and Sutherland is of national and international importance for conservation. The appropriate areas will need to be safeguarded, including the most important bog systems and bird habitats, and expecially what has come to be known as the real "flows".
Having been in Inverness on Monday, I am gratified to know that there is now a consensus among the Highland Regional Council, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Crofters Commission and the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council that the way the Government have acted in relation to the balance between forestry and conservation in the area will prove to be correct. But of course we await the final report from the Highland Regional Council Working Group. I should like to thank it publicly for the work that it has done. Not many words are said in praise of local government. The Government are truly grateful for the work that the working group has done.
As to whether it is viable to plant trees in Caithness and Sutherland, I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is better qualified than I on the subject. However, from what I hear, I am sure that the charge that forestry is unviable in Caithness and Sutherland per se is not valid. The productivity of forest crops in the area compares favourably with most other upland sites in Britain. Many sites in the area are capable of producing a real rate of return on investment close to the Forestry Commission's target of 3 per cent. Forestry makes a considerable contribution to the local economy, and that is why the results of the Government's deliberations, published on Monday, came out as they did.
I should also like to say to the noble Viscount that the Forestry Commission has received applications, which I know will be coming forward to Ministers. But, as your Lordships know, the Nature Conservancy Council would not discuss the various applications at RACs until government policy as to what was to happen in the area was announced. There has been a hold-up, but I hope that we shall soon be receiving applications from the Forestry Commission, as well as from private forestry through the Forestry Commission. I hope noble Lords understand what I mean. We shall move forward with the applications as they come in. Does that answer the noble Viscount's question?
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I think that the Minister has mixed me up with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on the question of viability. I did not touch upon that point.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I believe that the noble Viscount mentioned Forestry Commission applications in his area. I think that those applications will be coming forward soon.
As regards the general point on forestry and the Government's attitude to it, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that forestry is a major industry in Scotland, where the bulk of new planting takes place. The Government are conscious of their target of 33,000 hectares a year. I understand the

665
views expressed by some noble Lords about taxation, but that is a matter which can be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I hope that the farm woodlands scheme will prove attractive to farmers in certain parts of the country. I anticipate that more planting than hitherto will take place on land of better quality. However, new planting will also continue to take place in the upland areas.
I move on now to agriculture. I shall again mention what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said about the fragile nature of some parts of the country. I draw your Lordships' attention to the plan of the Highlands and Islands Development Board for the North-West Sutherland area, where in an ADP-type operation it will spend £100,000 on a development programme for that area to start on the 1st June this year. That proves to your Lordships that the Government take seriously the fragile areas. We shall include in that programme help for fish farming, fish processing and tourism, as well as the agriculture of the area. The Government are trying very hard to identify the fragile areas, and of course the islands have been covered by the ADP scheme.
My noble friend Lady Elliot asked about the rating position with regard to farm buildings. I have to say that if a change is made to a rateable use, rates would become payable. That is not unfair, since it would be unreasonable if, simply because an enterprise was located on a farm, it was exempt from rates whereas a comparable enterprise which was not on a farm and with which it might be in competition had to pay rates. In so far as they remain, rates are rightly related to use rather than to location.
My noble friend Lord Goold mentioned the matter of surplus agricultural land. I have to say to him that it is a complex subject and I should like to write to him about it.
I move quickly to the subject offish farming, which has been admirably covered by many noble Lords, especially my noble friend Lord Mansfield. The Government recognise the value offish farming. The figures which have been given by my noble friend Lord Mansfield tie in with what the Government believe to be the case.
As regards the immediate future, the signs are that the industry will have the capacity further to increase production. I wish the industry well. With my responsibility for fisheries I understand the problems that exist with disease and so forth. However, it is an industry which can do much for the fragile areas. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that I think it is the answer to many problems, especially in regard to the Islands of Shetland. The record of the Shetland islanders and the small businessmen who started fish farming from nothing in 1983 and who are expected to finish with a turnover of £12 million this year, is a remarkable achievement. They ought to be congratulated.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who took part in this splendid debate. I beg to move that the papers go back to wherever may be appropriate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Charities: Supervision
5.28 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to call attention to the report of Sir Philip Woodfield and his team on the supervision of charities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I should like to begin by thanking those who put down their names to speak in this debate. I had hoped to be able to welcome the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his new capacity in a debate which happily has no party political controversy. But, no doubt, he will join us shortly.
This is also the occasion to note the appointment of Mr. Robin Guthrie as Chief Charity Commissioner and also to pay tribute to what Mr. Denis Peach has achieved during his period of office. The Times, in discussing Mr. Guthrie's appointment, referred to his predecessors as "grey civil servants". Anyone who knows Mr. Peach is aware that this description of him at any rate could hardly be less appropriate.
We have had debates on this topic in the past in which some of us have ventured to suggest that the Government were not doing quite as much as they should. This time, things are different. In a debate here on 28th January last year the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, announced the setting up of a scrutiny team headed by Sir Philip Woodfield. Here we are a year later with not only the report of that scrutiny but also with an announcement by the Home Secretary last week in another place of the decisions taken on that report. If only that could happen more often.
The Home Secretary's Statement welcomed the conclusions of the scrutiny team, and they did a remarkable job. The Statement explained that some of the recommendations governing the procedures and internal management of the commission were already being put into effect, and a press statement added that a top management team or top management board had been established and that adjustments of staff had increased the numbers available for investigation work. However, more than half the 46 Woodfield recommendations involve legislation and further examination of some of them, such as the future of the doctrine of cy-près, could add to that number. So it was good that the Statement went on to say that it was hoped to legislate later in the life of this Parliament.
I know that the Home Secretary is well aware that when we get to a Bill it is likely to cover a rather wider field than that traversed by Woodfield. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of saying that as legislation is clearly some way off, the Government might wish to consider issuing a White Paper, in due course, giving the possible matters to be covered by any forthcoming Bill. But—as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, knows, there is always a "but"—welcome though the Home Secretary's announcement is, it leaves quite a large number of questions unanswered. For example, to pick out just a few points on what can be achieved without legislation, is it intended to appoint two non-executive part-time commissioners? Has a project manager been appointed? Can a graded

667
system for the submission of accounts be introduced under existing powers? Is the Charity Commission busily re-writing its leaflets in terms which we can all understand? Is anything being done about the register of charities which is still uncomputerised, still cluttered up, and to put it mildly is still incomplete and out of date?
In addition to problems of equipment—and these problems involve considerable sums of money—what is contemplated about staff? Over a 10-year period, the number of charities has gone up by about a quarter, whereas the size of the commission's staff has gone down by nearly a tenth. The Woodfield Report suggests that the full implementation of the proposals in it would not involve more staff; but I think that this assumes the abolition of the official custodian, a difficult issue on which I shall be touching shortly.
The trouble is that clearly we are some way away from legislation and I cannot quite see how the Charity Commissioners can do what is now expected of them in the interim period without some strengthening, in particular, of the managerial grades. This is a very important issue on which I hope the noble Earl Lord Ferrers, will be able to enlighten us. Perhaps in doing so, he could tell us whether it has been possible to devote adequate resources to enable the Charity Commission to work with the Inland Revenue, now that the Inland Revenue is authorised to disclose information to the commission, if it smells the possibility of fraud.
Turning now for a moment to the recommendations involving legislation, a good many are not very controversial, in particular those intended to give the commission more effective powers of control and those dealing with malpractices. However, it will be necessary to watch that increased controls do not degenerate into excessive detailed meddling from the centre. But some of the recommendations are not so straightforward, and I should like to pick out just three. The first is the proposal to repeal the provisions requiring charities to obtain the commission's consent before acquiring or disposing of land. Regrettably, dealing in real property is especially liable to mismanagement or breach of trust, and certainly in the past this requirement to go to the commission has saved charities large sums of money and has avoided some inadvertent breaches of the law.
It may be right to depend more on the competence of trustees, if this means that staff can be diverted to even more pressing needs. But I think we should want to see just what safeguards were proposed and what steps would be taken to guide charity trustees, not all of whom are particularly well qualified to deal in real estate.
The second point is the one that I have just touched on earlier and it is rather more difficult. The Woodfield Report proposes in its opening passages that the official custodian for charities should be abolished, although the more detailed discussion later in the report seems to me to resile somewhat from this absolute conclusion. The official custodian,
668
whose services are computerised, has hitherto been available as a "corporation sole" (whatever that might mean) to hold charities' real property and Stock Exchange investments and to obtain payment of their dividends gross. I have had more letters about the suggested withdrawal of this facility (and the official custodian is already refusing to take on new customers) than on any other topic. It is an exceedingly complicated matter, and I think I must content myself with expressing the hope that a service of some kind could be retained for at any rate the smaller charities. I imagine that is a hope which the Inland Revenue might share, given the avalanche of claims for repayment of tax which could otherwise engulf them.
The third point is the recommendation that there should be a charge for the first registration of a charity and for any residual services for property transactions and the work of the official custodian. There is certainly a case for the last two; but I confess that I feel pretty dubious about the first. The sums raised would on any practical basis be quite inconsiderable, and given the traditional objections to hypothecation, the commission would be unlikely to be allowed to keep the money for themselves. It is a solution to raising funds which is rather less attractive than it might appear at first sight.
There are one or two Woodfield recommendations about which I feel something falling rather short of enthusiasm. I am not completely persuaded, for example, by the objections to setting up some kind of suitors' fund to enable test cases to be taken to the courts on the analogy, as I recall, of the race and sex discrimination legislation. There has been a remarkable paucity of decisions by the courts in recent years about the objects which may be legitimately pursued by charities, although I am bound to add the comment that the one case that I am aware of which is before the courts seems to have been there for a very long time and seems likely to remain there for a long time to come.
There are one or two gaps to be thought about as well such as the restrictions on TV advertising by charities. It would also be interesting to know what the Government's thinking is about tightening up controls in Scotland where the writ of the Charity Commission does not run. But my real difficulty is that it is not possible to do justice to so complicated and wide-ranging a topic in 15 minutes.
But that the topic is important is undeniable. Some 4,000 new charities register each year. Charitable trustees handle other people's money to the tune of £10 billion a year and more. They hold assets calculated at some £2·5 billion and they receive a similar figure each year from central and local government by way of grants, fees and fiscal privileges. Therefore it is not surprising that there are those who use fraudulent means to get after some of that money. Although the scale of misdoing is easily exaggerated, the public is entitled to believe that there are safeguards against misuse both in fund-raising and in actually running charities. There is, I fear, a pretty widespread ignorance of how limited at present are the powers and resources of those in authority.
All of us who welcome increased giving, and appreciate the fiscal concessions which this Government have made to this end, are equally anxious that the money raised for charity should be properly used for its proper purpose. We welcome the shift from advisory to supervisory action which the Woodfield package of reforms involves.
I end as I began by welcoming what the Government have done so far and by expressing the hope that this evening and as the weeks go by we shall see some of the fine print which will indicate just how the Government propose to implement the welcome which they have given to the Woodfield recommendations in general terms. If I may say so, they will not be lacking in questions asking how they are getting on. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this very useful debate and for giving us the benefit of his expert views to which I have listened carefully.
As this is a short debate I should like to speak briefly as one who has been engaged in the work of charitable trusts and related activities for many years. As a result of that experience I welcome the proposals contained in the well-reasoned and comprehensive report of Sir Philip Woodfield and his colleagues. Their recommendations strike the right balance—a skilful blend of tightening up where it is needed while maintaining flexibility with minimum bureaucratic cost so that trustees can operate in accordance with the wishes of the donors.
A vital role of private charities is to act as a catalyst by investing in people, in new ideas and in facilities. Perhaps the best known example of that was the modest grant made by the Rockefeller Foundation in the late 1930s which enabled Professors Florey and Chain successfully to complete their work on penicillin. Thus it is important to maintain both effective safeguards for donors and freedom for trustees and others to back innovative research work. This I believe the report has implicitly recognised.
There are current features which need attention in order to improve the performance of the charitable sector. In paragraph 2 of the summary, the report refers to some of the matters in question. It contrasts areas of strength and weakness and further on indicates the wide differentials that exist in administrative and overhead costs. The report also states that the Charity Commission's records are not computerised and recommends that they should be. That is a clear priority.
As a result of having an updated computer data bank the Charity Commission could then publish its own guidelines to charitable organisations advising them of average and best cost performance, cash flow and other relevant financial information.
The proposed management board and projects manager should monitor the outcome in terms of subsequent performance. They might also consider recommending cost-sharing between charitable bodies in appropriate cases where similar projects are involved. Paragraph 36 of the report refers to the
670
possibility of the commission making staff exchanges with charitable organisations. That again is a useful suggestion.
There is also a need for recipients to have a more businesslike approach in obtaining better values for purchases of supplies, services, buildings and equipment. As has been mentioned on previous occasions, I should like to see a stronger measure of central buying, instituted on commercial lines, to ensure that that happens. I have had a number of experiences of meaningful savings having been secured as a result of such negotiations. In all cases, of course, specifications have to be laid down so that quality standards are maintained. Clearly cost savings on one project can help to make up a financial shortfall in others.
Charitable work as defined in law requires the essential combination of a good heart allied to a good head and integrity of purpose. Thus it is clearly incumbent upon fund raisers and trustees to operate efficiently and economically to ensure that the funds donated are employed for the purposes intended and to use their best endeavours to see that they are. Public bodies also have the same duty for they are the major providers of funds to the whole area designated in law as charitable. Both the interests of the recipient bodies and of the taxpayer need to be respected.
Pluralistic sources of finance are more helpful than sole reliance on the state, vitally important as is its contribution. Indeed, academic, cultural and medical independence as well as relief work must benefit from having an alternative or partnership approach to funding requirements.
The private charity sector, which the report states has an annual turnover of over £10 billion which represents some 2·5 per cent. of GNP, will continue to grow. All governments have encouraged that process and this Government in particular. In order to sustain the growing momentum of a well conducted charitable sector it is fundamental to stamp out malpractices by strengthening the requisite ground rules to give donors the maximum confidence.
The report's recommendations would reinforce the present law as would the publication by the Charity Commission of carefully drawn guidelines for administrative and overhead cost control together with a wider dissemination of relevant information. Central buying methods in the areas I have indicated would enable better values to be achieved to the benefit of all concerned.
Taken together these factors would raise standards all round. In the current national debate on funding and its application well-organised individual charities have an important role to play in helping to provide the additional resources for the many urgent purposes we all wish to see carried out. I am therefore confident that the Government and all sides of your Lordships' House will continue to give sympathetic support to their endeavours.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is very pleasant on this occasion to have a few nice things to

