Sitting of 20 May 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Grandparents (Adoption Proceedings)
  9.35 am
  Mr. Ray Powell: I have pleasure in presenting to the House a petition signed by 6,530 residents of the United Kingdom asking the House to give careful consideration to proposals to introduce a law to enable grandparents to have the right of access to their grandchildren and to be represented at court and social services hearings for the adoption or care of their grandchildren. This right is not now afforded to them by law.
  My petition is similar to the one that I presented to the House a month ago containing 8,500 signatures.
  I believe that it is necessary for the House to consider this very important measure in order to stop the heartache and suffering of grandparents and their grandchildren.
  The petition is also signed by Gareth Wardell of 67, Elder Grove, Carmarthen, Dyfed.
  To lie upon the Table.

The Arts
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
9.36 am
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The House has debated the arts every year since I became Minister for the Arts in 1985. It is the second year running that we have debated this subject in Government time. This is a welcome demonstration of the growing public and parliamentary interest and a clear indication of the Government's support for the arts.
As Arts Minister for nearly three years, I have made weekly visits to all parts of the country. I have been privileged and fortunate to see, as perhaps no one else can, the development of the arts. I have a very clear impression of the flowering of the arts in all regions and in all art forms. I shall give the House brief glimpses of the variety of arts activities that I have seen. The performances of the city of Birmingham symphony orchestra led by Simon Rattle, the attraction of the flourishing Chichester theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company's performance for the first time at Grimsby, and the Sadlers' Wells ballet in the Isle of Wight are all vivid memories in my mind.
I recall seeing the Ruthin craft centre in north Wales, where the craftsmen both work and sell, the new Queens Hall arts centre in Hexham and the Beaford arts centre in Devon. I have seen, too, at Dundee the way in which the community has improved its environment through artistic activity.
To demonstrate the scale of expansion taking place, there was one day in March when the foundation stone of the Sainsbury wing was laid at the national gallery and simultaneously I performed the ceremony of the completion of an extension to the Imperial War Museum's building. I have opened, for example, the new library at Ross-on-Wye, the Citadel arts centre at St. Helens, jointly funded by a Pilkington Glass charitable body and the local authority, and the entirely new Hertfordshire heritage centre—a voluntary body set up to raise money to help preserve Hertfordshire's heritage. I shall be attending next week the opening of the new Tate building in Liverpool, following last year's opening of the new Clore gallery at the Tate in London.
Abroad I have seen the excellent work of the British Council at, for example, the exhibition of Henry Moore's work in India and the inaugural celebrations of Berlin as European city of culture, to which there will be a large British contribution next year.
As we move towards the last part of the century we see a growing number of people wanting to enjoy arid participate in the nation's artistic life. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said recently:
"Life is not whole unless the arts are a part of it".
The role of the Arts Minister is to create the best possible climate in which the arts can flourish—a climate which encourages artistic excellence and the accessibility of all the arts to the greatest number of people. The way I work to achieve those objectives is primarily by plural funding—a partnership in which moneys from the taxpayer and the private sector work together for the benefit of the arts. This not only helps the arts financially, but ensures their greater freedom and integrity. The more self-reliant they are, the healthier will the arts be.

1209
There are an increasing number of leaders in the arts world who are taking every opportunity to bring about these changes. This is in stark contrast to those last remaining anachronistic figures from the past who cannot accept them and for whom the concept of total dependence on the state was paradise. Their antics are like the last thrashings of the tail of a dying crocodile. That era is over.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I admire the right hon. Gentleman's poetic analysis of those who are in favour of public, social and community support for the arts, but who are the people whom he is describing as being interested only in that kind of support, rather than in encouraging people to attend and, for that matter, pay for the arts? It is nonsensical.
Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman knows the range of people about whom I am talking.
I announced at Newcastle in July of last year the start of a long-term plan for the funding of the arts based on that principle, and my three-year financial settlement of last November represents an important practical step towards its implementation.
My intention is, first, to keep up the real value of public support for the arts, which is why the settlement gives a 17 per cent. increase over the next three years, and, secondly, to encourage arts bodies to use that public support to stimulate the growth of private funding. My settlement gives the arts bodies a framework in which to do that. It specifies definite figures for each body over not just one year but three years. It provides, in most cases, a relatively generous grant in the first year. This gives institutions elbow room and time to draw up plans to become more self-reliant.
The new policy of incentive funding involves the use of taxpayers' money as a catalyst for the expansion of total income. My main object is to increase the total resources available to the arts; to see the proportion provided by the private sector rise; and to reward, not to penalise, success. To help increase access to the arts, which I regard as important, I have earmarked specific sums of money for the touring plans of the arts institutions, of which I shall say more later.
The artist is increasingly realising the importance of his audience. The box office—in its various forms—is important, not just in financial terms, but because it is one of the artist's tasks to mirror and interpret the concerns of his times. His is not merely a private world. He depends on communication for his raison d'etre. Some of our greatest artists—Sir Walter Scott and Charles Dickens being notable examples—have been those most conscious of the market. The artist's creative sustenance, as well as his financial support, come from his fellow men. It is, therefore, important to remember his dependence on the public. That is why I am promoting and encouraging measures to improve the marketing, management and general professionalism of arts organisations.
The arts marketing scheme launched in December 1986 taught us a lot about the demand for and the variable standards of arts marketing. On 25 February this year I announced new initiatives to remedy some of the problems identified: training—especially for senior management—and a distance learning package capable of reaching the smaller arts bodies. Marketing and management help for
1210
the arts will be further strengthened by a project designed to encourage greater business involvement in the arts. I shall shortly be making an announcement about this in collaboration with the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts and the business community.
I shall briefly examine some important developments in the arts. The Arts Council has received a funding increase of 13 per cent. in real terms since 1979–33 per cent. including abolition money. I warmly welcome the way in which the council, led by Sir William Rees-Mogg and the director-general, Luke Rittner, is embracing the new national climate of enterprise and encouraging arts organisations to become part of it. The council always has harsh choices to make, even with increased resources, and has fulfilled this task with imagination and sensitivity.
The council has launched an incentive funding scheme which aims to secure £2 of private money for every £1 from the taxpayer. Over three years this should generate an additional £25 million of private sector money. Applicants must demonstrate a sustainable increase in private support from various sources—above all, the box office. The scheme is intended to assist the small arts organisation as well as the large, the innovative as well as the well-established. The council's touring initiative, for which £1·5 million has been set aside in 1988–89, has already produced increases in touring in all areas of art, opera, classical ballet, theatre, literature and orchestras. I welcome, too, the establishment of Upstart, a joint venture by the Arts Council and the private sector for the promotion of regional touring. All this will help to improve public access to high quality arts.
I should like to draw the House's attention to the positive thinking and efforts of the regional arts associations. They have long been a key factor in encouraging local arts activity, and their role continues to grow. They have recognised the new climate of incentive funding and shown their willingness to work with it. In recent years there has been a substantial shift of resources towards the regions. In this context I welcome the important role that the local authorities are playing, showing an increased concern for partnership and involvement in the arts.
The British film institute continues to do an important job and I welcome its development of the museum of the moving image due to open this autumn on the south bank. This is privately funded—largely through the generosity of Mr. John Paul Getty—and will be self-financing. I take this opportunity to congratulate the retiring director, Mr. Anthony Smith, on his remarkable achievements over the last 10 years. He has been foremost in his promotion of the new incentive policy and made a most significant increase to the private funding of the institute also. I look forward to working with the new director, Mr. Wilf Stevenson.
There is no better illustration of the success of plural and incentive funding than the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which was set up in 1984. In just over three years it has produced an additional £17 million of new money for the arts, helping to increase arts sponsorship overall from £500,000 in the mid-70s to over £30 million today. Every £1 of taxpayers' money put into the scheme raises nearly £2·50 from the private sector. Our evidence suggests that 90 per cent. of the new sponsors maintain their sponsorship into a second year and beyond. It is important to note that 70 per cent. of the scheme's awards go outside London and to all kinds of arts activity.