671
say. This is the third short debate on charities in which I have spoken. We are much more forward today than we were this time last year. We must be grateful indeed, not only to the Minister who inspired the appointment of Sir Philip Woodfield to conduct his investigation, but also to Sir Philip and his team for the speedy job and excellent work which they have done. It was a pity that he was given such a tight timetable. Something like 13 weeks for such a job seems to me to be a very good day's work for anyone to get through. However, we reap the benefit of that because the report before us is extremely valuable as a basis for this evening's debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is far too modest to claim that it was probably his diligence on those occasions that has speeded up the work that the Government set on foot. I am sure that that diligence has encouraged the Government to bring forward the investigation and the report which is before us.
It is a good idea to leave aside for the time being the complex question of what a charity is. Had any committee in the last 12 months become involved in that question, it would still be doing its work. I think that in politics, charities and other contentious matters, such questions are best left aside until administration is more efficient and much more effective, and until the Charity Commission is in better shape to discharge the tasks not only which it has in hand already but also those which will lie ahead.
The Charity Commission has been long neglected. It is a great shame that, through lack of staff and resources, it has become so ineffective in many of the duties which it could have undertaken. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, has pointed out that the work of the commission has increased, and the number of staff has gone down; the result is that a great deal of its work has been neglected.
We should all distinguish between the two main groups of charities—the collecting societies and the charitable trusts. I believe that the Government should now embark on some form of communication to all charities, and especially to the collecting societies, and tell them what the Woodfield report is recommending, indicating the matters that the Government have under consideration, and giving them encouragement to do their own work in making their administration, accounting and efficiency more satisfactory. We want the charities to do as much as they can to make themselves fit for their jobs and prepared for greater responsibilities when they come.
As regards the next group of questions, those lie in the hands of the Charity Commission and without primary legislation they could embark upon those if only they had the resources to do so. I hope that it will be indicated what the Charity Commissioners are being prepared to undertake in the period between now and legislation.
As regards legislation itself, surely the vague reference to the length of this Parliament— "sometime in this Parliament"—is not good enough. Now that we have got going, let us, for goodness' sake, get on. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has
672
pointed out, there are not many contentious questions on administrative powers, scrutiny and the rest of it. To a large extent the questions involve administration and the degree of control and supervision to be undertaken over a wide field of activities. I hope that the Government can be encouraged to get on more quickly than they suggest. I hope that the Minister, whom we welcome to the Front Bench, will be able to give us better news about the prospect of earlier legislation.
The keynote of all collecting societies should be accountability. I want to see that more than anything else. They should be accountable to their members if they are member societies, to their subscribers and supporters in any case, and to the public. They are collecting public money and they are spending public money in their noble causes. Plainly there is a wide public interest in all that they are doing.
In addition, we shall need a much more powerful commission than some of us envisaged to carry out the supervisory and regulatory functions that I think should be entrusted to it. We want something very close to the Building Societies Commission, which will have oversight over diverse activities of numerous bodies, all engaged in similar tasks but having a common obligation to the public interest and public affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to appeals being made by broadcasts on television. There is mention in the report of the nature of fund-raising appeals. I am deeply concerned at the prospect that charities may go into the advertising slots of television. I invite noble Lords, if they are able to get a copy, to look at the report written by Diana Leat in December 1986 for the Central Appeals Advisory Committee. That report was produced under the auspices of the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust with which Mr. Guthrie, who is to be the new chief charity commissioner, has been associated.
If charities want to become whiter than white, they must steer clear of the subtleties and techniques of detergent advertising. They must realise what dangerous people ad-men are. We must realise that when politicians consult them, they must have something that nobody else has. We see that something on television, and not only in advertising. I should like to ask a few pertinent questions on that matter. How are we to be sure that the pictures we see are authentic or are we to have studio models of deprivation, child abuse, neglect and poverty? Are they to be portrayed in television advertising? Will they be real?
Indeed, in the Leat Report, it is said that one of the most successful broadcast appeals for public money for charitable purposes was one which allegedly was not true. That is an important aspect of the future opportunity and future danger. There is a special danger in the emotional presentation of children. There have been more appeals this Christmas than I can remember and there is a multiplication of organisations looking after children. It is time that there was some regulation regarding appeals made on television and it should be undertaken by the television authorities themselves.
While all these matters are being surveyed and gone over in longer debates than those which we have

673
had so far, I believe that we ought to have a closed season on further fiscal concessions to charities and on further inducements to public generosity subsidised by public money.
In the meantime we ought not to have any extension of the role of the voluntary effort in the field of statutory social services and other services which are provided by government. This division between what should be a state service and what should be left to voluntary service is a difficult line to draw. Years ago I had the job of trying to draw that line while in the Harold Wilson government. It is not an easy one. Are the charities pathfinders or are they the salvage squad? Are children's homes in the charitable field merely branches of the social services which have to provide for children in care? There are all kinds of duplication of effort and no straight line between them.
I think that we should leave charities with the benefits that they presently enjoy—they are very substantial—and not confer more upon them until the public can be better satisfied that the field of charitable work is in better order than it is now.
Finally, I should like to say a word about charitable trusts. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I think that charitable trusts have an obligation to be accountable in some large measure. There is far too much secrecy about what some charitable trusts are doing. Although it may not be public money, it is in the public interest to know. I am short of time now and I must leave that point.
All in all, we are very grateful for the work that has gone into this matter so far. We hope that at the end of the debate the Minister can give encouraging news about the Government's determination to get on with the job, which is long overdue, and on which so much work has been carried out in the past 12 months as a start.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, not only on another excellent speech on this subject but also on having actually achieved something. Perhaps this should not surprise us as he is a very formidable operator in the public sector. However, I congratulate him on his success so far.
It seems to me that before setting out to reform anything, one should have clearly in mind the mischief that one is trying to end and the questions that need asking. To me, one of the best features of this report is that it concentrates the mind on these matters and pinpoints certain things which need doing in the field of charities.
The salient conclusion to my min d on reading this report is that there is very great success in the charitable field and not all that much to complain about when one thinks of other fields. Of course, if a commission were set up to look into heaven it would certainly report that it had some grave defects. It would probably make suggestions that possibly another half dozen archangels and even a small distribution of gold crowns would improve matters. Given the state of the world, I think that the charities
674
and the Charity Commission come out of this inquiry pretty well, especially when, as we know, the Charity Commission has had its staff reduced.
I was particularly interested in the passages in this report which deal with Scotland because, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has already said, Scotland has no Charity Commission. I was looking forward to seeing a comparison of the English and Scottish experience and rather expected to find that things were not at all good in Scotland. This report mentions certain aspects of the Scottish scene which in the view of the inquiry need attention. But in Scotland too there does not seem to be any widespread criticism of the present situation, nor indeed is there as much to be done as one might expect.
Unlike previous speakers, I have some slight sympathy with the Government. First of all, there are innumerable things on which one might spend money and some of them seem to need money at the present moment more than does the reform of the Charity Commission. Secondly, to my mind one of the great ills of the present time is the outpouring of legislation. I think that whenever a Bill is introduced the Government and Parliament should ask themselves very seriously whether it is really necessary. A good deal of the recommendations of the report can be, and some have been, effected without legislation. I am all in favour of that. I do not deny that legislation may be necessary, but I suggest to the Government that when they introduce it they should not go into too much detail and should not try to cover too much ground because some of the Bills that we have received lately have been practically unmanageable.
The most important points that need attention in this field are first, the register and adequate facilities and staff to examine the accounts of charities; secondly, the amount spent on administration; and thirdly, the question of fund raising. I repeat what has been said innumerable times, that this is very big business and it is all too likely that fraud will creep in. There are dangers both in administration and fund raising. Therefore, I must reiterate that the public have a complete right to know what goes on in charities in order to forestall any possibility that they may be used for evil purposes.
To those who wonder why charities, voluntary donation of money and so forth, should be subject to public examination in this way, I say that not only do they benefit from large tax remissions but they are used for the Government to some extent to channel funds into worthy causes. The voluntary societies are not entirely voluntary in that sense and if people do not like it they do not need to set up a charity.
I reiterate that I spent many years as a director of the Joseph Rowntree Social Service Trust, which, unlike the Rowntree Memorial Trust and the Rowntree Charitable Trust, is not a charity, but it does—or hopes it does—pursue and fund certain valuable experiments and interests. The original assistance to parliamentarians, and so forth, was paid by that trust and could not have been paid for by a charity. We pay our taxes and are outside the Charity Commission; and so long as we remain within our articles of association, we can do what we like. That is a perfectly good way of putting money into good

675
causes if you do not like the supervision of charities. However, in the charitable field it is perfectly reasonable, and indeed necessary, that the administration should be good and should be seen to be good.
Obviously, some of the greatest successes of the charitable field have been those accomplished by the great charities—the Nuffield Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the Wolfson Foundation, and so forth. There is a certain temptation to think that the small and peculiar charities which proliferate over the country are out of date and must be inefficient and unnecessary. I protest against that view. When I was a director of the Manchester Guardian, which has no shareholders and therefore distributes no profits, year after year we distributed to charities small sums of money—very small sums of money in some cases. The charities were mainly local ones in Manchester and Lancashire. I remember saying, "Isn't this an awful waste of time? What's the good of going through all this palaver of giving very small sums to very obscure charities?" However, on looking into the matter, I found that some of those charities did a great deal of good at very little expense. There were quite a number of people who depended on them. They considered them part of their life; not only did they get some money from them, but they were interested in them; they knew all the other beneficiaries, and so on. I should be very sorry to see those kinds of small charities either too much bureaucratised or even amalgamated.
The great controversy at the back of all this inquiry is something into which the committee could not look; that is the question of what is a charity and what is the difference between a charity and a lobby. On the whole, I think that the committee was very wise not to go into that question, and I rather agree with those who have said that this is not the moment to do it. But if it is not going to be done now, we must expect the cotroversy to continue. It will depend a great deal upon the success of the improved efficiency which will result from the Woodfield Report as to how far that controversy goes.
I hope very much that the speaker who follows me, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will return to some of the suggestions that she has made on this subject before. I am not altogether clear about some of the proposals with regard to the Charity Commission. I am not clear what the exact advantage a project manager is. "Projects" have become the small change of all discussion. What is a project manager? I am not sure what it means. However, I very much liked her suggestion in a previous debate about what parliamentarians might do.
I welcome the report. I trust that if legislation follows, it will not be too detailed and will stick to the main purposes of the report. Once again, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this debate, and who better, as a former
676
head of the Home Office. For all of us concerned in the realm of charities in this country, I suggest that this is a momentous debate. We had the Nathan Report in 1952, the House of Commons Report in 1975 and the Goodman Report in 1976. Little action was taken as a result of these reports. Now at last we have positive action in the form of the report of Sir Philip Woodfield and his team commissioned by the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We congratulate Her Majesty's Government on taking action; all those in the country who have worked for change will be grateful. Many others will also be grateful. Perhaps I may mention the retiring chief commissioner, Mr. Denis Peach, who has given imaginative and positive service during his time at the Charity Commission. We wish him well.
There are up and down the country those who have called for reform and who have done good work. Perhaps I may mention two names: Mr. Harry Kidd, the director of the Legislation Monitoring Service of Charities, who produced this extraordinarily good book, Malpractice in Fundraising for Charity; and Sir Charles Kimber, the charities review organiser in 1980 in Oxfordshire, to whom I am particularly indebted for the help he gave me with the Parochial Charities Bill.
My particular interests lie in the following recommendations. Recommendation 2 states:
"The Home Office and the Charity Commission should review and clarify the division of responsibilities between them: the direct accountability of the Chief Commissioner to the Home Secretary should be preserved".
Recommendation 3 states:
"Two additional part time commissioners should be appointed by March 1988".
I suggest that the present Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd. is unique in that, unlike any of his predecessors, over many years he has taken an interest and taken action.
In previous debates in your Lordships' House I recommended an advisory council or board consisting of a Member of the House of Commons, a Member of the House of Lords and a member representing charities. I still ask myself whether this would not be a sensible move to support future Home Secretaries, who may not be as interested, able and imaginative as our present Home Secretary. Such an advisory board could consist of people to whom the public could appeal.
I appreciate that in paragraph 27 of the Woodfield Report it is stated:
"The traditional device of an independent Advisory Council would not be a sufficient answer to these requirements"—
that were cited in earlier paragraphs. Instead of an advisory board the report recommends the appointment of two additional part-time commissioners. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, made reference to these.
Recommendation 3 might well meet my point. But perhaps I may ask the Minister when he comes to reply to clarify the role of the two part-time commissioners. For instance, what would be their job description? Would they be available to the public? Would they work under the chief commissioner?