1211
Expenditure on public libraries, excluding capital, has gone up by 16·5 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The plural funding principle extends to all areas of my responsibility—and that includes public libraries. That is the point of my consultative paper on libraries issued on 23 February. I want to reiterate, in the strongest terms, my commitment to the preservation of the basic free library service for lending and reference. The Green Paper seeks to explore ways in which, while that free service is preserved, public libraries might generate more income, achieve improved value for money and better service to the public; for example, through using more extensively their present powers to charge; through introducing new charged services; through joint ventures with the private sector; and through further contracting out of services.
I have set aside £250,000 per annum for three years for a public library development incentive scheme which will enable libraries to experiment in some of those areas. I announced the first awards on 6 May—for a wide variety of initiatives—to library authorities in Berkshire, Cleveland, Devonshire, Gateshead, Leicester and Sheffield, and to two regional library co-operatives: the London and South Eastern Library Region and the Northern Regional Library System.
The Government are proud to be providing a fitting and long-needed home for the British Library and its unsurpassed collections in the exciting new building under construction at St. Pancras. The project is on target and the building, designed to blend in with its famous neighbour, St. Pancras station, is beginning to take impressive shape. The current stage of construction will be completed in 1993, but the library will start using the building by 1991.
Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister says that the building is on time, but will he confirm that it is also well over budget? Will he tell the House how much over budget it is?
Mr. Luce: I shall try to answer that in a moment. With the leave of the House I shall seek to reply to the debate and answer some of the points that are raised. The hon. Gentleman should give me the chance to complete what I want to say, because it is important that we understand correctly the position of that library at the moment, and my objectives.
I have now commissioned a feasibility study for the next stage of the building. The object of the study is to draw up a plan for completing the project in a way that meets the key requirements of the library at the minimum additional cost. That stage should form a fitting extension and conclusion to the building now under construction. When it is occupied—we hope no later than 1996—all the key elements of the British library, including most of its London-based collections, will be housed at St. Pancras, for the first time ever, in a controlled, pollution-free environment. Services for readers and facilities for staff will be radically improved. I know that this new library will become a vital and valued national asset; an important addition to the British heritage. I believe that it will prove to be one of the great cultural achievements of the 20th century.
The national heritage memorial fund, set up in 1980 and given a special injection of £20 million in October 1987, ensures that we preserve the best of our treasures for the nation, to enrich the lives of future generations.
1212
Recent Government initiatives have made the fund even more effective. The important change in acceptance-in-lieu-of-tax arrangements announced in July 1985 allows access to the Contingency Reserve for acceptances up to an average of about £10 million per annum, in addition to the annual £2 million vote provision. In March 1987, the Government announced that they would waive interest charges on the tax due on an object offered in lieu. A new hybrid arrangement allows items with a special price greater than the tax liability to be offered in lieu. This has allowed us to retain Picasso's "Weeping Woman", and Gainsborough's "Captain Wade".
Two reports have recently been published on our national museums and galleries—one by the Museums and Galleries Commission and one by the National Audit Office. The picture that they present is pretty different from the scare stories put about by some commentators. Of course there are problems, such as conservation and pressures on space, but they arise against the background of our national museums thriving and expanding in many areas of activity, engaged in a major programme of extensions and refurbishments, some of which I have already mentioned. The fact is that the Government have an impressive record on funding for museums and galleries—an overall increase of 26·5 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and of over 50 per cent. on building alone.
My policy is to give the trustees the maximum freedom to plan, choose and control their own expanding activities. They therefore received grant-in-aid status in 1986–87, which strengthens their powers and allows them to benefit from their increased earnings. On 1 April 1988 the trustees took direct responsibility for their own buildings, receiving an increase of over 20 per cent. in their building funds this year. It is obviously counter-productive to encourage the collection of treasures unless there are buildings fit to house them. I thank the Property Services Agency for its work over the years for the museums and galleries and for its co-operation in this untying procedure.
Such an expansion of activity naturally brings pressures and the need to decide on priorities, conservation being one of the most important. It is for the institutions themselves to make these decisions. I am doing all that I can to help. That is why when last autumn's settlement gave the museums a 16 per cent. cash increase over the three years—some of that money was for management and marketing improvements.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister not worried by the fact that when museum charges are imposed there is an average 30 to 40 per cent. fall-off in attendance? The trustees cannot want to reduce attendance by charging, so why do they charge?
Mr. Luce: The most important thing to remember when considering charges—no doubt there will be plenty of scope this morning to debate the issue—is that in all cases it is for the trustees to decide whether to introduce charges. The Natural History Museum, raised £1·3 million net in additional resources in the first year. These additional resources should be devoted to improving facilities for the public. If there is a link to be made—there has been at the Victoria and Albert museum, which now opens on Fridays thanks to the donations of the public who attend it—it is between an increase in overall resources and an improved service to the public. That is the most important thing to take into account. The benefits of these increased resources

1213
are already visible in the quality of the corporate plans of each of the museums and galleries. I am discussing personally each of those corporate plans with the directors of those meseums and galleries.
I have also allocated £270,000 over three years to the Museums and Galleries Commission to help non-national museums strengthen their management and marketing. The commission is today announcing an exciting programme of initiatives for this purpose. This is part of a formidable programme of measures to help institutions to determine priorities and make good use of resources. It includes the major museums training initiative, which I announced in March, and a research study into the management of collections.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), although it is right to say that attendances fall back following the imposition of charges, is it not also true to say that attendances have recovered fairly rapidly? Has my right hon. Friend any statistics to show that?
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. The evidence suggests that in most cases where charges are introduced attendances drop substantially in the first six months or year, but thereafter they tend to pick up. For example, the National Maritime Museum has had charges for some time now and attendances are picking up, with an increase of 16 per cent. this year over the previous year. There has also been an increase in attendances this April over those for April last year at the Natural History Museum, which has had charges in both years. My hon. Friend has made a valid point.
I welcome the continuing success of our museums, especially the excellence of their scholarly work. Only last week Sir David Wilson at the British museum showed me the recent scholarly output his institution—I found it immensely impressive. My priority is to see the greater accessibility of our treasures to the nation at large. To help achieve this I have set up the travelling exhibitions unit at the Museums and Galleries Commission. I remind the House that the original unit, which was designed to facilitate that kind of activity, was abolished by the Labour Government in the late 1970s. The unit is further supported by the Government indemnity scheme.
I regard it as of primary importance for the magnificent treasures of our national museums and galleries to be seen all over the country and indeed the world. Their record here is already impressive. The British museum, for example, lent out almost 2,500 objects in 1987 and the Victoria and Albert museum 3,000. I will do anything in my power to increase that lending.
There has been a great deal of talk recently on the whole question of disposals from national museums and galleries. I believe that trustees should have some power of disposal. in the interests of good collections management. I therefore intend to provide appropriate powers for those galleries that do not already have them. It is clear from the worries that have been widely expressed on this subject, which I respect, that widely different views are held and different institutions probably have varying needs. I therefore propose to have a consultation exercise to see how we can best make an appropriate and flexible response to those differing needs.
1214
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said recently at the Royal Academy:
"You need the whole of the arts to make the cities".
The importance of the arts in city regeneration is highlighted in the Government's document on the inner cities initiative, launched by the Prime Minister on 7 March. Arts developments are part of the overall plan for the cities and need the support of local and private sector interests. There are some excellent examples, such as the national museum of film, photography and television at Bradford and the redevelopment of the dock area at Bristol to include the Arnolfini arts centre, the Watershed multimedia centre and industrial museums. These demonstrate the place of the arts as an integral part of general commercial regeneration.
I am very proud of the fact that I chose Glasgow to be the European cultural city in 1990. The city has already responded in a most positive fashion and we are seeing a great artistic resurgence there.
The imaginative generosity of the private sector has been shown in past years in many outstanding acts of patronage. Notable examples are the donation of the Clore gallery to the Tate by Mrs. Duffield of the Sainsbury wing to the National gallery and the many donations of Mr. John Paul Getty.
Those are wonderful and exceptional demonstrations of the giving spirit which, in earlier times, built our libraries and our galleries and museums and which the economic depression and grasping hand of state Socialism had dampened for a while but which is now being revived by economic success and a policy that allows people of varying standards of wealth to keep more of their own money. That spirit was given further encouragement in this year's radical and exciting Budget, both by its boosting of disposable income and by its doubling of the tax-deductible incentive under the payroll-giving scheme.
That increase in wealth and income means that participation and patronage need no longer be the preserve of the few. More and more people now have the chance to demonstrate their concern for non-material things. That is indeed the new spirit of our times, which will produce a new age of giving and participation in the arts. My ambition is to herald that new age. As the late President Kennedy said:
"The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction in the life of a nation, is very close to the centre of a nation's purpose, and is a test of the quality of a nation's civilisation."
10.2 am
Mr. Mark Fisher: I join the Minister in welcoming the debate and recognise that, for the second year running, the Government have provided it in their own time. I thank them for that.
The Minister started by treating the House to a fascinating glimpse of his diary, "The Travels of an Arts Minister", with the Arts Minister as the perfect and compleat arts audience. Hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, having cast covetous eyes at his job, will have seen how enjoyable it is. He appears to be the compleat spectator, but there was a touch of complacency in his remarks. He appeared to be citing his list of visits as an indication of the health of the arts at the moment. The fact that he is present at an arts event does not necessarily mean that the arts are doing well under the Government.

1215
Although he is undoubtedly an assiduous spectator at arts events, his record as an initiator or a player in the arts world is not good.
Listening to the Minister, hon. Members might have thought, if they took all his words at face value, that arts companies, museums, galleries and libraries were positively bathed in the Government's bounty; but the Minister knows from his weekly visits, whether to Newcastle, Glasgow, Liverpool or Bradford, the needs of artists, administrators and members of audiences. They tell him the same story: that their companies are struggling to survive.
I suspect that the Minister also hears questions, such as, "Why do the Government not value the arts? Why do they not promote the arts?" Today the House has an opportunity to consider the arguments and to decide whether, as the Minister says, all is well and flourishing in our culture or whether as we contend, the success of the arts is in spite of the Government and not because of them.
We maintain that the Government's record in the arts and cultural industries is miserable. Every other country in Europe is heavily increasing its investment in the arts, almost every local authority in this country is beginning to invest heavily in the arts and the demand from arts audiences has never been higher, yet for the past nine years the Government have done next to nothing. To be more precise, they have done the minimum that they could. Instead of leading, they have dragged their feet along behind the arts. Today the House has a chance to consider their record as it stands.
Let us consider the Government's funding record. I shall start with the museums of which the Minister is particularly proud. He claims that there have been increases in the general level of funding of our nine national museums. Frankly, the figures do not bear him out. Revenue funding has increased from £33·6 million in 1979 to £61 million in 1987–88, but, after allowing for inflation, that is a cut in real terms of 3·2 per cent. Individual museums have fared even worse. The National Portrait gallery's general funding is down by 15 per cent. and that of the Victoria and Albert museum is down by 9 per cent.
How do we explain the difference between those figures, which are correct Government figures, and the picture given by the Minister? He referred to Professor Brian Morris's important report on national museums issued last week, the first in 60 years. He said that that presented a different picture from the gloomy picture that I presented to the House last week, which he described as nonsense. I do not expect the House to take my word for it, so I shall quote from Professor Morris's report. He identifies a funding gap in our national museums, and says:
"The funding gap is serious … The effects are lamentably to be seen in terms of closed galleries, reduced security, curtailed opening hours or days, backlogs of work, less ability to help schools, inefficient use of staff time and less good service to the public … Most serious is the danger of a cumulative, long-term decline in curatorial standards."
That is hardly a glowing picture. It does not tally with the Minister's attempt to put a gloss on his museums policy. Contrary to what the Minister said, it is sadly borne out by the National Audit Office report, which refers to "poor storage conditions" at the Victoria and Albert museum the Tate gallery and the British museum. and states that the problem of conservation is "worsening all the time". Those three museums are
"no longer able to ensure proper stocktaking."
1216
Amazingly, that is in the best funded part of our museum service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to charges. The Government will not accept their responsibility for our national museums. The Minister is correct to say that the Government have put money into the fabric and buildings, but we can see from the National Audit Office's report that the picture is very grim in the crucial areas of purchasing, conservation, stock control, research and curatorial standards. Because the Government will not fund properly, the trustees are having to turn to charges.
The point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was rather misleading. The figures come down in the first year, as the Minister acknowledges, ususally by about 40 per cent. Dr. Neil Coussons reckons that the figures at the Science museum will also come down by about 40 per cent. when charges are introduced next year. The Minister is right to say that there is a slight upturn, but the upturn for the National Maritime museum last year was only 16 per cent. It has still not reached the level of five years ago, in spite of the fact that national attendance at museums has continued to grow. It is only when we remove museum charges, as York did after several years, that we see the figures rise again.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Surely the fact is that, unfortunately, we are not an arts-conscious nation, despite the fact that the Government give people the opportunity to visit museums. In Italy or France, people are queueing up to visit museums and they pay to do so. There are long queues outside every institution in Venice and every other cultural centre in Italy. Surely the basic problem is that we need a better arts education in the schools.
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has unintentionally made my point for me—the Government are not arts-conscious, and after nine years we face the subsequent results and problems. Education is important. and the Government's record has worrying implications for the future of the arts.
The national museums—despite the gloomy picture painted by Professor Morris—are, perversely, the best funded. The whole range of museums in the regions, however, are struggling along on a pittance. The seven English area museum councils receive in total £2·4 million a year. For years, everyone in the museum service has told the Minister that the grant should be doubled, but he is absolutely deaf to their pleas. That gives a hollow ring to the Government's claim of bringing excellence to the regions.
The Minister attempted to bluster his way through when discussing public libraries, but he knows well that the record on public libraries is disastrous. Let me remind him of the facts. Under this Government a net 200 public libraries have closed, book funds are down by 40 per cent. and in some authorities they are down more than that—in Bradford by 61 per cent. and in Bromley by an amazing 90 per cent.
If one visits public libraries one learns about library closures, staff redundancies, a loss of hours and even closure on certain days of the week. No wonder that book loans were down 6 million last year. Why is that? It is not because libraries are not valued by the public; they take out 655 million books every year. Certainly, libraries are valued by local authorities and most of them recognise

1217
that public libraries are the most popular community service that they offer. Certainly those libraries are valued by the staff, who have an amazing record of imagination and invention when introducing new ideas and services to the public. They have introduced services for the housebound, outreach communities, arts projects, prisons, ethnic minorities, teenagers and, not least, industry—that is an important service that the Government do not appreciate. The decline in funding for libraries is as a result of Government's hostility to local authority expenditure. To sustain library services in the climate of rate capping and penalties is extremely difficult.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the disposition of a local authority's resources is within its charge? It decides its priorities. My authority has decided to close its public libraries on certain days of the week and has decided to deny those who live in the borough the opportunity to read certain newspapers with which it politically disagrees. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that is the way in which the authority should run its affairs? If public libraries are the jewel in the crown of local authorities, they should give them more resources and not deflect them, but that is in the authorities' hands.
Mr. Fisher: Obviously we cannot debate rate capping and the Government's attitude to local authority finance. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) knows full well that, far from the finances of local authorities being in their own hands, the Government forbid them by law to go to the electorate to raise the money they seek. The Government do not even allow authorities to spend their own capital grant, which is sitting in banks all over the country. The hon. Gentleman's argument is nonsense.
The Minister also mentioned the Green Paper. We need a debate solely devoted to that document because it is extremely important. The Minister did not go into many details and he did not tell us that the Green Paper proposes charges for information, charging for a premium service for new books and competitive tendering for such things as book services for old people's homes, for videos and for branch libraries.
The Green Paper is an extraordinary document. It does not bear much relationship to the realities of the public library service. That is not surprising when one considers that the Minister did not choose to consult the Library Association or public libraries before producing it.
If the Green Paper is implemented—I fear that it may be—it could have a disastrous effect on public libraries. The Library Campaign has given us a glimpse of what public libraries would be like as a result of the Green Paper. A public library might have:
"five W. H. Smith-run branch libraries. The top fifty titles are available … on demand—50p per issue, one-week loan, fines payable thereafter. Other books available on the Category B shelves. Three books may be borrowed free at any one time. Additional titles may be borrowed—50p a go. If the book you want isn't there you can reserve it—£2·50 whether it's obtained or not. The Central Library has a lending section … It also has a Virgin sound and video library. Top 100 albums—£1 a go. Reference and information services are organised in specialist sections. £1 in the slot to get in. 50p for OAPs.
Enquiries which take up more than 15 minutes of staff time attract a premium charge of 50p … On-line facilities are available—£20 per connect minute."
1218
If that is what the Government want our public library services to be like, that is what they will get as a result of the Green Paper. If the Minister listens to the consultations and submissions he will receive from the library authorities he will realise that the Green Paper is sheer nonsense. The idea that people will queue up to make competitive bids to run library services to old people's homes and will make huge sums of money out of such services is absolute nonsense. If the Minister knew anything about the video world, he would be aware that Virgin and others involved with video lending need prime sites in city centres with shop fronts. They will not queue up to make a tender for sites inside public libraries. The Minister has not done his homework on the Green Paper, but we shall have to discuss it on another occasion.
It is important to set the record straight on funding. Last November the Minister announced his new departure for arts funding—three-year funding. I pay tribute to that initiative, and I believe that the arts world perceives it to be an extremely welcome development.
The Minister said that the Arts Council grant has increased by 8·4 per cent. to £150 million and that it will increase by 3 per cent. in the next two years. It does rather take the gloss off three-year funding if one is told that one can plan for three years, but that the grant for the next two years will be below the rate of inflation. That is a cut in real terms. As we said at the time, and contrary to what the Minister has said, such funding does not bring the Arts Council grant back to the level that it was in 1979 in real terms. The grant is £20 million short of what the Arts Council said it needed in 1987–88 to sustain the output and development of the arts.
The Minister also said that £5 million of the £11 million had been earmarked for the new incentive schemes. As a result, the effective money available for the base budgets of regional arts associations and arts companies all over the country has been cut. The Greater London Arts Association has suffered a cash cut of 1·2 per cent. Northern Arts—the Minister has visited that organisation and he knows the superb job that it does—has been given an increase of 0·6 per cent. only—a cut in real terms.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: That is not the Minister's fault.
Mr. Fisher: Of course it is. The Minister earmarked for different uses the money provided. It was not as though the Arts Council was perverse and wanted to cut the allocations to the regional arts associations or to cut the grant to the English National Opera or the Royal Shakespeare Company by giving them only a 2·5 per cent. increase in funding. It also had to cut the allocation to the national theatre and the royal opera house. The Arts Council did not want to do that because it is aware of the valuable work that is performed by the associations and companies. Unfortunately, it has not been given the funding that is needed for the base budgets of those associations and companies.
If the award was as good as the Minister has said, why are arts clients all over the country on standstill budgets or worse? The Government are not funding them straight. This is not a record of success and plenty, but a record of neglect.
The Minister is correct to say that it is not only a question of funding and that much is happening in the arts. Thank heavens it is. We see expansion, ideas, new