677
What would be their relationship with the Home Secretary? From what sector of the population would these part-time commissioners be drawn?
Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 concern the management and organisation of the Charity Commission and these are greatly welcomed. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that I approve of the recommendations in the Woodfield Report on the question of management and the appointment and setting up of a top management board. I also approve the career structure for staff by secondments to other departments and to other charitable organisations. Here we extend a welcome to the newly appointed commissioner who comes from the Rowntree Trust, Mr. Robin Guthrie. It is encouraging to see that,
"greater use of information technology"
is recommended. There are now over a quarter of a million charities in the United Kingdom, with an annual turnover of well in excess of £10 million.
At a luncheon given in honour of Mr. Denis Peach by the Home Secretary at which I was present today, one of the members suggested that we might scrap the register altogether to save having to put it on computer and that everyone should re-register and it would go straight on to the computer. I only heard about that at lunch today and I have not had time to think it over, but it appears to me quite sound.
As one who has presented to your Lordships' House the Parochial Charities Bill, which, together with the Small Charities Bill, was considered by a Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, I am bound to point to Recommendation 30. The Charity Commission issued an excellent report on the Charities Act 1985 but it states that:
"The response has been modest".
The work that I did on this Bill leads me to support Recommendation 29, that,
"The Commission should as soon as practicable establish a local…liaison section to promote and assist future local review work".
As in past reviews of local charities, this work could be devolved to a local voluntary organisation from the local authority.
I have two last points. The first concerns trustees. The Charity Commission has had neither the staff nor time to stretch out to help, assist and confer with trustees. I draw your Lordships' attention to the Centre for Voluntary Organisation and Management at the London School of Economics, where there are courses both for the management of voluntary organisations and training and help given to trustees to assist them with knowledge of how to be trustees and how to run a voluntary organisation.
Finally we raise the burning question. These recommendations cannot be carried out without further resources. Will those resources be available? Many of us were deeply distressed and hurt by the report of the National Audit Office. All the work that has been done by Sir Philip Woodfield and his team, and the inspiration which has been given to the work by the retiring Charity Commissioner, by the report, and by the Home Secretary, will come to nought unless there are resources.
6.19 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a privilege to speak between the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Lane-Fox. They both embody the charitable impulse at its best: a warm heart supported by a great deal of expert knowledge. I hope that my noble and revered friend Lord Houghton will forgive me if I say that I was a little worried by one of the propositions that he appeared to be advancing. As he said the same thing last time, I suppose that I have probably understood him correctly.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, fears that there is a danger of too much money going to charity. I take precisely the opposite view, I am afraid. In this country, in which we are told that we are getting richer every minute, I think there is a danger of not enough money going to charity. As I shall not use up my time, perhaps I may be permitted a personal reminiscence. In 1950 I made my first speech as a Minister of some kind in the Labour Government of that period in reply to a debate initiated by Lord Samuel on voluntary action. Mr. Herbert Morrison, the then Deputy Prime Minister, took particular trouble to make sure that I made a very strong statement indicating that the Labour Party, although a party connected with collectivism, was heart and soul behind the movement for voluntary action. I am sure that when my noble friend Lord Mishcon replies on behalf of the party, he will say the same thing as strongly and no doubt more skilfully.
I shall not dwell on the subject. I remember that the philosopher Kant—I spell that for the benefit of our friends who have to take all this down—was accused of starting from both ends of the road at once and never meeting himself in the middle. I have three propositions to unfold briefly. The first is straightforward and the other two might need some balancing out.
The first proposition is simply to support most strongly all the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, with all his expertise, brought forward for strengthening the work of the Charity Commission, for giving it more resources to enable it to do the work much better. I shall not dwell on that as it has already been touched on and will be mentioned again by other speakers.
The other two propositions need careful juxtaposition. On the one hand we want to remedy abuses and on the other hand we do not want interference with charities. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, will perhaps for the first time approve of me if I say that I have myself started three small charities in my time. That is what he begged us all to set about doing. The last thing we should have benefited from, either then or later, would have been interference from bureaucrats coming round and sniffing about to see what we were up to.
In my opinion the Charity Commissioners have been extremely wise. Everybody has to put in a report and if there is any cause for anxiety the matter is considered more fully. But the last thing that the charities would want would be increased interference by a central body, whether that be the commissioners, the courts, the Government or

679
anybody else. I am sure that anybody who has presided over a great charity—such as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, or the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who has done the same for MENCAP and with whose predecessor I was associated in past years—would be the last to want people inspecting them more closely. It would be absolutely fatal and in fact impossible. I hope we shall not hear any more of that.
That brings one to the question of the guidelines that ought to be laid down for charities by the commissioners. Here I have changed my views since our last debate only a year ago. Now I believe that it is not possible to lay down more precise guidelines. I do not say that it never will be, but I do not believe that we should benefit from more precise guidelines. To take but one issue; it is clear enough but it will always give trouble. I am quoting from a Home Office document issued recently:
"It is well established that charities may campaign in furtherance of their objects. The RSPCA Act 1932, for example, conferred specific power on the RSPCA to conduct 'persuasive educational and parliamentary operations' and to make representations to Parliament and a Government department".
That campaigning, which is a crucial issue here, is settled in the right way for the moment and I hope that it will never be disturbed. The question then arises as to what is political and will be ruled out. That is a difficult issue which I do not have time to go into now. However I quote something written by the then chairman of the Charity Commissioners to my friend Mr. Peter Thompson, the dynamic founder of the Matthew Trust—a gentleman who has done more in my estimation for mental health than any layman. The letter from the then chairman acknowledged the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of defining the word "political" with any precision. For myself I am now for once, and perhaps for once only, in favour of the status quo.
I shall raise one more issue, turning to the other side of this, that concerns abuse. I gave notice of this to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and it refers to something I said on the last occasion, when I asked a question about the foreign organisations which set up charities in the United Kingdom and then take the money out of the country. I dealt with that matter in greater detail last time. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to say whether that abuse has been corrected.
I shall not detain the House further. I have risen partly because of my long-term involvement with charities and also because of my desire to win the good esteem of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, by boasting of the small charities that I started, but most of all to say how strongly I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, is doing and will continue to do.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, should be congratulated not only on once again leading out the home team, as it were, which has become almost an annual fixture, but also on his determination to improve the role of the Charity Commissioners, something that was so well reflected in his speech.
680
It is very much in the category of high finance. The recent scrutiny was greatly needed to look through the whole of the Charity Commissioners' work. The Woodfield report contrives to cover all the points that have given many of us concern. My main worry about it has been that the commission has been working with outdated equipment. It was an obvious recruit for computerisation and also for sophisticated filing methods. No doubt this view of mine was coloured by my own visit to the commission some years ago. I went on behalf of a charity which wanted certain information from the commissioners. I found a very old-fashioned system operating. Nobody could do more than provide me with a heap of dusty old files to open up and search. It took me several days. I am delighted to read of a brighter prospect for anyone sent there on a similar quest in the future.
The kind of information that the commissioners have to provide can be of great use. I was very disappointed to read that the report does not favour making a scale of charges here. This is the only point at which I do not agree with the report. At Part 11 paragraph 118 it recommends against such a scale of charges. I believe that someone should pay if something is of value to them. This is a valuable opportunity that should not be missed. It is very satisfactory to read the Home Secretary's reply in another place on 21st January. He gave a warm welcome to this report. He said that an extensive reform of the system was needed and declared that the majority of recommendations were already being put into effect. He hoped that those others that require legislation would be dealt with later in this Parliament. My goodness, that has come a long way.
I have read the views of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Council of Charitable Support. In general they both give the report their very full approval. The NCVO is anxious that the proposed registration fee of £25 is likely to discourage new charities. My own view is that there should be a fee of perhaps not more than £10. Having been through the business of registering on several occasions, I believe that the larger sum could be a discouragement but that the smaller one would encourage the charity at least to keep the rules. I believe that there are others of your Lordships who would like to raise the bid to £50 but I fear this would drive more charities underground where already there are, I am told, 100,000 unregistered.
In particular I am delighted with the suggestion that it is intended to make submission of annual accounts obligatory, with failure to do so punished by removal from the register. As an adviser on disablement grants to a charitable trust, I know that new appellants make much of their registration with the Charity Commission. As things are, that state does not indicate any extra grace; but, if Woodfield's recommendations here are adopted, it will.
From my two connections with the Commission I stress the urgency and importance of adopting the recommendations in this report. Increased resources of course will be needed to make it work, and that has already been referred to by other noble Lords today. It is not only important that there is a due measure of supervision, but also that the public knows about this. Fortunately there has not been any big charity

681
scandal to date, but it is high time to take steps to prevent any such possibility. These funds, like taxes, come from the public; but, unlike taxation, this money is voluntarily given and as such deserves most careful handling. For these reasons I applaud the Home Secretary for going as far as he has.
Finally, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether the Home Secretary's statement implies that funds will be made available to carry out the recommended changes.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I too welcome Sir Philip Woodfield's report and many of the recommendations. I congratulate him on the speed with which he has done it.
One can only concentrate on one or two features which appear in this scrutiny. I should like to concentrate on the need for keeping a full and accurate register of charities. Section 4 of the 1960 Act said that every charity, subject to limited exceptions, is to be registered with the Charity Commissioners and that it is the duty of the trustees to register it. That duty has not been enforced because there is no sanction for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said that there were 100,000 charities which are not registered when they ought to be. Indeed the report says that many charities required by law to register do not bother to do so. There is no sanction for failure to register.
I should like to tell your Lordships about the importance of registering charities. Once a charity is registered, the charity itself, when it issues appeals, puts with its name a registered charity number. That is a guarantee to the public of which note is taken. Indeed in paragraph 38 of this scrutiny it says:
"The most widely known fact about the Charity Commission is probably that it keeps a register and issues registration numbers to charities. The natural assumption is made that having a registration number shows that the charity is reliable, well run and worthy of support."
I also add that it is accountable to those in authority for its running. If there is any mishandling of the charity, it can be called to account and investigated. That is the importance of a registration. It is a guarantee to the public that it is a well-run charity.
The other equally important point is that a registered charity has enormous tax concessions and taxpayers get relief on their subscriptions to charity. In regard to this the scrutiny says at paragraph 45:
"… the public is entitled to have access to basic information showing which are the bodies receiving the large fiscal benefits which the state gives to charities."
It states that tax concessions amount to £550 million and rate relief to £120 million. So there is the important benefit of tax concessions, the other important factor being registration. That is the effect of registration: on the one hand there is a guarantee to the public that it is well run, and on the other hand it is afforded tax concessions.
Those being the consequences of registration, is it not important that there should be compulsory registration and a sanction? As I said, in the 1960 Act it was compulsory on every charity to register but no sanction was imposed for not doing so.
682
I should like to suggest a few sanctions which should be considered. If the charity is not registered, let it receive no tax concessions at all. Furthermore, if it is an unregistered charity, do not let it make an appeal for funds because it does not have the guarantee of the country behind it.
I should like to deal with appeals for funds. We know what fund-raisers do. When they make an appeal for funds should they not say how much they are getting out of it? Paragraph 127 of the scrutiny says:
"The excessive level of remuneration retained by some commercial FRPs. It appears to be lawful for an FRP to enter into a contract with a charity under which he is entitled to retain 80 or 90 per cent, of the receipts".
So the fund-raiser, when he puts this great appeal for funds for this charity or the other, does not say "80 or 90 per cent, is going to me and only 10 per cent, is going to you".
That recommendation surely ought to be in force. If an appeal is made for funds, first it should be stated that it is a registered charity and, secondly, it should be stated on the leaflet or the box how much the fund-raiser is getting out of it. Surely that is a good recommendation.
These are recommendations which would put charities on a proper footing; they should all be registered and properly run. If they are not registered no tax concessions should be given at all and they should be made absolutely accountable. That requires new legislation. That is the main point I would mention.
I also mention schemes and advice. The scrutiny says that these are often heavily loaded with legal phrases, that it is slow, and that the doctrine of cy-près has not been carried as far as it should be. I hope that under the guidance of Sir Robin Guthrie we may change all that. With more resources the Charity Commission can be quick, active and liberal in all these matters. I noticed that in accordance with the terms of reference given to the scrutiny report, it is to assume that the definition of "charity" for charitable purposes is to remain unchanged, and that is probably right.
It would take a long time to define charity but I should like to outline the trouble in which we find ourselves. Noble Lords will remember the case of the Unification Church and that the Daily Mail was said to have libelled the moonies. However, they justified it. The jury stated that charitable status should be investigated. It is being investigated. The Charity Commissioners thought that the charity was for the advancement of religion and the case is being taken through the courts. It has not yet gone far and it will take some years, but it is hoped that the House of Lords will give guidance on what is a charitable status.
Many organisations do not trouble to register as charities. We know of the fortunes that have been made, for example, by the Church of Scientology. It has not registered as a charity. If it had, it might be accountable. Registration as a charity with the Charity Commissioners should be enforced; the statute of 1960 should be enforced by proper machinery.

683
I have outlined a few of the points which I noted in the scrutiny report. I should like to say that I welcome the report and the many recommendations which it makes.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, it is always a joy to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to hear him expound upon cases and to know that he is slightly older than I. I rise to speak in the debate because, as one ages, it is easy to concentrate one' s mind on the disagreeable. There is a great deal of change and all change hurts someone, even when it is change from good to better. The great and enduring help that one receives from society at the present time is the recognition of the definition of charity, which is perhaps even older than that which we are discussing this evening: charity being love.
In all the difficulties in present society at home and abroad there is evidence of a great deal of love and enduring and that people respond to charitable appeals. When it is properly presented to them that there is a need for their gifts, those gifts are forthcoming. They come from those who are very rich and from those who are very poor. They are co-ordinated through charities which are well organised and through charities which are perhaps less efficient.
After many years in the field, I take the view that many of the difficulties and tragedies which occur in the personal lives of those who fall foul of what they first attempted to achieve occur more from accident than design. Therefore the emphasis is thrown back on the need to structure the charitable services in a way which will help all those who wish to give service in those charities, rather than that we should set out to punish those people who we know originally intended to serve their own interests rather than those of the charities.
I have worked happily within the Spastics Society for a number of years. During that time I have been grateful for the help and advice of Mary Holland, who is now with MENCAP, and of Michael Brophy, who is now with the Council for Charitable Support. They are present in the House tonight, as are many other professionals in the field.
I should like to dissent gently from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I believe that there is a great necessity to harness the good feeling and enduring optimism which is present in society through the new media in the most efficient way possible. Not for one second do I disagree with the noble Lord that there is a possibility of prostituting that if the wrong people give the wrong messages in the wrong way. However, the important aspect of the White Paper is that we are being allowed to focus our minds on problems that have occurred, some accidentally and some purposefully, and that we are providing some solutions to those problems.
I thank my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale for giving the House the opportunity of debating this subject. It is a great discipline on the House to see the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and to hear him contributing to the debate as one who has probably
684
done more for charitable purposes in one afternoon than the rest of us have been able to do in a lifetime.
I should like to ask two specific questions and to take the House back to the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale. When the Minister comes to reply, will he tell the House more about the position of the project officer, outlined in the first suggestion, who will be reporting directly to the chief commissioner? Will he say who, what, why and how and comment on the nature of the appointment?
I should like to take the House quickly to two further items concerning the official custodian for charities, items 38 and 39. It has been pointed out to me that the official custodian for charities acts in a voluntary capacity; as I understand it, he is not a paid official. He works economically, he is in a position of great trust and is responsible for advising about investments in this field. I am told that the operation costs approximately £1 million, and that must be set against a charitable investment in the region of £600 million. If people are prepared to work in a voluntary capacity at such a high level, and if such talent can be tapped for what seems to be a reasonable percentage of the total investment, I should like to know whether it is necessary to change the appointment and introduce a bureaucratic structure which might cost more.
In the debate we are making only a beginning, but I believe that there are a number of recommendations upon which there is already agreement. One could probably run a pencil down the list of recommendations and isolate approximately 30 upon which there is already total agreement. As has already been said—and it is also the view of the charity organisation that has been advising me—there are other recommendations that we might wish to go through with a fine-tooth comb. One would need to look at the details and implications of the proposals. However, we are surely in a position where the Minister can say to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary, "It looks to me as though we have total agreement on two-thirds". It would be a pity if the implementation of the agreed portions of the report were held up while we argue over matters about which we are already agreed.
I warmly welcome all the items upon which there is so much agreement and I shall help to question the items upon which there are matters yet to be raised. I respectfully recommend to the Minister that in his report to the Home Secretary he draws attention to the fact that there is a great deal of agreement on the major portion of the recommendations.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on bringing this matter back to your Lordships' House one year later and on having accomplished so much during that time. I am not surprised that he has done so. I should also like to congratulate Sir Philip Woodfield and his committee on what is not only a very helpful but also a very succinct report. I believe that we have all had much pleasure in reading what the report has to say.

685
I am also pleased to read that the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, has accepted the report and that he hopes to bring a Bill before Parliament during its present life. As we all know who have anything to do with this sphere, this is what my noble friend Lord Young would have called a growth industry. How thankful and grateful we are for that. It is an increasingly promising field, but unfortunately also an increasing field for sharp practices, as has been spoken about before. But no wonder in this growth industry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is encouraging more voluntary giving to charity by introducing the payroll system. After all, we are told that the country and he also, raised £10 billion. That is big money, even to the Chancellor.
The report is vitally important at this time because there is a ground swell of trusts, companies and individuals who are willing and ready to help all sorts of people and all sorts of organisations that are in low finances or people who are themselves in trouble. All these organisations and people are increasingly anxious to know that their contributions are well spent. There are 250,000 registered charities. I think it is beyond the hounds of charity commissioners and their staff to look after so many charities. Therefore, they must have up-to-date machinery and equipment, and, in view of the Government realising £10 billion, it seems that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give money for more staff.
This report has many recommendations which can and must in my view be implemented. We know that charitable status can be acquired as a legal right, regardless, as we are told, of whether the organisation is well or incompetently run and even if the organisation fails to make the statutory return of accounts. That seems extraordinary. We are also told that the Charity Commission has no power to refuse charitable status to an organisation with objects entitling it to that status, even when it has reservations over whether the organisation is one which ought in the public interest to receive the legal and financial benefits of charitable status. That seems to need much tightening. Otherwise, we may have, and perhaps are having, a large number of different charities all geared to helping the same cause. To my certain knowledge that is happening.
Like other noble Lords, I believe that overseeing the accounts is one of the most pressing of all the recommendations made. It is vitally important, for example, that the amount paid on administration is low and is seen by the public to be as low as possible. I welcome the accounts being received by local authorities. Very often it is local people who are giving their money to local charities as well as to big national charities. I warmly welcome the recommendation that members of the public should be able to see, for a small fee, the charity's results.
Charitable status, and all that surrounds it, is invaluable to every new charity. However, the register of charities must be kept up. In my experience—which is quite lengthy and covers many charities—I find that charitable giving and charitable help from the people of this country are sometimes almost overwhelming. I happen to be connected with a charity that at Christmas-time looks after people whom nobody knows because they are single and
686
homeless. We run the charity to look after them. We call it an open Christmas and about 700 people are helped each Christmas.
I do not think I am betraying any confidences if I tell the House that up to three weeks ago—and I did not have time to ask for today's figure—the people in our country who wanted to help the single homeless in London, who have no roof, nowhere to go and no food at Christmas-time, have so far this year raised £605,479. Now that is charity, because it is looking after people they never see who are single and homeless. They might perhaps go round under the arches of Charing Cross, but normally those people are looked after by other agencies. Therefore, the remainder of the money we raise will go to help the agencies that normally look after people who are without homes during the rest of the year.
We employ only two people and our administrative and publicity costs are less than 10 per cent. The rest is done entirely by voluntary effort. Last year 996 people offered to give up some of their time at Christmas to help us look after people who have no homes and no food. That is charity. I hope that it never changes; I am sure it will not.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in this interesting and very useful debate your Lordships have not been economical with truth but have been economical with time, and I observe that I, the Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, have been allowed rather more time than was announced by the Chief Whip. It would not be charitable if I for one took advantage of that, and I do not intend to do so.
I share the joy that my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby announced at the beginning of his speech when he said that he could commence with a note of approval and appreciation. I should like to join with others of your Lordships in paying tribute, first of all, to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this debate. He is a great initiator of debates which are useful to the nation and we are very grateful to him. Secondly, I too join in the tributes from these Benches to Sir Philip Woodfield and his colleagues for this very worthwhile and workmanlike report. I do not know whether your Lordships have looked at paragraph 4 of Part 2, which is to be found at page 8. Your Lordships will see—and I think it is proper to pay tribute to it—that the total estimated cost of this report was £31,000. It was well worth the money, if I may say so; it is a very economical report.
Tribute should also be paid, as has been done, to Mr. Peach, a great Chief Commissioner whose work will always be appreciated. I know that his successor would be the first one to pay that tribute to him as well. We wish Mr. Guthrie every success.
I was asked by my noble friend Lord Longford to reiterate the resounding words of Lord Morrison—I think he was Mr. Herbert Morrison when he spoke those words to my noble friend—in order to make it perfectly clear that from these Benches we welcome the great charitable efforts that are made to relieve hardship in our land and to promote science and education and all the other things that are charitable

687
objects. From these Benches I once more say, not with the force that a Morrison could have used on behalf of my party but nevertheless with as much emphasis as I can command, that of course we appreciate charity, we encourage it, and there is no difference between us on this Front Bench and those on any other Front bench, I imagine in this House.
It has rightly been said that we are dealing with a very important national matter when we deal with charity. It may be said that charity represents the big heart of our nation—and what a big heart it is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said. But it also represents big business. One has to be rather careful in that connection that there is proper administration, that there are proper controls, without in any way using the bureaucratic heavy hand which obviously would be neither appreciated nor needed. There must be a balance, since, as has been mentioned in the debate, there are about 250,000 charities, with a gross annual turnover of over £10 billion.
The report deals mainly with the requirements which are needed to improve the Commission's management and the information available to it. Upon those objectives there must be complete agreement. I believe that, by and large, this report makes very sensible recommendations.
It is important that the commission has powers to deal adequately with fundraising malpractices. Your Lordships must have looked with approval at paragraphs 41 to 45, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who rightly mentioned some of the iniquities that occur with some of the professional fund-raisers. I emphasise the word "some" because many of them, by hard work and endeavour and with complete integrity, are responsible for raising large sums for very worthwhile objects, but as always there is a minority of whom we have to be a little careful.
In particular, I was very pleased to see paragraph 41 on page 6, which the noble and learned Lord did not mention, I am sure because he was limited as to the time available for his speech. Paragraph 41 is very interesting and very useful. The recommendation is:
"It should be an offence for a fundraising practitioner to deduct his remuneration (however calculated) from donations received before paying them to the charity unless he can prove that his intention to do so was made clear to every donor; if such an offence is committed it should be open to the court, in addition to imposing penalties, to determine that the sums deducted be paid to such charity as the court may determine."
That is a very good and useful recommendation. One hopes to see it in legislation soon, and that will have to be primary legislation, of course.
Inevitably the question of definition of charity has been raised in this debate. It was said that it was a good thing that Sir Philip and his colleagues had not tried to tackle the problem or we should not have had the report to debate even now. In fairness to Sir Philip, however, I must point out that the terms of reference expressly prevented this admirable working party from considering the matter at all. Indeed, the terms of reference start with the words:
"On the assumption that there is to be no change in the law relating to the definition of charitable status".
688
Having said that, it is absolutely unavoidable in discussing charity in a debate to consider whether or not we need a different definition of charity from the latest one, which dates back to 1891 and is nearly a hundred years old. It is the definition by Lord Macnaghten, who devised four categories of charity.
The Goodman Committee sat a few years ago, I think in 1976. It studied this matter very carefully. As I remember it, there was only one dissension from its main recommendation that by and large this reliance upon the four classifications of Lord Macnaghten, defined from time to time by our courts to keep up with the social mores of the day, worked out pretty well. The committee, however, suggested that there should be guidelines which from time to time the court would lay down and the Charity Commissioners would publicise, as to how to keep up with the varying social factors that, clearly, would evolve.
I should like to see those guidelines kept up to date not just from time to time in statements that would be made on behalf of the Charity Commissioners, to ensure, possibly by debates in Parliament and elsewhere, that we were keeping abreast of the times in that definition which owes its origin to Lord Macnaghten and, many centuries ago, to Good Queen Bess.
Lastly, I turn to the question of what queries should be put to the Minister at the conclusion of this debate. I do not intend to copy those who have already put questions to him because that would be a waste of your Lordships' time. I do, however, want to ask a few questions which may be slight variations on those queries, or additions to them. I do not think that any of them will come as a surprise to the noble Earl. If they do, I shall well understand (since I have not had an opportunity to give him notice of them) if he decides to reflect upon them, if he can pay them that compliment.
First, what is the Government's reaction to the idea that there should be a charge of £25 on first registration of a charity, this not to be retrospective? The calculation that has been made is that this new step would be very much setting a precedent which, it may be felt, other people less kindly than the Minister of State, or less generous than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, might want to increase upon to an unsatisfactory extent in years to come. Therefore it is an important precedent that we are discussing. What is the Government's present reaction, bearing in mind that all that it would yield on the calculations I have seen would be about £100,000 a year? I suppose that it would mean that a cashier's department would be needed; it would mean accounts being sent out; it would mean quite a bit of administration. Is the whole exercise worth while for £100,000 a year and would it not be wrong to think in terms of charging anything more?
The official custodian was mentioned, as was the recommendation that his offices certainly be no longer encouraged and at some future date possibly be terminated. It has not been mentioned yet, but my information is that there are some 38,000 separate trusts in which at the moment he is the nominee stockholder. In good faith—I am told this by a worthy organisation, which I think is obviously