1219
ventures, and developments. Audiences are increasing, demand is growing and people are participating more. The standards are high, but all those things are not as a result of Government policy. Such developments are taking place in local authorities. Local authorities are already by far the largest spenders on the arts. Last year they spent £520 million on the arts, compared with the Arts Council's spending of £150 million. Despite Government hostility to local authorities and local authority expenditure, there is development there. Local authorities, whether Sheffield, Newcastle, Birmingham, Glasgow or Bradford, or smaller local authorities, such as Stirling, Cambridge, Swindon, Dundee, Wolverhampton and Scunthorpe, recognise what the Government refuse to recognise—the importance of the arts. Even one or two Tory authorities do. When Cardiff was Tory, it funded the arts world, and Westminster has a good record on its overall level of expenditure.
The arts are bursting with ideas, such as Swindon's community access to media projects, Dundee's superb arts project in the Blackness area and the south Humberside dance project. There is plenty going on despite the Government, not because of them. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) in paying tribute to Glasgow's superb Mayfest. Glaswegians would be amazed by the Minister saying that he is responsible for Glasgow receiving the European cultural city of the year award. It is they who have earned it and they deserve it.
Mr. Buchan: We welcome the thanks for that. Has my hon. Friend seen The Scotsman today, which states:
"Rifkind in £140 million cash clawback."
That includes local authorities in Glasgow, which he has been praising so much over the last few months.
Mr. Fisher: I am ashamed to say that I have not seen The Scotsman today, but that admirably answers the point.
Unlike the Government, local authorities recognise the cultural, social and economic importance of the arts. That is why, unlike the Government, local authorities are increasingly developing arts projects and policies. They recognise not just the public sector and the role of sponsorship. but the voluntary sector. The Minister did not mention the role that the voluntary sector is increasingly playing at community level in arts activities. Not once did he mention the independent commercial sector. Unlike him, local authorities recognise that a good range of good quality bookshops, record shops and cinemas are as much part of our arts life as public sector provision. Yet the Minister did not mention that.
The Government do not have a policy or a vision. I looked through the Minister's speech at the Council of Regional Arts Associations conference in Newcastle last night and it is a deeply ill-judged, unhappy one. [Laughter.] The arts world has certainly perceived it as such, and many were depressed and disgusted by it.[Interruption.] If the Minister is relying on praise from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) with his views on the arts, he must know that he has got it wrong.
I looked for something positive in the Newcastle speech and the most positive aspect was the Government's commitment to protect our heritage and the status quo and to create conditions later in the year for plural
1220
funding. There were many more depressing aspects of Government policy. The Minister criticised "the welfare state mentality" of the arts and
"the attitude that the taxpayer owes them a living."
Many in the arts find that deeply insulting and wholly at odds with the facts. The Minister continued that his view of the arts criterion value was
"if it's any good, people will be prepared to pay for it."
Chillingly, he ended by saying:
"You should accept the political and economic climate in which we now live and make the best of it."
It will be a long time before the arts world forgets that thoroughly ill-judged, unhappy speech.
The Minister referred to his incentive funding scheme and reliance on sponsorship. That scheme, for which he takes credit, has been ill thought out. There appears to be a direct clash and contradiction between the role of sponsorship through the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts and the business sponsorship incentive scheme, and the role of the Arts Council as agent for the challenge funding. The arts world will look with great interest at the results of the first year of the scheme. At present, the only activity appears to be the profusion of consultancies that have been spawned by it. This week I talked to a major and responsible arts sponsor in the corporate sector who was clearly wholly confused by the two schemes, had not yet been approached on challenge funding and did not understand what it was about. The Minister has work to do if he is to make that succeed.
We do not have time to go into the whole question of sponsorship, although my hon. Friends may take that up. The political climate is affected by the Government's attitude to education. I fear that the Education Reform Bill will not assist the arts and that the reassurances that the Minister has attempted. to give do not in any way address the anxieties of arts educators.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Education Reform Bill, for the first time in our history, makes music and art compulsory subjects in the school curriculum. His Government never did that
Mr. Fisher: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the arts are described in the Bill as visual arts and music. There is a distinct threat to the enormous explosion of drama, dance, film, video and media studies, all of which have taken off in schools and have appealed to young people and teachers. They are all threatened simply because of the Government's limited definition of arts as art and music. That danger is compounded by the fact that the Government have closed more art schools than any other Government and underfund the art schools which exist.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is the hon. Gentleman following the national education curriculum group, particularly that concerned with English, and has he made submissions to it on the arts, including acting and so on? There is no doubt that that is where such arts activities will come from.
Mr. Fisher: The House respects the hon. Gentleman's opinions and knowledge on education, but I fear for the future of the arts under the Education Reform Bill. It will all depend on how the circulars are worded and how the Bill, which is imprecise, is interpreted.
The Minister referred to the wider political climate in his Newcastle speech. The Government are imposing increased pressure on the media, on broadcasting and,

1221
similarly, through that on the freedom of expression and speech. We hear this week that the Broadcasting Standards Council is seeking to preview all foreign programmes. That will send a chill through the arts world and those who care about freedom of speech. There is a similar problem over clause 29 of the Local Government Bill which will undoubtedly lead to a mood of intolerance and oppression and will limit the freedom of expression of gay men and lesbian women—something which the Minister says will not happen, but is already happening through his local authority colleagues.
What I fear most about sponsorship and clause 29 is not so much the overt problems that arise, as the degree of self-censorship which will be engendered in preparing programmes and in not doing work which otherwise should be done. That self-censorship strikes at the heart of a healthy, free-expression arts world. The Minister must address that problem.
All that comes back to the Minister's lack of policy and vision, or indeed his hostility towards local authorities.
Mr. Gerald Bowden rose—
Mr. Fisher: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.
The Minister is missing the obvious because he does not allow himself to see it. A retail revolution is changing the centres of all our cities, and our inner cities are being redeveloped. Local authorities understand that the arts are an anchor element in that redevelopment. They are a key element, whether in Newcastle, Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow, in inner-city regeneration.
The Arts Council has attempted to address the problem of urban renaissance. Seven pages is a rather slight and superficial response to a major opportunity and a major challenge to the arts. I made this point about the arts economy to the Minister during the whole of last year and eventually he commissioned a report. Does he remember it? He commissioned Mr. Paul Collard to report on arts in the inner cities. Mr. Collard produced an excellent report within eight weeks. What happened to the report? Because it paid tribute to local authorities and said that they had a key role to play, the Minister suppressed it—or rather, I think that he caved in to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who said that it would be published over his dead body. [Interruption.] That rumour has yet to be disproved.
The Secretary of State for the Environment said that anything that paid tribute to and recognised the constructive role of local authorities could not be given the Government's stamp of approval. Apart from seeing the constructive and interesting evidence in the report, the Minister may have read the fine print. The report says that the
"evidence finally suggests that, as far as is possible, central government funds are … being frozen, reduced or abolished. This is frequently against the direct advice of officers in the appropriate ministries.
The Minister should recognise that he did not do a service to free speech, to research or to the arts world by so crudely suppressing the Collard report. Collard identified the crucial importance of the cultural industries—publishing, recording, film, video, broadcasting and fashion design. The Government should be looking at those things and directing to them their energy, investment
1222
and training. They should recognise the central relationship between seed funding at local authority, arts association and Arts Council level and the explosion of talent in the cultural industries.
If only the Minister would allow himself to recognise those things, he would see that the international and national implications are enormous. The cultural industries are highly profitable. Last year, publishing had a net trade balance in our favour of £550 million. Records made £450 million. We have 40 per cent. of the world's record industry and the Government are not investing in order to support and sustain that enormous growth.
If only the Government would recognise that, they would not talk about the welfare state mentality. On the contrary, the Treasury should be extremely grateful to the arts and the cultural industries because I suspect that, leaving aside the £5,000 million that is attributable to tourism and our arts and heritage, the cultural industries probably bring in a net benefit of £1,000 million in foreign exchange and trade every year. They do that at a time when our balance of trade in manufactured goods is over £8,000 million in deficit. If the Minister understood the realities of the cultural industries and the economy and was not ideologically prevented from recognising them, he would be able to go to the Chancellor and make a positive case for more investment in the arts. Time and again, the arts pay for themselves by their contributions to the Treasury.
The Government should be redefining our arts, our cultural heritage and our media along the lines that I have described. They should be backing local government and making the arts a statutory responsibility. The Government say that the arts are important, but why is it the only local government service that local authorities do not have to provide? Statutory responsibility for the arts and an element of the rate support grant would do more for an explosion in and a flowering of the arts at local authority level than anything else. But, of course, that does not fit the ideology of the Government.
Such a move would widen access and allow more voices to be heard. The Government should recognise that many people—especially the young, the old, black people, Asians, women and the disabled—are not being heard in our culture. We are missing their testament, their witness to what it is like to live in our society. We are all suffering from that loss, because our culture would be richer if we had that wider range of voices. Because they cannot see that, the Government are missing opportunities in training for the young. If the Minister looks around the country he will see in every major city many young rock bands that do not have research, rehearsal, or recording facilities. There is an opportunity there if only the Minister could bring himself to recognise the economic and cultural importance of the arts.
The cultural industries are vital as a means of expression. As I have said, the Government are limiting the means of expression and free speech in our society. The arts is the one area left in which our values and our society can be not only celebrated but tested. Ideas can be explored, traditions questioned, and dissent expressed. That ability to set a wider public agenda is crucial to the health of the arts, so that they can contribute to and carry forward society's debate and its view and story about itself. Sadly, the Government lack the wit to see and support that. They moan about the welfare state mentality and ask the arts to accept the political and ecnomic climate

1223
around them. The Government have created that climate, which is hostile to artists, writers, film makers and painters throughout our society.
We shall not seek to push the debate to a vote, because it is taking place on the Adjournment of the House, but the Government have a miserable and sad record. Unless they recognise what is happening in the arts at local authority level and are prepared to put aside their ideology and back the enormously encouraging developments at local authority level, the prospects are grim.
10.36 am
Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) spoke about the political and economic climate. It is a climate of burgeoning confidence and enthusiasm that has not left the arts unaffected. He said that the arts are "bursting with ideas". Perhaps it has not occurred to him that that is a reflection of such burgeoning confidence, but that is no surprise.
I remember the impressive series of television programmes "Civilisation" by the late Lord Clark. Those programmes stressed the theme that it is confidence in society as a whole, as in the first Elizabethan and now the later stages of the second Elizabethan age, which is reflected in advances in science, exploration and prosperity, and is also reflected in enthusiasm and confidence in the arts.
One cannot separate the tremendous increase in national prosperity in our country, where living standards have risen by between a quarter and a third in the last eight or nine years, from the great confidence and success in the arts. The theatre in London, including the National theatre, is highly successful. It is quite difficult to get a seat for many plays, and more people go to the theatre than go to football matches.
Mr. Terry Dicks:Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jessel: I have only shall give way to my hon. I thinker.
Mr. Dicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the National theatre is packed to the door because it is subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of £28 per seat? Anyone who wants to watch Wimbledon play at Plough lane has to pay the full economic cost.
Mr. Jessel: I am very much in favour of the National theatre having a subsidy of about £6 million a year, which is equivalent to about 10p or 12p per head of the population, our population being about 55 million. The National theatre is a tremendous national asset. It is a pump primer and a source of inspiration to all the other theatres in Britain. It helps to draw to Britain visitors whose spending of money generates employment elsewhere, in hotels, restaurants and shops. This additional spending and the employment that it generates produce a tax yield to the Government and justify the subsidy. On that point the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central and the Minister were right. The figure of £6 million is about right for the National theatre: it should not be much higher or lower.
In reply to my intervention the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central gave a wholly inadequate answer. He had said that the Government were not art conscious.
1224
I said that the art consciousness of the Government was proved by their being the first Government to make art and music compulsory. They are doing this in the Education Reform Bill, which is to come into effect next year. The hon. Gentleman did not make a very impressive point about that.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about museum charges, if he goes to the Louvre in Paris he will expect to pay to go in, as will everyone else. Why on earth should the burgeoning numbers of foreign visitors not pay to enter our great museums? Why should most other people not pay, too? People expect to pay to go in.
Tomorrow marks an important tercentenary. The poet Alexander Pope was born on 21 May 1688. He lived and died in Twickenham and is buried in St. Mary's church there. We are immensely proud of him. He was without doubt one of England's greatest poets. His crisp command of language and his deep wisdom and insight shine through his poems. So many of Pope's lines have entered our daily language—for example:
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is man";
or:
"To err is human, to forgive, divine";
or:
"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul;
or:
"Oh grave where is thy sting,
Where death thy victory?;
or:
"Guide, philosopher, and friend";
or;
"I cannot sleep a wink".
A quotation from Pope that is said to be popular among civil servants is:
"For forms of government let fools contest;
What e'er is best administer'd is best".
I bring that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who is also the Minister for the Civil Service.
Some of Pope's lines remind me of right hon. and hon. Members:
"For fools rush in where angels fear to tread",
or:
"A little learning is a dang'rous thing".
One reminds me of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan):
"Fire in each eye and papers in each hand,
They rave, recite and madden around the land".
Another reminds me of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher):
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest".
Yet another reminds me of the hon. Member for Newharn, North-West (Mr. Banks):
"The ruling passion, be it what it will,
The ruling passion conquers reason still".
Hon. Members who shall be nameless are captured in the following lines:
"Destroy his fib or sophistry—in vain!
The creature's at his dirty work again".
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
And without sneering, teach the rest to sneer".
"Old politicians chew on wisdom past,
And totter on in business to the last".
Those last remind me of one or two of our senior hon. Members.
I am happy to tell the House that Pope's tercentenary is to be commemorated by several events in my

1225
constituency. Tomorrow, Pope's birthday, as part of Twickenham week, of which I have the privilege to be president, the Strawberry hill residents' association is to hold a birthday party to be attended by nearly 300 of my constituents. It will be held in Walpole's drawing room at Strawberry hill, with which the House has a special link, because the Palace of Westminster would never have been rebuilt after the fire of 1830 in its present form but for the Gothic rebirth in British architecture that was started by Walpole in the drawing room of that house in Twickenham.
It so happens that at Pope's birthday party tomorrow, my wife, who is a professional actress, will read some of his poetry, and a British Army band from the Royal military school of music at Kneller hall in Twickenham will play. They reside in the house of Sir Godfrey Kneller, the English painter, who was a great friend of Alexander Pope.
Tonight, the Twickenham society is to hold a special event at Orleans house, Twickenham. The Twickenham local history society has brought out a fine commemorative booklet on Pope and mounted a superb tercentenary exhibition of paintings.
Among the paintings on show is Tilleman's celebrated view of Twickenham from the top of Richmond hill. It is a beautiful painting and is of tremendous local historical and topographical interest to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who, being a Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, is precluded by convention from speaking in this debate. Nevertheless, I have been in close consultation with him about this important painting, the scene in which straddles his constituency and mine.
For 10 years, as a member of the Western European Union Parliamentary Assembly I have seen that painting in the British embassy in Paris. I have cast envious eyes on it and wondered how it could be brought to Twickenham so that my constituents could regularly see it. I asked for it four times and always failed because successive ambassadresses at the British embassy in Paris had fallen in love with it. Suddenly, last month, the painting appeared at the opening of the Pope tercentenary exhibition at Orleans house in Twickenham. I am told that the present ambassadress likes modern paintings.
What of the future of this painting? After discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes I approached my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary because I was told that the painting was earmarked for his private office after the tercentenary exhibition was over. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he would write to me, and this week I received his letter:
"You mentioned to me a while ago your interest in Peter Tilleman's "View of Richmond" which has recently been on loan to the Tate and is at present on loan to Orleans House in Twickenham for the Alexander Pope exhibition. Once this is over, the Government Art Collection are kindly arranging for it to be hung in my own office at the FCO, where it will fit in extremely well. This will, however, only be for a year or two, since we will be moving back in due course into our traditional suite of offices overlooking St. James's Park (which are at present being refurbished). I do not imagine that the Tilleman would fit in so well over there, and it will be for the Government Art Collection to decide where it should go thereafter. As you know, pictures from their collection normally hang only in central Government buildings."
1226
I do not know what might be possible, but 1 ask my right hon. Friend to see whether the painting can be put permanently at, or close to, Twickenham and Richmond. I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes. I realise that such paintings normally go into Government buildings, but perhaps Marble hill house, which, following the welcome abolition of the GLC, now belongs to English Heritage, might qualify as a Government building, if English Heritage is willing.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for telling us all about the birthday party that he will have. I am sure that Pope is relieved that he is safely dead—at least he will not have to attend. Would the hon. Gentleman care to say something about Marble hill house and the magnificent way in which the GLC looked after it?
Mr. Jessel: As a former member of the Greater London council from 1967 to 1973, on which body I happened to be senior to the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to confirm that the Greater London council looked after the building well, and English Heritage is looking after it even better now.
It is important that paintings are seen. The same goes for furniture and other objects. That brings me to the subject of hoarding by certain museums. Britain has attics full of treasures. It cannot be right that large quantities of beautiful and interesting paintings and other art objects and works of art are hidden away in cellars, to be seen only by the odd academic. The whole purpose of a work of art is to be perceived. We should get works of art up and out, preferably on loan to galleries, or possibly, in some cases, to be sold and replaced by other objects which there is room to display.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to publish a consultation paper on the matter. I hope that it will make specific reference to bequests. This is important. If people think that works of art will be sold, they will not bequeath them. It is important that the law should make a clear exception to protect bequests. That apart, the matter should be widely discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) has an interest in the matter. I hope that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will refer to it.
Far too much stuff is hidden away and never seen. The British museum has 80 Michaelangelo drawings in drawers. In the 1950s the Victoria and Albert museum took on—perhaps it had to take on—the entire contents of the Indian museum of London. It is all stashed away in a store room in south London and never seen. That is wrong. The stuff should go on show, rather than be wasted and, in some cases, allowed to rot. It should stop. I welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend to initiate discussions on the matter. I hope that they will lead to something.
As my right hon. Friend said, this year, there has been a substantial increase in real terms in arts funding. In absolute figures it is a 17 per cent. increase over three years, starting with 10 per cent. last month. It was the best arts settlement ever. It was widely praised—and deservedly so—by the arts world when it was announced in November. Even Sir Peter Hall, who seldom has anything good to say about arts funding, said, "The Minister is to be thanked. He should be warmly congratulated. It is a