689
reliable—many trusts were put to him in perpetuity. Bearing in mind the traumas through which the Stock Market has been in recent months, is this the appropriate occasion to remove investment advice of this nature from many charities which may badly want to depend upon it? What would be the alternative except for those charities to go elsewhere for investment advice? That might be a costly proposition, and the advice, if I may be allowed to say so, might not always be as reliable as that which many charities have received from the official custodian?
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I wonder whether he is quite right in suggesting that the official custodian offers investment advice. He manages the workload but I do not think that the trustees can turn to him for advice, if I am correctly informed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, may well he right and I may be wrong. If I am wrong about that I apologise, but the information I had was that there is a free service given by way of investment advice from time to time by the official custodian. If that information is wrong I am sure that the Minister will tell me so, and my present ashen colour will turn to pink.
Lastly may I ask the noble Earl a question, only so that there is no misunderstanding? I believe it may be true that the Government have not yet made up their mind fully, but the Home Secretary has recently said that the Government support most of the recommendations in the Woodfield Report. Can the noble Earl tell us what recommendations they do not approve of, so that we may be able to consider the Government's position in a little more detail?
Having asked that, I reiterate from these Benches my appreciation of all the work that went into the report. I congratulate the Government, the Home Secretary, and the noble Earl upon the work that is being done by his department in setting up this working party and in ensuring that it carried out very useful duties which we all appreciate.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having given us the opportunity today to debate this matter. I should say at the outset that the Government have looked forward to this and have looked forward to the opportunity of hearing your Lordships' views, because the report of Sir Philip Woodfield and his team is a document of the first importance for the future of charitable endeavour in this country. Knowing your Lordships' deep concern for charities, it is appropriate that it should be debated for the first time in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, said that your Lordships are in favour of three-quarters of all that has been said. Listening to this debate today has been an enlightening experience for me personally, and not least for the fact that it was opened by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who was of course Permanent Secretary of the department of which I
690
have the privilege of being an ornament. It is something of a fine tutorial to hear from him.
One of the privileges of being a Minister is that one never ceases to learn. I must confess that before I started in this particular office some two weeks ago I was not too familiar with charities. Like faith and hope, I always thought that charity was one of the three great virtues, and of course charities swim along in the slipstream, although they are not quite the same as charity. I am grateful for the benefit of the wide experience and expertise which your Lordships have brought forward this evening to the debate. I listened carefully to it all.
It is of course not possible over charitable matters to settle all questions quickly. In any field of social endeavour as soon as one set of questions gets resolved, others come to the top. Rather like the pistons of an engine, once one goes down, something else appears at the top. There are always problems to be dealt with. Your Lordships have given a great deal of pleasure to me by the welcome that you have given to the fact that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced last week that the Government strictly and warmly welcome Sir Philip Woodfield's report, and that we hope to put forward legislation to implement his recommendations later in the life of this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked when will that be; and I shall tell him that it will he later in the life of this Parliament, and he will understand what I mean by that. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that when that happens the Bill will be as short and as manageable as possible, and I hope as he would like.
Our welcome to the report underlines once again the Government's support for the charitable sector. We are committed to its continuing growth and health. Voluntary service to the community, the selfless giving of time and energy for the benefit of others, has always been a prominent feature of our national life and a precious vein in our national characteristic.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, referred to all those who benefit from charitable works, and so did the noble Earl, Lord Longford. My noble friend Lady Macleod gave us those remarkable figures with regard to Crisis at Christmas. It is true that these charitable works involve an enormous amount of people, both the donors and the benefactors. We take very seriously indeed our task as custodian of this heritage. That is not simply a matter of sentiment. Our support is a great deal more than that.
The charitable sector is now larger and more diverse than ever before. There are now estimated to be more than a quarter of a million charities in the United Kingdom with an annual turnover of £12,000 million. My figures are higher than those that have been mentioned. That is about 4 per cent. of our gross national product. The sector is now very significant indeed. It is larger than the motor industry, the chemical industry and the coal industry. There are some who say (possibly cynically) that altruism is splendid but that it is even better when it is tax deductible. That is a slightly cynical attitude.

691
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that we have to be careful and strict where public money is involved. It is perfectly true that much money goes to charity as a result of, and even because of, the tax system. That is an important feature of charitable giving in this country. The basic philosophy is to encourage the latent and wholly virtuous desire to give a proportion of one's income to charity. When that is done the person who gives may do so out of his income before it is taxed. Therefore the money given is the donor's money. It so happens that the route by which some of it comes is via the taxation system. Because of that, it is important that we should take great care that it is properly and correctly looked after.
I should like to join other noble Lords who have congratulated Sir Philip and his team on the speed with which the review was carried out and on his clear and well judged report. The sympathetic understanding and judgment which he and his team brought to bear has been reflected this evening in your Lordships' House. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said, it is a view which we unequivocally share. We accept Sir Philip's recommendations and when the opportunity arises we shall introduce legislation to help put them into effect.
Much has already been done to implement those recommendations which do not require legislation, notably to improve the existing management of the commission. The commission has appointed a project manager, a point about which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked. The top management of the commission has been reorganised by the chief commissioner into a board which will better enable the commission to identify and respond to further needs. When the new chief commissioner has taken up office we shall appoint the recommended two additional part-time commissioners. The commission's five charities divisions have been reorganised. This has released additional staff for investigation work. So has a small reduction in consents work (such as the selling of land) which the chief commissioner has achieved in line with Recommendation 37 of the report. At the same time, real progress has been made towards establishing adequate management and financial information systems. I should like to congratulate the chief commissioner on his swift and very positive response to the report. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that the Charity Commission has already set in hand a review of its leaflets.
Perhaps I may indicate a little more fully the Government's response to the broad implications of the report and touch on one or two particular areas, some of which have been mentioned and others of which have not. First, we accept the central premise of the report that while the system may be in need of extensive reform, the fundamentals of the present framework for supervising charities are still sound. The essential element in that framework is the Charity Commission. Lest anyone should harbour any doubts about our intentions, I should say straight away that we envisage that the commission will continue to play the vital and central role in a
692
reformed system. I have no doubt that it will pay attention to the interesting suggestions which my noble friend Lord Wolfson advocated, with his large knowledge of this area.
The commission has from time to time been criticised. That is inevitable. Seen in the round, however, there can be few with any knowledge of the charitable world who would not say that its contribution to the sound development of charities, has, over the years, been of enormous value. We wish to see that contribution maintained and enhanced for the future. Quite apart from the unrivalled knowledge, expertise and long experience which the commission is able to bring to bear on the affairs of individual charities, its exercise of legal powers (which are concurrent, let us remember, with those of the High Court), saves both time and the high legal costs which charities would otherwise incur.
But the law under which the commission operates must keep pace with modern developments. It is now nearly 30 years since the last major legislation on charities. Over the years the number and variety of charities has steadily increased and the opportunities for abuse have multiplied. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he wanted to see control. I agree that the need now is to give the commission powers which are more appropriate to present-day conditions which will enable it to act more effectively in order to ensure that charitable funds are protected against abuse. The changes Sir Philip recommended in his report are,
"directed towards fostering a greater realisation of the responsibilities of trustees, reducing correspondingly the responsibilities of the Commission but increasing the scale of their activities in respect of malpractice and of efficiency, and improving the quality and quantity of information needed for these purposes".
What the report proposes and what the Government endorse is not a radical recasting of the commission's basic functions—those of registration, of scheme-making, investigation and advice—but a greater emphasis on monitoring and investigating abuse, and a shift of resources away from activities with lower priority. To do this effectively the commission will need to be given new powers and to be relieved of some of its present duties.
We believe that this must be right. In saying that, I would not want to give the impression that we believe that abuse is everywhere to be found or that the charitable world is riddled with inefficiency and malpractice. It is not. We believe that the vast majority of charities are competently and honestly run.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the Minister be able to say a word about money raised and then transferred abroad?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl asks about abuses which occur when charitable funds go abroad. He may be aware that the Government took action against this in the Finance Act 1986. A certain amount of work has been done. It is too early at present to assess whether more needs to be done. We shall bear those points in mind when we are considering legislation for that part of the Woodfield Report which deals with abuse.

693
The commission's new powers will complement the arrangements, to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred, introduced by Section 33 of the Finance Act 1986, whereby the Revenue can pass information to the Charity Commissioners where it appears that a charity is applying its funds for purposes which are not charitable. The noble Lord asked whether these arrangements are working. I understand from the commission that they are working well. The commission is now considering 51 cases which have been referred to it by the Inland Revenue. A further 60 cases are in the pipeline. The commission's inquiries division is also investigating another 27 cases where it has involved the Revenue. Some of those cases involve large sums of money.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to the two part-time commissioners and wondered what they were going to do. Their function will in essence be to act as non-executive directors bearing a full share of responsibility for key decisions of all kinds. They would naturally contribute to the advice given by the commissioners to the Home Secretary. One would hope that they would contribute to the spirit of openness that has imbued the commission under its chief commissioner, Mr. Peach. The next step is for us to hold discussions with the new Chief Charity Commissioner about the appointments and the job descriptions of those concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked about consents for land transactions. The report concluded that charity property could he adequately protected by statute, and that the requirement which is placed on trustees by Section 29 of the 1960 Act to seek the agreement of the commission before transferring property, should be repealed and replaced by provisions requiring trustees to follow statutory procedures before selling land. We agree with this recommendation and believe that this would provide a more economical and just as effective method of protecting charity property. The trick, of course, is to get the right statutory procedures for trustees to follow.
The Woodfield Report suggested that trustees should be compelled to act on the recommendation of professional advisers as to price, not to sell to one of their number, and that there should be other safeguards. Your Lordships may have other views on this, and if your Lordships have any I should be glad to know them so that we can take those into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, referred to charging by the commission. I know that there are many in the charitable world who believe that all the commission's services to charities should continue to be provided free. The report recommends that it would now be right to introduce modest charges for new registrations, for the services of the official custodian if he is retained and for residual work on consents to property transactions. It is obviously right that a retrospective registration fee would be inequitable, that there should be no charge for general advice and no annual fee for filing accounts. The Government believe that the report's recommendations are in line with present circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked about the £25 registration fee and the noble Baroness, Lady
694
Lane-Fox, said that this was too high. I can only say that the Government have as yet taken no decisions on the appropriate level of the fee, but we will take note of the views which have been expressed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, urged the necessity for a register of charities. The commission readily admits that the present state of the register is highly unsatisfactory. It is far from complete and far from accurate. Many charities simply do not bother to submit their accounts. Trustees appear to disappear into limbo, so that the commission is unable to contact them, and this obviously is not right. Where their money is involved the public is entitled to up-to-date and accurate information. If the commission is to supervise effectively it needs the information which the register should provide.
We accept the report's recommendations for putting the register on a sound footing. The machinery must be modernised with the aid of computers, and the commission must be given new powers to enforce the regular submission of proper accounts. One would hope that the charities themselves would he willing to do their hit, but if necessary the commission must be able to hold them up to the mark.
As regards enforcement, which the noble and learned Lord raised, the Woodfield Report recommended that registration should be a condition of doing business with a charity. It came down against a financial penalty and the Government are inclined to think that this is right. So far as the register's completeness is concerned, 100,000 charities are from registration excepted by the 1960 Act.
The noble Lords, Lord Parry, Lord Allen and Lord Mishcon, all referred to the official custodian. The Woodfield Report was not concerned with the official custodian's function in relation to land which is only nominal. It did, though, seriously question the desirability and the cost-effectiveness of his investment services. The scrutiny team did not feel able to recommend the outright abolition of this side of the official custodian's work, because they could not foresee all the consequences. They confined themselves to recommending that outside consultants should be appointed to draw up a scheme and a programme for returning investments to trustees. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, was mistaken in considering that the official custodian works on a voluntary basis—he does not.
Many other speakers referred to the commission's resources. I would only say that the extent to which additional resources are required will depend upon the extent to which savings can be made. This turns upon the future of the official custodian and consents work, and on the computer strategy. These are being considered urgently. At this stage I would merely note that the Woodfield Report reached a provisional view that it might be possible to implement the package within existing resources. But we remain to be persuaded that no further gains in efficiency are possible.
I would have wished to speak about two other matters but time is against my doing so. I would

695
merely confine my remarks to saying that this debate has been a most useful one. It marks almost to the day the retirement of the present chief commissioner, Mr. Peach. Under his distinguished leadership, the commission has emerged from the legal shadows with a new flexibility and a human face. To use the modern jargon he has made the Charity Commission "user friendly". I should also like to welcome the new incoming chief commissioner, Mr. Guthrie. I for one look forward to working with him during what will be an interesting period in the commission's history. I am grateful to your Lordships for the advice which has been given. We will take note of it all and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for having introduced this debate.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he could say one word about Scotland?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can indeed say one word about Scotland. I had intended to say it had I not been caught by the clock, and having attended yesterday's—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl has until eight o'clock. Let me encourage the noble Earl. He has until eight o'clock. I am pointing that out in case he thought I was being greedy when I spoke.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, having attended yesterday's Procedure Committee, which went on for approximately two hours about the length of speeches and about a suggestion that the clocks should change to different colours and that nobody must go over his allotted time, I had the figure of 20 minutes in mind and I realised that I was getting over the 20-minute limit.
Sir Philip Woodfield was concerned that the present arrangements in Scotland were not adequate and recommended that the Secretary of State for Scotland should consider which English and Welsh provisions should be extended to Scotland. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wishes to consult charities and other interested bodies before taking decisions on improving the system of supervision of charities which operate in Scotland, and plans to issue a discussion paper shortly. I am motivated to go on for longer than I should but that is the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked about television. The whole question of whether charities should be allowed to advertise on television is currently being considered by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. We do not yet know whether it will make any approach to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to ask for a relaxation of the regulations.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I shall not use my allotted time but I should like to say that it has been a most interesting debate and I look forward to reading in Hansard the various points which have
696
been made. I think that this is the third, as it were, annual debate we have had on this topic and I rather hope that the next debate might be on a government White Paper outlining possible legislation. I noticed that the noble Earl did not refer specifically to that point but no doubt it will be thought about; nor incidentally, on a much narrower point, did he say whether the Charity Commission would be able to keep any fees which might be charged under future legislation.
There have been some small differences of opinion as to just how far we should go. I noted in particular the rather uncharacteristic comment, if I may say so, of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that he is in favour of the status quo. However, there has in general been a wide measure of agreement. What stands out from the debate, especially in the Government's reply, is that at long last things are on the move. I hope that the debate will help to keep up that momentum. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