1227
very nice surprise." That was the view of anybody who was anybody in the arts world—or at least the top tier of it—about the announcement of the settlement.
The lower tier of the arts world is different. There are some professional whingers and whiners in that tier, whose attitude is so inflexible that they could not adapt to the fact that a substantial improvement had been announced. After a few weeks had gone by they continued whingeing and whining as though nothing had happened. Some of them are so geared to the begging bowl mentality that force of habit leads them to think that Government funding, if not an end in itself, is at least the main yardstick for determining how well the arts are doing. That view is nonsense.
Government funding, which is important and has increased, is a means to an end, to enable the arts to flourish and more people to enjoy them. Much more important for the arts than any Government funding—important though that is—is the general state of the national economy. The splendid economic growth that the country has seen under the present Government means that people have more to spend on leisure and on the arts. As I said by way of illustration, the London theatre is flourishing as at no time since the second world war. The main reasons are that, first, more people can afford to go to the theatre if they want to do so, and, secondly, the productions are good. There is tremendous enthusiasm in the London theatre. Superb productions are being put on, reflecting the new self-confidence of the arts, as part of the self-confidence of the country to which I referred.
Of course, that includes the live arts, which, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, are bursting with ideas. It includes opera, ballet, concerts, and the forthcoming, highly imaginative promenade concert programme at the Royal Albert hall in Kensington. Through July, August and September thousands of young people will be able to enjoy the superb standard of promenade concerts and enrich their lives. If they wish, they can combine their visit to the Royal Albert hall with a visit to the South Kensington museums just down the road.
We should pay no attention to the jeremiahs. All in all, the arts are not doing too badly. They are doing well and are a great credit to the nation.
10.57 am
Mr. Michael Foot: Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), I am a great admirer of Alexander Pope. If the hon. Gentleman's wife had recited the poems, the whole House would have been enthusiastically entranced. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman, the lines that came most dominantly to my mind were from Pope's poem, the Dunciad:
"Lo, thy dread empire chaos is restored
Light dies before they uncreating word
Thy hand, Great Anarch, lets the curtain fall
And universal darkness buries all."
As I listened to the hon. Gentleman, I was reminded of that climax, although there are some other lines in the Dunciad to which he might refer us. However, I do not wish to spoil matters in that sense.
In an admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred to a speech that the Minister for the Arts made just after the
1228
election. He used the phrase, "welfare state mentality." I agree with every stricture that my hon. Friend made. The Minister must regret that he ever used such a phrase.
The phrase "welfare state mentality" insults the people who apply it to the arts and those who must take benefits under the welfare state. The phrase was intended to be derogatory in some sense. I cannot understand why any Minister for the Arts should wish to use it. The welfare state has had wonderful effects in sustaining the arts in good times and in bad. Therefore, any derogatory sense that applies to that phrase is wrong.
I looked up the meaning of the word "welfare" to make sure of it. It is a wonderful word, with a wonderful ancestry. It was used by Chaucer. If it can be used by him without a sneer, I should have thought that the Minister for the Arts should be capable of doing the same. The idea that there is anything wrong in public funding of the arts is absurd. There would not be any of our great museums without it. Many of our greatest artistic treasures would never have been protected if it were not for the welfare state and the welfare state mentality that was applied to the arts even before it was applied to the process of trying to protect some of the poorest or least protected of our citizens.
The best excuse for the right hon. Gentleman—this must be the reason, because he is an intelligent man—is that his speech was addressed not to the general public but to the Prime Minister, and he thought that she would appreciate the phrase. Some of his references today to the adoration and eagerness with which the Prime Minister attends to the affairs of the arts were interpolated a little unnecessarily. The best thing that we can say is that that phrase, which I hope will be expunged from the Minister's vocabulary, was intended to appease the Prime Minister rather than to achieve any other result.
The Minister cannot cast aside, in the almost derisory manner that he adopted, the report that he received a few days ago about the state of the museums. He has had a few days longer to read it than we have. I recommend everyone to read not merely a few phrases from it, although some of them are extremely important, but the whole report. Professor Brian Morris recommends that, because he says at the beginning—this has wrongly been criticised by some people in the arts world—that he is dealing with the ideas and principles involved, and has not made his report solely to make a series of recommendations at the end. He should not be criticised on that account, because it is an argument. It is utterly absurd for the Minister to think that it is an argument that comes down in any sense on the side of the Government. Either he has not attempted to read it properly, or he is seeking to mislead us—and I do not think that he would do the latter.
Some of the passages in the report have already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member far Stoke-on-Trent, Central and by the newspapers, but there are many other important passages that have not been quoted. For example, page 10 begins the discussion on public funding. It says:
"Until the present decade, no one doubted that the Government accepted full financial responsibility for the national museums, whether they were run by an Education Department or by Trustees."
The report deals with exact amounts. I know how careful the Government are in producing statistics to prove how much they have spent since 1979. I often question many of these figures, because when one goes into

1229
them a little more carefully, they are suspect. I do not say that that applies especially to the office of Arts and Libraries, but it applies to it as well as to most other Government Departments. I say that as one who has, as head of his college, Wadham, the greatest statistician in the country. He often questions the way in which the Government produce their statistics.
Page 10 continues:
"Moreover, the increases in funding have since 1981–82 consistently fallen below trends in the levels of civil service pay settlements (which dictate the pay of national museum staff, but being negotiated between Government and civil service staff associations, are outside the museums' control). The funding gap is clearly shown in the chart opposite".
I hope that everyone who thinks that the Government have been sustaining the funding of the museums properly will look at that chart. It proves the opposite. That is why the commission, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has said, is the first commission for 20 years to go into these matters so thoroughly, has produced a chart that proves that the Government have not been sustaining the funding of museums in the way that they should.
On page 12 we read:
"This funding gap is serious, and has had adverse consequences in all the national museums, which have had to leave unfilled varying numbers of posts in the complements (though these were determined after Government staff inspections)."
This next paragraph has often been quoted, but I put it in the context of my previous quotation. It says:
"The effects are lamentably to be seen in terms of closed galleries, reduced security"—
this from the Government of great security—
"curtailed opening hours or days (as at the V & A until recently"—
Mr. Hanley: Until recently.
Mr. Foot: Yes, "until recently". I am reading a recent report. It continues:
"backlogs of work (eg on conservation and the production of catalogues and other scholarly publications), less ability to help schools (especially now, with GCSE), inefficient use of staff time (word processors can hardly be afforded), and less good service to the public (for example, the National Art Library at the V & A is still closed one day a week, and sorely underfunded)."
The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) implied that these matters have been remedied. There may have been remedies in one or two parts of that indictment, but I suggest that the Minister reads through the whole of it carefully and tells us exactly what is the truth. The report was published only a few days ago. If the Government have any criticisms of it, they had better produce their figures to repudiate it. Then we shall see whether Professor Morris and those who signed the report wish to agree with what the Government say.
Mr. Luce: One must see this in perspective. I am not saying that the report praises everything that the Government are doing, and I did not say that before. It is a thoroughly objective and good report, and it is valuable for the museums as well. If the right hon. Gentleman is taking selected bits out of it, he should be a little more
balanced. In its conclusions, on page 36, the report says:
"Government funding of the national museums has increased significantly over the last ten years, as their activities have grown."
1230
He ought to acknowledge that.
Mr. Foot: I acknowledge that. As I said, the best way to read the report is to read all of it. Those who do so will come to the same conclusions as Professor Morris. He has made a statement in that document, which is one of the most valuable that could be produced on the real working of our museums, which confirms almost everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and by our previous spokesman on the arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). What they have been saying for years is confirmed by the report.
If the Minister is questioning the conclusion of the report, perhaps we should see what Professor Morris said after the report came out, when some people in the arts world were criticising it not because it was too censorious, but because it was not sufficiently severe in its criticisms of the Government or sufficiently direct in demanding the new things that should be done. Let us see what Professor Morris has to say about this, as the Minister wishes all these matters to be taken into account. The day after the report was published, Professor Morris, in an interview in The Independent, said:
"The document, a two-edged sword, is radically different from any other. Instead of a list of recommendations, we addressed ourselves to ideas and principles underlying the whole museum scene."
He then set out what could be the remedies. The article continued:
"The report covers 19 museums throughout the country, which attract nearly 26 million visitors annually, and receive Government funding totalling £178 million."
The Minister has invited us to make sure that we weigh every word from Professor Morris. The article goes on:
"Professor Morris said he wanted to see the annual grant raised to £200 million. 'That would go almost all the way to solving the immediate problems'."
Why cannot we have a yes to that proposition? Will the Government give a guarantee that in a few weeks they will produce new propositions for meeting the demands or requests, whatever we care to call them, that have been made by such a high-powered commission? The report highlights elementary needs and the action that must be taken to ensure that first requirements are met.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept that Professor Morris's report does not cover all the museums. Five university museums, including the Fitzwilliam in Cambridge, are excluded. Those five, thanks to antediluvian procedures, are maintained by the University Grants Committee. Unfortunately, they are right at the end of the queue of priorities.
Mr. Foot: I am glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's correction, which surely fortifies my case.
Some months ago I went to the Belfast museum. It is a wonderful institution that is tended, as most museums are, by a staff with a passionate concern to make their museum the very best possible. It is one of the institutions in that part of the United Kingdom, along with the universities and others, which bridges the gap between north and south. There is a fine interchange between different forms of culture. Given the history of the Irish situation, surely the Government should be eager to ensure that there are no closures in Belfast. However, closures are taking place. Professor Morris has drawn attention to the lamentable failure to provide proper facilities for the hard-working

1231
and devoted staffs of many museums, and I am sure that that applies to some of the museums to which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) referred. I am sorry that I gave the impression that all the museums are covered in the report.
I hope that the Government will adopt a fresh approach and that we shall not hear again anything like the response that the Minister has so far produced. I hope that he will he eager to erase from our memory any recollection of the answer that he gave on this subject a few minutes ago. Perhaps that response can be attributed to the fact that he, like the rest of us, has had only a few days in which to read the report. It cannot be said that a proper job is being done for our museums when about £25 million is required immediately, according to Professor Morris and others who produced the report, to deal with current needs.
I turn to another subject that may not come directly within the establishment of the Minister's Department. Of course, I cannot blame him for that. None the less, anyone who considers the issue that I am about to raise will agree that the Minister should have responsibility for dealing with it.
The Commission for Learning has been referred to in the House on several occasions. I referred to it in a debate on the Commonwealth of Learning, which is a new name for the Open university for the Commonwealth. I raised the matter during the debate on the Queen's Speech in the knowledge that the Foreign Office had responsibility for such matters. As the Foreign Office has primary responsibility, the Minister may claim that it is not his business, but I say that he should make it his business. Advantage must be taken of the opportunity that is before us. A claim must be pitched at the highest possible level. I do not have the slightest doubt that 10 or 15 years hence the idea of the Commonwealth of Learning—it may have a new name, and the Commonwealth of Learning is itself a new name for what was previously discussed as an extension of the Open university to embrace the Commonwealth—will be recognised as one of the best ever to occur to us. It is a great and simple idea that will be of obvious benefit to the entire nation. Those who look back 10 or 15 years hence will wonder why it was not grasped immediately.
However miserable, backward and reactionary the present Government may be in dealing with the Commonwealth of Learning, the idea is so good that it will overwhelm all the Government's bureaucratic obstacles and anything worse that they produce to block its progress. It is a tremendous idea. In five or 10 years, or whenever, there will be a worldwide Commonwealth university, and the language in which that university will conduct its business will be predominantly English. It will be one of the ways in which the English language will continue its beneficent conquest. Over the next 10 or 15 years English will spread even further and the conquest will be even greater.
English will not be the sole language of the university because there are other wonderful languages to be associated with it. However, as the university is a Commonwealth idea and as it is backed primarily by the Commonwealth, it will be a university in which English is spoken. It will spread throughout the world on a scale never previously conceived. It will be the means by which the highest education will spread into many countries. I do not see how anyone who has the idea put before him can fail to recognise that it is a splendid idea and opportunity
1232
for Britain in every possible way. Even if we take the lowest possible estimates of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Lady's antagonism to the welfare state mentality, the proposed university offers huge commercial advantages over the next 10 or 20 years. I do not support the concept on that basis, however, because I do not believe that any great academic institution should be launched with that as its background.
In this context, we are way ahead of all other countries because a previous Government launched the Open university. Its introduction was not the result of a strict commercial calculation of what it would pay in five or 10 years' time. It was decided that a new instrument would be established with the purpose of spreading university education. It was decided also that from the very start the degrees that would be given by the Open university would be of the highest calibre. It was determined that there would be no second or third-rate standards. Instead, the highest standards were set from the outset. That was chiefly the result of Jenny Lee's insistence, she being the first Minister with responsibility for the arts. She insisted on the highest possible standards from the beginning, and these have have been sustained.
The Government have made several mistakes in restricting the entry that could take place into the Open university. Only comparatively limited extra funding is required to make greater entry possible. Notwithstanding some criticisms, the idea is so wonderful that no Government could stand in its way.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In some of the remotest communities in Scotland—for example, the Western and Northern Isles—the Open university offers perhaps the only window of opportunity to arts education. The opportunity has been taken up by many citizens, relatively speaking, in these remote communities.
Mr. Foot: I am grateful for that intervention. It shows how far beyond the original idea the Open university has carried its influence and power. It is the greatest university in the country. Its establishment is comparable with that of the National Health Service. Such was the imaginative effect of a great idea that it has been carried far beyond what was originally thought possible.
We now have the chance to achieve the same thing on a Commonwealth scale. We have the expert knowledge of the Briggs report. Lord Briggs, who helped to set up the Open university, is one of the best advisers on how we should go ahead on a Commonwealth basis. India, Canada and other Commonwealth countries are eager to press ahead with the idea and are giving it all possible backing. The other day, Brunei contributed a further £3 million. The British Government, however, have not been prepared to give direct backing and funding to the idea. I know that there is a committee looking into the matter, but that is in no way sufficient. The idea requires direct backing and funding rather than including it within the budget of a particular Department. Anyone who has been in Government knows that every Department argues for its own budget and does not wish to give up any funds for a new venture. All claim that their entire budget is needed to deal with their present responsibilities. No doubt the Minister for the Arts makes the same claim, as do the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Education and Science and all the rest. But they are all

1233
wrong, and they should be overridden by a Government with the sense to give £20 million or £30 million per year to give this new idea a flying start. That is not a huge amount to spend, and it would mean that the Commonwealth of Learning would be established in a very few years. The Minister for the Arts should be more eager than anyone else to push the project ahead.
When I raised the matter in the debate on the Queen's Speech I received no answer from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, nor in correspondence with the Department since then. The subject was raised at the Commonwealth conference in Vancouver, and no other country sought to block it. What is required is the imagination to find the money now. The project will go ahead anyway, but it should be welcomed and pushed forward with the maximum speed.
Often we are the last people to appreciate the huge advantages that we have in this country and which no other country has to the same degree. If the Russians had the chance to establish a Commonwealth of Learning on a worldwide basis, I suspect that they would have no difficulty finding the money. I will give an illustration. In previous arts debates I have been persuaded to refer to Byron, but I thought that it would be invidious to do so today in case I was accused of advertising.
Mr. Buchan: I have already bought my right hon. Friend's book.
Mr. Foot: For the benefit of those who have not bought it, I will enter it in the Register as soon as possible.
To continue my illustration of the way in which we fail to use the wonderful gifts that we have, a couple of days ago I received a post card from Geoffrey Goodman—a well-known industrial correspondent and journalist and an old friend of mine—who is currently in Moscow. He said that he could not resist sending me a card with a Byron stamp on it. It is a very fine stamp. The Russians are very good at producing stamps and they clearly had no qualms about producing a Byron stamp in the bicentenary year of Byron's birth. When the Byron Society attempted to persuade the British Post Office to do the same, four different approaches were made under different heads. I do not blame any particular individual, but on each occasion the door was slammed with the same lack of knowledge and ill grace. Either they had never heard of Byron or they had heard stories about his misdemeanours. Perhaps they thought that they would be had up under clause 29 of the Local Government Bill if they put his picture on a stamp. I do not know who is the most puritanical member of the Government, but perhaps the Post Office feared that it would have a certain Minister from the Department of the Environment on its heels if it dared to produce such a stamp. As a result, every approach was turned down and we have to rely on Moscow.
That is a common occurrence and it has certainly happened to Byron before. His poem "Darkness"—I shall not recite it, even if provoked—is one of the greatest poems that he ever wrote. In it he foresaw what could be a world nuclear catastrophe before nuclear weapons were even invented. That poem was translated into Russian and published five times when it had scarcely appeared once here. In the five or six years after Byron's death his poems were read all over the Continent while in this country his
1234
work was still being suppressed and derided by the Minister's predecessors. There were no Ministers for the Arts or Broadcasting Standards Council censors in the 19th century, but suppression was carried out by even more surreptitious and scandalous means. For generations the truth about Byron was suppressed, but he has won through in the end. I hope that the Minister will take that into account.
In the English language we have a treasure beyond counting. Modern communications and technology have given us the means to spread that language throughout the world in a way that will not offend other people but will bring more people to understand what it is about. The Minister should be pressing for the establishment of the Commonwealth of learning with the utmost speed and imagination.
11.27 am
Mr. Terry Dicks: I speak with perhaps the only voice of opposition in this cosy little get-together of arts lovers on both sides of the House. The two Opposition spokesmen are both from middle-class backgrounds and the leading spokesman had a public school education, so they could not do other than identify with the pro-arts lobby. The Labour party wants more money for the arts, but the Government say that they have had enough.
Why are we having this discussion? It is because the arts lobby is one of the most effective lobbies in the country. That is bound to be so, because its supporters dominate most of the media. Any evening chat show is bound to include someone from the arts lobby telling us how important it is. But who are the beneficiaries? Certainly the professionals benefit. We all know how Peter Hall has benefited from the taxpayers' money given to the organisations in which he has been involved. He has made a million by manipulating—I do not say abusing—public funds, so he is bound to favour an increase in funding. Others who benefit are ballet and opera lovers—the middle classes, most of whom do not need a penny in subsidy if the truth were known.
The grant to the arts in general is to rise by 22 per cent. to £440 million guaranteed income over three years. The budget for which my right hon. Friend the Minister is responsible is to rise by 17 per cent. from £336 million last year to £394 million in 1991. My right hon. Friend stated in his press release:
"to get this new approach off to a good start"—
that is, the three-year funding—
"I am providing a substantial increase in funding in the first year."
That will be 10 per cent. Yet our old-age pensioners must get by with a 4 per cent. increase and we are removing housing benefit from some people and saying, "You cannot have this £7·50 because the pension that your husband left you when he died is too much." We tell those people that they must struggle because the public purse demands it, but without a second thought we give away £440 million to a group of people who could easily pay for their own entertainment and facilities.
Let us examine the Arts Council—that trendy Leftie organisation that exists on public funds. This year, its grant will increase by 10 per cent. from £138 million to £150 million, and it will increase again to £160 million by 1990. Two people going to see a ballet or opera are subsidised to the tune of £56, yet we pay an unemployed