British Rail and the Channel Tunnel
7.41 p.m.
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to give financial assistance to British Rail to enable it and the regions of the United Kingdom to realise to the full any benefits of the opening of the Channel Tunnel.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
With your Lordships' consent I shall briefly explore the benefits which I believe would stem from the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Those benefits have been quantified in terms of traffic forecasts and British Rail has announced plans reflecting those forecasts. My feeling is that under present BR thinking and the legislative framework governing that thinking some of the benefits may not be realised. My reservations stem from doubts about British Rail's access to two resources: finance and time.
Perhaps I might deal first with the time resource. One cannot build, or even rebuild, a railway overnight. The last major line built in Britain, the Selby Cut-Off in Yorkshire, was conceived in 1974, authorised in 1979 and completed in 1983. The Stansted Airport link (only four miles) was first considered in 1979 but only authorised in 1986. That work only started last October, with perhaps some five years to go before its completion. Similarly, the Snow Hill project—a matter of reinstating a railway of a little over a half a mile long—has taken some five years.
Conception, planning, consultation and legislation all take time. That makes me wonder whether the time-scale given to British Rail in Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act, together with the three-and-a-half years left between December 1989 and the tunnel's opening date, is adequate.
Both the passenger and freight implications of the Channel Tunnel will prove to be of benefit to the

697
regions. On the passenger side ease of access is paramount for the business and the leisure traveller. Through passenger trains, as well as those involving a break of journey in the City, will both contribute to an increase in out-of-London travel, not least as the perceived sea barrier between this country and Europe will in European eyes have been replaced by a land link.
On the freight side I foresee simpler, cheaper and quicker transportation contributing to an increase in trade with Europe, as will eventually I hope the single European market. I also believe that these enhancements will lead to an increase in inward investment in manufacturing industry in this country. That is a field in which Britain is in European terms the market leader. All those factors should lead to an increase in manufacturing jobs and, given the location of much of our manufacturing industry, should bring benefit to the regions. The maximisation of those benefits is to a certain extent dependent upon British Rail's ability, quite literally, to deliver the goods.
When considering Channel Tunnel traffic we have a wealth of forecasts provided by the project's promoters, by British Rail and by other interests such as Transport 2000 and the British Tourist Authority. It seems to me that British Rail's forecasts are most relevant, as these are the ones on which it is basing its plan. Its low forecast is for just under 13·5 million passenger journeys using the tunnel and through rail in 1993, the opening year of the tunnel; of these 13 per cent. would board or alight at Ashford, 70 per cent. would use London stations and 17 per cent. would travel to or from points beyond London. These latter two groups amount to 11·6 million journeys between Ashford and London, a large figure even if it is based on a low forecast and one whose size grows when re-expressed in terms of an additional 21 to 25 passenger trains each way each day being grafted onto Network SouthEast. Furthermore, there is freight traffic. BR projects an additional 3·5 million tonnes of freight each way each year. I understand that that will lead to an additional 21 freight trains per day.
British Rail's plans are prepared against the background of these figures and of the legislative framework whereby Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act lays a duty upon BR to prepare proposals to increase the volume of passenger and freight traffic between the regions and Europe by through trains, and also the statement in Section 42 (the self-denying ordinance) that the Government may not make grants towards the capital cost of providing through services.
Mindful perhaps of what happened to the 1970s Channel Tunnel proposal, British Rail's face is set resolutely against a new railway through Kent to cater for this new traffic, which is in addition to existing domestic traffic. The environmental damage threatened by such a concept was one of the Labour Government's reasons for cancelling the earlier project. Hence British Rail's plans limit investment on new track, signalling and stations between London and the tunnel mouth to £192 million only. Even allowing for the need to make the project viable, because the Channel Tunnel operations of British
698
Rail will be a sector outside the grant network, that sum is inadequate.
We shall have through trains, which will travel through France and Belgium at speeds up to 180 mph between Paris or Brussels and the French tunnel mouth and which will suddenly find themselves limited in Kent to only 100 mph where circumstances permit. Average journey speeds between Cheriton and London will range from 53 to 61 mph, which can hardly be called either impressive or commercial.
I mentioned the limitation on speed where circumstances permit. We are talking about routes which are already saturated at certain periods. Chris Green, the director of Network SouthEast, admitted as much in an otherwise positive briefing which he gave to me, to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to others last autumn. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, also last autumn, in its report on Network SouthEast drew attention to current service densities on the route which we are discussing tonight, to a decline in punctuality and to concern expressed by commuter groups in Kent about the impact of a Channel Tunnel upon their services and journeys. Network SouthEast gave a public commitment that those passengers—earlier I called them the domestic traffic—would not be disadvantaged by the traffic arising out of the tunnel.
I do not believe that an investment of £193 million is sufficient to fulfil that promise made by Network SouthEast. I recall days spent at Shorncliffe in the late 1950s when commuter traffic and boat train traffic, which was then at its peak, either stopped or crawled on, as line capacity permitted. The noble Lord, Lord Deedes, may well recall those days; if he does, he will I hope support my contention that that must not be allowed to happen again. He may also recall that when the line to Ashford and Folkestone was electrified in the early 1960s, every hour one could travel from Waterloo to Ashford in 50 minutes. Today, 27 years later, that time has increased to 57 minutes, which hardly fills me with confidence regarding what is to come.
In 1993 such regional benefits as we can look forward to in a British Rail context must take as their starting point the routes between the tunnel mouth and London. If British Rail fails here (as I fear it may) freight and passenger benefits will not materialise in London or in the regions. The Cheriton-London routes become the cornerstone of the infrastructure at this end of the Channel Tunnel and we must ensure that this infrastructure is funded so as to meet the needs of tunnel traffic and of domestic rail users.
If grant cannot be paid under Section 42 towards capital works for dealing with tunnel traffic, can investment be authorised which is to the demonstrable benefit of the domestic sector, thus fulfilling the network promise to the commuter associations? Alternatively, is the new line solution, if I may call it that, as dead as BR believes? If built it would alleviate the domestic problems noted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and could arguably fall outside the scope of Section 42. Would it fail on environmental considerations, as it did in the past, or would the very considerable environmental benefits of taking trucks off roads, as demonstrated by Transport 2000, be seen as an

699
offset? Perhaps a radical solution like Costain's Neptune network would be the answer, with its realisation that it is not just a matter of getting people to London but also round London.
As I said in my opening remarks, time is not on our side. I am looking forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords, particularly the Government's views on Section 42 in relation to demonstrable benefits to the network commuters. This and the new line concept seem particularly important to me. One cannot fault Her Majesty's Government on the level of rail investment, some £3 billion, authorised since 1979, but one may hope that it will continue its enlightened policy in respect of such investment, particularly in the context of the investment needed to maximise the benefits which the Channel Tunnel offers to the regions.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Deedes: My Lords, I join this short debate in the hope that there may be a little fresh light thrown on the subject most pertinently raised by the noble Lord. Like him, I feel that the time-scale gives rise to some anxiety in relation to the Channel Tunnel and British Rail. It has long seemed to me, as one resident in the district, almost at the mouth of the tunnel, that those who put their hands to the Channel Tunnel are taking a certain amount for granted in respect of what British Rail, as it is now constituted, will be able to contribute to the grand design.
I have spent a great part of my working life travelling on the line in question, on this very heavily stretched line linking London and what will be the Channel Tunnel mouth. I have no cause for complaint about my experiences, but I have great cause for anxiety about the future. I feel that those who believe that as it stands this system could accommodate high-speed trains and thereby deal with at least another 12 to 15 million passengers a year, ought to think again. For one thing, it is clear—and the noble Lord will take the point I am about to make—that in addition to the problems he raises, the domestic commitment of this railway line is destined to increase quite sharply during the next few years. East Kent is designated as a growth centre, with the town of Ashford, which I know very well, as a focus for the additional growth. All this has been approved by the Kent County Council. It seems to me that with the Channel Tunnel traffic added to these domestic demands, we shall be in danger of putting, or trying to put, not one quart but two quarts into a pint pot.
I am aware, as is the noble Lord, that British Rail intends to spend a great deal of money on the system. Various figures have been mentioned, one of which is about £400 million. But very little of this money is related to the track down which these trains will have to travel. As I understand it, new trains and the accompanying stock will take about half British Rail's investment. New terminals at Waterloo and Ashford will take a great deal more. There is a relatively small sum at present envisaged for the track.
Without dwelling unduly on the difficulties which I am quite sure wiser heads than mine have already
700
put their minds to, it is clear enough that for much of this stretch of track between London and the coast, fresh lines will have to be laid. If high-speed trains are to run between the capital and the coast, then they will have to run through fresh country in order to avoid the curves which characterise much of the track in question. As Mr. Richard Hope, editor of the Railways Gazette—a greater authority than many of us on this subject—has observed, unless an extra pair of tracks is built from the tunnel to the outskirts of London, either commuter or international services will have to be restricted in quantity.
It seems to me that three questions therefore arise. First, has all this been envisaged? I am sure the answer to that must be that it has been envisaged, in which case I think the moment has arrived when we might he told a little more. Secondly, what is now reckoned to be the likely demand on both land and finance for purposes of giving this line the appropriate scale required for the demands on it? Finally, and most pertinently, who is going to pay?
It is as well to bear in mind that British Rail is not altogether a free agent in this matter. It is not open to business propositions. I think I am right in saying that this particular region of British Rail has a commitment to the commuting population in respect of which it receives a subsidy of something like £200 million a year. All my inquiries suggest that there is a wide gap between the prospective performance of the French railway system and our own when this Channel Tunnel traffic starts to move. It seems to me in many respects unfortunate that on our side the Channel Tunnel railway service has to depend on a region which—how shall I put it?—has not been the front-runner among the different regions which serve this country. Indeed, it has been a poor relation of British Rail for many years and is already beset by internal timekeeping and other difficulties.
My instinct tells me that ultimately the Government will have to find a considerable sum in order to assist here. Of this, I think we should perhaps be told a little more. We all know that the tunnel is to be built with private capital, there is no argument on that score. But the extension of the motorway, the M.20, from Maidstone to Ashford now in hand in respect of the tunnel, is clearly a charge which will fall to the Government. If, as we may hope, the rail facility linked to the tunnel reduces the volume of road traffic, why is that not also a legitimate public charge?
In conclusion, these are not abstract questions for this reason: the main line is also the lifeline for upwards of half a million people who live in the county of Kent but whose work lies in the capital and who are already stretching the system to its present limits. Were too little done on the railway in anticipation of the tunnel, were the commuters' share of this line to be diminished, they would face a very serious situation indeed. Moreover, as I have already observed, there are to be more of them not fewer in the years ahead.
We are therefore committed to a new, modern and, I apprehend, expensive railway system linking London to the coast. On this, my Lords, I think and hope we should be told a little more at this point.
8 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has been absolutely justified in raising at this relatively early stage after the construction of the Channel Tunnel has been committed the question of the rail link on the British side. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, have very clearly set out the issues that are worrying a number of us. Indeed they are not new issues. They were seen at a very early stage.
I need only refer your Lordships to the Select Committee's report of your Lordships' House which on 6th May last drew attention in paragraph 13 to this problem. It stated:
"The key to spreading the benefits which could flow from the project will mostly lie in the hands of British Rail, at present totally dependent on Government for its resources. The restraints which the Government has accepted … could possibly inhibit the capacity of British Rail to invest in the infrastructure to exploit the potential".
On that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, during the Third Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill on 2nd July (at col. 367 of Hansard) what his views were as to what the Government might be doing about this. His answer was:
"The position is clear so far as concerns British Rail investment. If they put forward to the Government commercial proposals the Government will look at them in the way that they normally do so. If they are sound proposals permission will be given for them to go ahead".
That was the answer that I received at that time.
As time goes on the importance of the Channel Tunnel becomes greater because we are now committed as a nation fully to the integration of the European market, which is intended to be completed by 1992. Indeed the Department of Trade and Industry under the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, will he promoting this concept throughout the country before very long to make sure that British industry responds to the challenge. That challenge in simple terms will be to open up a total market which in GNP terms will be worth £1,600 billion compared with our £350 billion and which in population terms will represent 320 million as compared with our 55 million.
In order to penetrate that market, which will then be much more open than it has ever been, we of course need to have the means to get there. We shall need the means to link our centres of industrial growth in the North and in the Midlands through to the Continent. So it is extremely providential and timely that we have agreed unanimously in Parliament to go ahead with the tunnel project.
Unfortunately the rail connections on the British side raise many issues. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to the various estimates made of the potential increase in traffic, both passenger and freight. Even on the low estimates, which as he says, British Rail has put forward, these are very large increases indeed. That excludes of course the traffic which will go on the shuttle operated by Eurotunnel. The prospects of movement of traffic from the overloaded roads on to the railways are considerable if the kind of technical developments which were examined in the Transport 2000 report of July 1987 are followed.
702
So there is considerable scope here for an increase in rapid, prompt movement of traffic between Britain and the Continent. What is disturbing to British eyes is the fact that this problem has already been seized so firmly by our Continental friends. As we all know, the TGV Nord project, jointly financed by the French and the Belgian railways, will cost nearly £2 billion compared with the £400 million which is being spent on the British side.
As we have heard, the speed of trains on the Continent will then reach up to 180 miles per hour. They will link up at that fast speed with Paris and Brussels and then beyond to the high speed networks fanning out throughout the Continent. The unfortunate thing is that even after the expenditure indicated by British Rail the speed of trains on the British side will barely, on average, for that relatively short journey exceed 60 miles an hour. That compares with 75 miles an hour through the tunnel itself. Not only is there that problem of speed—it might be said that for such a short journey speed does not matter so much—but there is also the question of reliability.
Along with other Members of your Lordships' House I paid a visit to Sangatte in the latter part of last year at the invitation of Eurotunnel and British Rail to see what preparations our French friends had made for the construction of the tunnel. It was indeed very impressive to see the vast shaft which had been prepared from which the work would then start to tunnel under the Channel. The worrying part of the whole visit was the delay on the British side. We were told before we left that British Rail was going to do everything it could to make sure that we got there on time. We were in fact half an hour late and we had to send an emergency message to the hovercraft to wait for us.
There was another half hour delay on the return. I do not think that one can blame British Rail for this. The rail connection between London and Dover is a very difficult one and the slightest problem that arises on that line leads to delay, however important the train might be regarded as being, as ours apparently was on that occasion. So it seems that the weak link in the whole enterprise is the railway network on the British side, particularly between London and the Channel mouth.
If we are going to try to put this right, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, we really must move very fast. As we understand it, British Rail at the request of the Government is presently studying this question and it will apparently come forward with proposals for strengthening this link round about May or June of this year. I do not know what the status of its report will be, but I very much hope that, considering the vital importance of the questions with which it deals, we shall have the opportunity of seeing the report, of studying it and then of having another debate of a more informed nature on the whole subject.
There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, also said, other ideas which are being put forward, for example the Costain project, which was very clearly referred to in the Daily Telegraph on 4th January. I am happy to refer to that in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Deedes. That is a project for a separate

703
line to be built with private sector money, as I understand it. It could cost something like £800 million and it could then be leased back to British Rail in order to ensure an effective connection between London and the tunnel mouth.
As the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, emphasised in particular, the problem that we shall have if we continue as is presently planned is that not only could we well have an inadequate international connection but the already heavily strained commuter traffic could suffer still more. We could end up with the worst of both worlds.
In addition to the movement of rail traffic between London and the tunnel mouth, we have to think about the movement from the North and the Midlands. One of the major objectives of the project is to link the whole country to the Continent both for passengers and freight. Here also discussions are taking place. But how soon will action be taken? Are we going to have the number of inland clearance depots that are needed? Are the various facilities for quickly dealing with freight in hand? What has been the response of industrialists who have been consulted on this issue? For example I was talking to an important official of the railways on this and he said that one thing that worried him to date was that the railways were not receiving many ideas from industry. I do not know how vigorously industry is being asked for its views, but sooner or later we might find that we have not done the things that we should have done to get this whole traffic moving.
We have here a very serious issue. It is right that it should receive an airing tonight. I very much hope that the report being prepared will be made available to us and that later in the year we shall be able to come back to the subject, perhaps in the knowledge that by then positive action has been decided upon by British Rail and the Government.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not consider me to be unduly opportunist if I utilise the occasion to make a few general remarks about rail transport as opposed to road transport. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for having asked the Unstarred Question this evening. I think it raises important points.
With your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government in collaboration with the French Government decided to make the fixed link a rail link rather than a road link. I think that that raises some general points of transport policy for the future. If, as 1 hope, that decision means that there is going to be greater emphasis on rail transport for long distance haulage, that will be of considerable significance environmentally, socially and economically. I sincerely hope that that will be the case.
I have not driven on any of the motorways of Great Britain for 10 years and I sincerely hope that I shall not have to do so again. I do not enjoy it. One can endure with equanimity being overtaken by a member of the Royal Family in the fast lane. However, what scares the wits out of me is that if, due
704
to visibility or road conditions, I feel it prudent to reduce my speed to perhaps 60 miles an hour, I have a 38-tonne lorry or 49-seater coach sitting on my tail, so close behind me that I know that if I were to brake sharply for any reason there is no way that the vehicle could pull up without going into my backside. I do not enjoy driving on motorways and I do most of my travel in England—what little I do—by British Rail InterCity, for which I have a very high regard, despite the many criticisms that are made.
Of course travel by British Rail is not as exciting as it used to be in the days of the King class and the Pacifics. However, I must concede that it is quiet with continuously welded rail, it is comfortable, it is clean and in most cases it is fast. For that reason I feel that not only for passengers but for freight as well it would be much more desirable environmentally to see more traffic on the railways and the already overstretched roads being relieved to a certain extent.
The demands of motor transport are very damaging environmentally. Much of our countryside has been spoilt by the demands of motor traffic and so have many of our towns and cities. The railways are there already. I am sure that in the 19th century there was an outcry about the environmental effects of railways. However, they do not in fact impinge on our lives to any adverse extent at the moment.
In New Zealand when I was there 15 years ago there was a regulation whereby any haulier had to have a special licence to take a heavy lorry on the road beyond a certain distance. In other words, the load could be taken to the nearest railway station, but unless the haulier had a special licence for carrying perishable goods he was not allowed to run the lorry throughout the road network of the country. The load had to go by rail. When I was in South Africa last year the roads were delightfully free of heavy traffic, yet there were enormous freight trains carrying a large majority of goods throughout the country.
Therefore I urge Her Majesty's Government to pursue that policy which they seem to have embraced and to encourage more freight and passengers to go by rail. I salute the Docklands Light Railway on which I travelled recently. It is a most civilised form of transport. I hope that that sort of development will continue to get more and more traffic, both freight and passenger, off the roads.
I also sincerely hope that any pressure that there may be on British Rail—I think there is pressure in certain areas—to be self-sufficient financially will not price passenger services out of the market. After all, motorways are a very expensive commodity. Even those which were built in the last few decades are already calling for considerable expenditure.
I thank the noble Lord for having asked his Question. I commend Her Majesty's Government respectfully for their commitment to rail traffic through the Channel Tunnel and I hope that they will pursue that policy in a concerted manner.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have to declare two interests. First, in about four years' time I shall be in receipt of a very modest pension from British Rail. More importantly so far as the debate is concerned,

705
I am chairman of a public relations and marketing company which has as one of its clients the largest container company in Europe, Tiphook International plc.
There have been various attacks on British Rail. Whenever I hear of such an attack, my hackles rise like one of Pavlov's dogs and I have to answer the attacks, since, for seven years, I was a public relations officer at Waterloo. Perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for raising the Question and then take him to task. He mentioned that speeds on the Continent are 180 miles per hour in France and Belgium but only 100 miles an hour in the United Kingdom. Looking at a map of France and at one of the United Kingdom, it is obvious that our railways twiddle all over the place. However, the French, in order to get speeds of 180 miles an hour. have had to build new tracks. To build such tracks in southern England would cost an absolute fortune.
The noble Lord, Lord Deedes, said that there was no capacity. I think he was speaking of London and the South-East. In fact, all the trains are coming up to London in the morning and it would therefore be possible to send freight trains from London down to the Channel ports.
The fact is that British Rail has the smallest subsidy of any railway in the world. The Southern Region also has the most highly utilised railways in the world. The train service between Working and London has been acclaimed as being the most highly successful and the finest railway system between any outside station and the capital. I went with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to visit Calais. As I understood it, the reason we were late was that the train was slowed down so that we could look out the window and take photographs of a minuscule hit of the tunnel workings.
I do not see how British Rail can do its job without government intervention; nor how it can find out of its own finances the rolling stock that it has to build and all the infrastructure unless it reduces services or puts up prices, which would be unacceptable. The fact remains that after all these years and two false starts at last we are to build the Channel Tunnel. I believe that when the tunnel is built it will have a dramatic impact on the whole country—the commercial world, the passenger-travelling world and everyone.
There are still people who are opposed to the Channel Tunnel, as far as I can see for three reasons. First, they are worried about rabies. I think that that fear has been shown to be of no consequence because one can build under the rail tunnel the biggest rabies trap in the world; no animal that went in would ever get out. The next reason is the worry about terrorists. To my knowledge there has never been a terrorist attack on the two tunnels under the Thames, the tunnel under the Mersey, any of the tunnels going through mountains in Europe, or indeed on any tunnel anywhere in the world.
The third reason is even more peculiar. People say that we are an island—we all know that—and if there is a link between the United Kingdom and Europe we shall no longer be an island and therefore the invading hordes will come pouring through the tunnel. That seems to me to be equally stupid.
706
I believe that the Channel Tunnel will provide fast, uncomplicated and, above all, weatherproof travelling. No more will heavy goods vehicles travel down our main roads and motorways to reach the Channel ports and then, because there is fog, or very rough seas, sit in huge parks waiting for the weather to clear. With the Channel Tunnel it does not matter what the weather is like; in the tunnel the weather will be perfect.
It is freight traffic that will make or break the Channel Tunnel. I do not think that it matters how many millions of passengers travel through the tunnel from our side to the other. That will bring revenue to British Rail, but it is merely gilt on the gingerbread. I believe very sincerely that in the chunnel (I keep saying that but in my own mind I call it the "Chunnel" and I must not)—in the Channel Tunnel, it is freight that matters.
As far as regions are concerned, once we have a Channel Tunnel our goods for export can be loaded in the Midlands, in Scotland, or in Wales, and the next day they can be in the heartland of Europe, which is the largest export market open to us. For the first time we shall be able to compete with our Continental rivals purely and simply because we can get our goods to destinations such as Paris, Dusseldorf, Milan or Rome, as fast as our competitors from France or from Germany.
Having said what I have about the Channel Tunnel, I am amazed that I have not bought any shares in the project.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for initiating this debate at this time. He dealt at some length with the position of Network SouthEast; I prefer to go a little wider in my remarks.
Unless there is any slip-up, the tunnel will he built and operating by 1993. Surely the task now is to secure for Britain's railways, for industry and the regions the full potential benefits of this great project. I echo what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said. Let us not overlook the fact that Britain gives the least financial assistance to its railway system of any country in Europe. That must not be overlooked when we talk about the question of further necessary investment in British Rail.
Reference has been made to the £400 million investment already approved for British Rail, which the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, has analysed. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, stressed the fact that the French have recognised the possibilities and the potential and are investing heavily not only in rail but also in other associated developments. Together with other noble Lords, I participated in the visit which took a preliminary look at what has taken place.
The potential for rail passengers has been emphasised, and I need not dwell on it, nor on the significant time saving. However, surely it is critical to the operation of the passenger rail services that there should be the introduction of on-train Customs and passport controls. The Government made a clear commitment to that system, but there seems to be

707
evidence of continuing resistance to the proposal from Customs and Excise. It would be helpful to hear from the Government about the progress of negotiations on this vital matter. There is not the slightest doubt—and the Government accepted this view during the debates on the Channel Tunnel Bill—that on-train Customs and passport controls are essential to deal with the huge increase in passenger traffic through the tunnel when it is completed.
What financial help do the Government envisage for the development of through passenger trains on electrified routes from South Wales, North Wales, the West of England and the East Midlands as far as Sheffield? Are there any plans? It seems to me that we need fast through passenger trains with Customs and passport controls on board as well as on trains from London itself.
Most noble Lords have stressed that the potential for rail freight is greater than that for passengers. Some of us may feel that freight is of higher importance. I am one of those who at the outset said that unless there was provision in the Channel Tunnel for fast through freight trains then my enthusiasm for the scheme would be less. Let us not overlook the fact that at present British Rail carries only 2 per cent. of our international freight traffic. In comparison, the French railways handle 20 per cent. and the Belgian railways about 50 per cent. That shows how far we have to catch up if we want to increase our international freight traffic by rail.
We have always said that a great opportunity exists for faster and cheaper rail freight services over longer distances—we used to say in excess of 200 or 250 miles. However, I noticed in the Financial Times of 21st January:
"Technical changes in the capacity and reliability of wagons mean that rail is once again quicker and cheaper for journeys of more than 175 miles"
If that is the general position accepted by experts, then the potential for the advance of rail freight is quite clear. This could also make a great contribution towards restoring the economic balance between the regions of the country. At the moment freight traffic can be forwarded from the customer's own sidings, from rail freight and freightliner terminals. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the Channel Tunnel will stimulate increased demand for rail freight transport.
Although British Rail has stated that Section 8 grants—that is for private sidings under the 1974 Act—have tended to fall off in recent years, it is likely that demand for existing terminals will be expanded and new terminals will be constructed using this Section 8 procedure. I understand that British Rail have had discussions with customers and local authorities about the provision of public terminals and the requirement for inland clearance depots at major centres. This would appear to me to be absolutely essential if we are to reap the benefits of increased freight traffic.
British Rail believes that investment by the local community in freight facilities for international traffic could help to attract new development. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to some discussions
708
—which were not altogether happy—with certain potential customers. I understand that British Rail will be happy to discuss possibilities not only with potential customers but also with local authorities as regards the development of inland clearance depots at major centres, but surely more needs to be done to promote and liberalise arrangements for the Section 8 grants for private sidings. In the United Kingdom there are only 1,500 private sidings. In France there are 10,600. In West Germany there are 15,500. The Association of Private Wagon Owners, which represent operators carrying 80 per cent. of British Rail's non-bulk freight movements, regards the development of more private sidings as essential to reduce the cost of rail freight. I presume that these Section 8 grants will not be affected by Clause 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act. I hope that the Government will be doing all they can to increase the development of Section 8 grants.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said about road and rail. However, there are considerable possibilites of combined road-rail transport. Perhaps I may say a few words about it. The development of road-rail transhipment centres will be important if the full benefits of the Channel Tunnel are to be derived by regions outside the South East. As was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, at the outset, Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act places an obligation upon British Rail to forward practical schemes relating to measures vital to increase the use of rail freight by manufacturers. This section of the Channel Tunnel Act refers in particular to the development of,
"collection and distribution centres for goods",
and also the development of Customs clearance centres. Those two points are laid down quite clearly in the plan which British Rail must produce by 31st December 1989. Detailed studies with local authorities and industry will be necessary if that is to be achieved. Some financial assistance may be required by the Government to carry through these studies. The Government must be willing to approve capital schemes of local authorities and provide the necessary resources if these parts of the plan in Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act are to be realised.
British Rail is considering other initiatives to increase flexibility to meet customer needs. I shall not go through these in detail, but they are very interesting. I make some reference to them. BR is considering various types of inter-modal vehicles. One is the mini-link, with small containers capable of easy transfer from rail wagons to road vehicles—in other words, we have the rail-road combination. The maxi-link vehicles are ordinary containers for transfer from rail wagons to road trailer. The trailers themselves would carry very simple equipment for this purpose. Then there is the piggyback—a low floor rail wagon capable of carrying a road trailer within the existing British Rail loading gauge. Then there are swap-body trailers with exchangeable road and rail wheels.
I understand that all these developments will be undertaken by private manufacturers but they are carrying out their discussions in conjunction with British Rail's research centre at Derby. This is a rail

709
road combination which will benefit the environment and our system of freight transport. I am informed that a report by independent consultants has estimated that up to 10 million tonnes of freight might transfer from road to rail if some way could be found of carrying road trailers on British Rail tracks—a system which is used very extensively on the Continent. This would be the equivalent of 3,500 heavy goods vehicle movements a day. The environmental benefits of this are therefore absolutely clear.
British Rail and the Government have stated that the Channel Tunnel must be viable and that social cost benefit would not be appropriate in appraising these benefits. If necessary, would not financial aid for inter-modal vehicles be justified either on financial grounds or on grounds of the social cost benefit which will arise? Reference has been made to Transport 2000. I understand that it commissioned some research into the question of this type of inter-modal wagon. The research concluded that, if fully exploited, the use of such wagons would reduce heavy flows on the eastern half of the M.25 by between 10 per cent. and 24 per cent. It that survey is accurate, those of us who occasionally use the eastern half of the M.25 can envisage the environmental benefit that would follow. The potential benefits to the United Kingdom regions are substantial.
The Government, local authorities and industry must be considering what help is needed in various directions. One need is absolutely clear. I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken have treated this as absolutely essential. There must be a modern, up-to-date rail network if full advantage is to be taken, in particular of the potential benefits of freight traffic. I echo the plea that has been made. It is hoped that the provisions of Clause 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act—the reference to there being no grants for the provision of international railway services—are not to be interpreted as preventing investment in improving our rail infrastructure or developing the road-rail transport combinations to which I have referred. If that is the interpretation, then I must ask the Government to take another look at this question, because it will be a great tragedy if, having gone thorugh all the discussions, having eventually constructed the tunnel, we find in operating it that the real benefit to regions and to industry in the development of freight traffic has not been realised.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he agree that the common internal market is supposed to be in place by 1992, one year before the tunnel comes into operation? May we not therefore hope that both passport and Customs control will have been abolished between England and France?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that the noble Lord is raising a different matter altogether. By the time those discussions take place in the Council of Ministers we might have found that we need dozens of meetings if what has happened on other matters has still not been realised. We must wait to see what the Council of Transport Ministers has to say about it and whether Britain agrees.
8.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has with his usual clarity and enthusiasm placed before the House his views on the Channel Tunnel and the benefits it would bring both to British Rail in particular and to the country as a whole. The contributions of other noble Lords show that he has raised a matter which excites considerable interest in your Lordships' House. I should like to join others in congratulating the noble Lord on initiating this debate.
I welcome the noble Lord's support for the Eurotunnel scheme, and his refreshingly positive attitude in wanting to see that the benefits of this great project are fully realised. The Government share this desire and are keen to ensure that the opportunities which the tunnel will bring for the railways, for travellers, and for industry and commerce, will be spread throughout the country. and not just concentrated in the South-East of England.
The regions stand to benefit from the construction and operation of the Channel Tunnel in two main ways. First, through job creation: Eurotunnel has so far placed contracts worth over £150 million—the majority of them with companies in the Midlands, the North and Scotland. That pattern is likely to continue, as the suppliers of the materials and equipment needed for the tunnel are concentrated in those regions. In total, Eurotunnel expects to place £700 million-worth of orders, and the work created by those orders outside Kent during the construction period is likely to exceed 50,000 man-years.
Jobs are also likely to be created in those same regions by British Rail's orders for rolling stock, which will probably exceed £200 million. The second main way in which the tunnel will benefit the regions is in the opportunities which it will provide for British Rail, and it is this aspect of the tunnel to which the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has particularly drawn our attention. The tunnel will integrate this country into the European rail network. Not only will the tunnel enable British Rail and its Continental partners to operate direct passenger services from London and other UK cities to European destinations such as Paris and Brussels, but it will also provide the opportunity for long hauls for British Rail's freight business, which becomes increasingly competitive with road haulage at distances over 200 miles. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the new figure of 175 miles which was quoted recently.
If British Rail successfully grasps these opportunities—and I am confident that it will—rail passengers will benefit from the new international services, using trains of the very highest international standards of comfort and quality, and rail freight consignors will gain from the reduced transit times which the tunnel will allow, helping them to he more competitive in reaching their European markets. Customers in the Midlands, the North, Wales and Scotland stand to gain particularly, with savings of between 24 and 48 hours for freight traffic to Continental destinations.

711
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that the environment will also benefit from the likely switch from road to rail freight. BR expects a threefold increase in its international rail freight traffic when the tunnel opens, which it estimates will help to keep 1,500 lorries off UK roads every day. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, quoted a figure somewhat higher than that which was suggested by another recent survey.
In order to enable it to take full advantage of these opportunities, British Rail is planning to invest several hundreds of millions of pounds in connection with its services through the tunnel. The Government have already approved in principle much of the expenditure proposed, and we remain willing to support any further proposals for worthwhile and soundly-based investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, claimed that British Rail's investment in Channel Tunnel services pales into insignificance compared with the expenditure proposed by its French counterpart, SNCF. The noble Lord claimed that the French are investing nearly £2 billion in track and other infrastructure improvements compared with only £400 million being spent by British Rail. I welcome this opportunity to explain that those figures do not really represent a valid comparison. The figure quoted for French investment not only includes Channel Tunnel-related expenditure, but also investment in connection with other international services (for example between Paris and Brussels) as well as French domestic rail services, which will benefit from the TGV-Nord network. The investment properly attributable to Channel Tunnel services is less than half the total French investment. When one considers that the distance between Paris and the French portal of the tunnel is over twice that between London and the UK portal, British Rail's proposed investment compares reasonably favourably with that proposed by SNCF.
It is because the Government recognise the importance of tunnel rail services for the regions that we incorporated in the Channel Tunnel Act what is now Section 40. This requires the board to publish a plan setting out its proposals for through services between the tunnel and different parts of the UK. As well as the proposed pattern of services, the plan will include any proposals for additional investment in facilities such as freight collection and distribution centres, and inland Customs clearance depots, which the board considers will be needed to support its international services. BR is required to publish its plan by 31st December 1989, and it intends to make good use of the intervening period by consulting as widely as possible with interested parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the question of on-train Customs and immigration controls. I can confirm that it is British Rail's view that on-train controls are essential if through-passenger services are to be provided to and from destinations to the north of London. Section 12 of the Act—which your Lordships may recall was added to the Bill at Report stage in this House—requires on-train controls to be provided for those services if BR asks for them and provides acceptable facilities.
712
Discussions are already in progress between BR and the frontier control authorities on the implementation of this requirement.
It would be unwise of me to comment on the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about whether the completion of the internal market in 1992 will make all this unnecessary. That is something which the Government will have to consider very carefully indeed at Foreign Secretary level.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and most noble Lords, also raised the question of the capacity of the existing network between London and the tunnel to take the additional traffic which will be created by the tunnel. BR is quite satisfied that capacity will be broadly adequate to cope with the additional traffic when the tunnel opens. Where there is a conflict, which may arise in the case of traffic wanting to leave London during the evening peak, BR has given repeated undertakings that domestic services will not be curtailed as a result, and that international passengers will be encouraged to travel at other times of day.
British Rail recognises however that, by some time in the 1990s, assuming that traffic through the tunnel grows as expected, there will be no capacity on existing routes through Kent for further growth in commuter traffic or for the progressive development of international services. It is currently engaged therefore in a detailed assessment of options for augmenting route, seating and terminal capacities. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport has asked the hoard to let him have the results of its assessment by 1st June this year. We shall have to see what the report recommends.
My noble friend Lord Deedes said that not much of the £400 million investment proposed was for improvements to the track. That is true at present; but the study could identify need for additional investment on track.
BR's study will consider a large number of options. A new high speed line is only one of many possible options, and it seems unlikely to emerge as the most cost-effective solution for the future. If, however, BR wishes to propose a new high-speed line, then its plans—including any environmental effects—would be the subject, in the first instance, of consultation with the relevant local authorities and other interested bodies, and ultimately if it were to proceed, would require British Rail to promote a private Act of Parliament, as is normal for development by the board. So the House would clearly have further opportunities to debate this issue if it arose.
I, along with other noble Lords, was interested to read the press reports that Costain's may be interested in financing a new high-speed rail network. These ideas have not so far been the subject of any discussions with the Government. Clearly we should he bound to consider carefully any proposal which Costain's—or anyone else—might wish to put to us.
Finally, I should like to address the point made in the noble Lord's Question about government financial assistance. The Government are certainly prepared to approve any proposals which are put to us by the British Railways Board for worthwhile

713
investment in connection with the Channel Tunnel. As I said, however, and as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quoted to me from the Third Reading of the Bill, we cannot consider any direct financial assistance to the board. Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act precludes the payment of PSO or deficit grants to BR in respect of their international services. This provision was included in the Act in response to widespread concern that government funds might percolate through to Eurotunnel by way of subsidies to British Rail, which could, for example, have enabled BR to pay tolls to Eurotunnel at a level higher than they could justify commercially. Our approach is also consistent with the Government's general policy that long-distance travel—by whatever mode of transport—should not benefit from government subsidies.
The approach enshrined in Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act appeared to be generally accepted in both Houses during the Bill's passage through Parliament. It means that British Rail's investments in connection with the tunnel must be justified in accordance with its normal commercial criteria. While such developments may be eligible for Section 8 grants or support from European sources such as the European Regional Development Fund if they meet the normal criteria for assistance, there can be no question of any form of special government funding.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord on this subject whether similar constraints as to government funding have been applied on the French side?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that they have from the point of view of any funds which might filter through to Eurotunnel.
Given the advantages which the tunnel will create for British Rail and which I referred to earlier, there is no reason why this constraint should prevent BR from taking full advantage of the opportunities which will become available to it.
My noble friend Lord Deedes asked why the Government were paying for improvements to the M.20 when they would not pay for rail improvements. The motorway was needed anyway. It
714
would have been built even if there were no tunnel. Motorists pay for road-building through fuel tax and vehicle excise duty, and so this is not a subsidy.
In conclusion, this has been an interesting and stimulating debate, for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. I have listened carefully to the views expressed by your Lordships today, and I have tried to deal with as many of the questions asked of me as I could. If there are any points for the Government's consideration which I have failed to cover, I undertake to write to the noble Lords concerned. I have no doubt that the British Railways Board will have followed this debate with interest, and I am sure it will be happy to deal with any outstanding railway matters which your Lordships have raised. British Rail is certainly gearing itself up to grasp the great opportunities that the Channel Tunnel will provide, and I know that it is looking forward to the challenge presented by this historic project.

Whitchurch Bridge Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.

  DEFERRED PENSION VALUES
  DEFERRED PENSION VALUES
  ABORTION ALLEGATIONS
  ABORTION ALLEGATIONS
  OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS: SAFETY ZONE INFRINGEMENTS
  OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS: SAFETY ZONE INFRINGEMENTS
  LONDON UNDERGROUND STATIONS: LISTING
  LONDON UNDERGROUND STATIONS: LISTING
  ORDERS OF DISTINCTION
  ORDERS OF DISTINCTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: STALKER/SAMPSON REPORT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: STALKER/SAMPSON REPORT