1235
man and his wife less than £50 a week. There is something wrong with a society that subsidises people to visit the theatre but gives an unemployed man and his wife less on which to survive in a week. Labour Members demand more money for the arts. What sort of Socialists are they? They do not seem to be too worried about the incomes of unemployed people and are demanding more money for people who do not need it.
Why do we provide those subsidies? We are told that the arts are part of our heritage. I have said before, and it bears repeating, that I do not believe that an overweight Italian singing in his own language is part of my heritage. It is not something that my family knows or understands. Am I supposed to believe that a man prancing about at the Royal ballet in a pair of tights and a box is part of my heritage? I do not believe that, and most of the ordinary people in Britain—I represent more ordinary people on this issue than do Labour Members—laugh at the proposition that the arts reflect our heritage.
Who says that the arts must be preserved? Of course, the people who perform in the arts say so. If the arts are so good, why will people not go unless they are subsidised? We are told how wonderful and excellent it all is, that it is part of our background and that we must care for it in the future—but only if someone will pay a third or half of the cost.
Wimbledon football club, which won the cup last week, must survive by attracting enough supporters who pay the economic cost to keep the club running and pay the players' wages. No one says, "The working class like football and see it as an artistic form of entertainment, so we shall subsidise it to the tune of £28 per person."
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman's muscular approach to the arts is well known, but he must accept that some Labour Members believe that football should attract public support. The supporters of Wimbledon do not pay the full economic cost. Much of football benefits from the amount of money that the directors and chairmen of the clubs put into it.
Mr. Dicks: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. My argument is that either we subsidise every activity or we subsidise none. The hon. Gentleman is right about directors, but they choose to spend their money in that way. They do not lobby for someone else to use public taxes to subsidise their entertainment.
What is so special about the arts that makes modern professional football so ordinary? Why does my daughter have to pay the full cost to see a pop concert—perhaps £15 or £20—while someone else's daughter who wants to see a ballet is subsidised? Who is to say that the judgment of my kids about what is art, or what is pleasurable and enjoyable, is wrong while someone who wants to go out in an evening gown with a man in a bow tie should be subsidised? Most people do not understand it and want to end it. Only those who benefit from the subsidies want them to continue.
We must think seriously about the matter. It is not fair to sit here cosily agreeing that there should be subsidies and disagreeing only about the amount. People outside this place wonder exactly what is going on.
The cost of all the subsidies to the arts, including museums, is about £420 million. The saving on housing benefit will he exactly the same. Some elderly and retired people may suffer because of the Government's move on
1236
housing benefit. How can we tell them, "We shall make you lose £450 million and we will use the money to subsidise people who wish to go to the theatre"?
Mr. Jessel: Does not my hon. Friend believe it important that our arts and heritage attract visitors to Britain whose spending generates employment and tax yield to the Government? They come here to see our museums, art galleries, heritage, royal things and music. They certainly do not come here for our weather or to watch football.
Mr. Dicks: If they can afford to fly economy or club class on Boeing 747s from the United States, they can afford to pay the full economic cost of going to the ballet or the opera. They could pay to visit our museums.
My right hon. Friend the Minister spoke earlier about the number of paintings and drawings that are left lying in drawers in museums. Why not take them out and sell them? The income could be used for other good public causes. How can we justify covering up paintings or putting them away in drawers for years, and probably paying someone a hefty salary to catalogue them, when we also say that we need more public expenditure? I do not understand why we cannot take the covers off those paintings and auction them to the highest bidder. If a private collector wants to buy them, so much the better. At least we shall get some income from them.
The three-year expenditure is an interesting concept. As a former local authority member, I know that for years local authorities have been saying that the system of local government finance is wrong. Authorities do not know until December or January how much they will have to spend in the next financial year. We are told that it must be done that way because the Government cannot he sure of their income until the last minute. But there is an exception—the arts. The Government have decided to guarantee the income of this wonderful group of people for the next three years, with a 10 per cent. increase on 1 April this year and a 7 per cent. increase next year.
I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this, and the Minister's reply said that the Government are doing it because they think that it is the right thing to do and because the arts should be confident about their future funding. We would all like to have confidence and certainty about our future funding. Would it not be nice if we could say to old-age pensioners, "We will give you a guaranteed 10 per cent. increase this year and 7 per cent. next year, and for the next three years you need not worry where the next penny is coming from"? Would it not be nice if we could say to local authorities, "We guarantee your income for the next three years. It will not be reviewed, and you will know exactly where you are going"? Would it not be nice if all areas of the public sector were treated in that way?
What am I told when I query all this? "Of course, you are a philistine and a bit of an eccentric, but we will tell you why. It is only a small amount of money, and we can work this out over three years to keep them happy." I do not accept that. We should respect the arts lobby because of its effectiveness, but it is about time that we burst the bubble and people said, "Hang on. I am Joe Bloggs from down the road. I have nothing to do with Pope or the man from Twickenham." I represent ordinary people who would not

1237
know a poem if they read one. Perhaps they even read The Sun, but at least they are ordinary people struggling to make a living and not looking for subsidies.
Seeing an opera or ballet is probably the last thing they want to do. But they enjoy watching professional football, they enjoy the commercial theatre and they enjoy the cinema. Some of my constituents enjoy bingo. What about subsidising bingo for ordinary people? It is an art form for them in the same way that watching and listening to a fat Italian singing in his own language, dressed like a woman, is an art form. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference.
I cannot sit here and simply listen to a cosy little get-together by the two Front Benches. The Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are perfect representatives of the middle classes. The people that they speak to in different neighbourhoods probably cannot understand them because they sound like BBC newsreaders. Those are the people that the Labour party put forward to advocate more spending on the arts. It would do that, because not many Socialists could speak like they do, or even believe in that sort of thing. Just look at them, Mr. Deputy Speaker: if they are the Labour party spokesmen on the arts, God help us all.
My right hon. Friend the Minister differs slightly from me in his approach to the arts. However, to be fair to him, he listens, and he grins. It is a good sign that the Minister can laugh. I am sure that he is laughing at me, not at himself. Nevertheless, we have to bring home the message that the arts lobby cannot get away with it all the time. The Prime Minister stood on the stage last year and said that the Government will keep subsidising the ballet—or it could have been the opera. She may want that, but ordinary people are sick and tired of those who can well afford to pay the full going rate for the theatre and the ballet getting away with being subsidised by the rest of us, when groups in our society are losing income and getting no guarantee as to where tomorrow's money, or even tomorrow's meal, will come from.
I ask my right hon. Friend to think carefully. The sooner that he can stand at the Dispatch Box, and shout to the rooftops not that he is reducing expenditure for the arts but that he is doing away with it altogether, the better it will be for many ordinary people and for this odd philistine on the Back Bench.
11.41 am
Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) compared the cuts in housing benefit made by his Government with the amount of money spent on the arts. He asked how we, as Socialists, could explain that. I can tell him how we would deal with that. We would take back the £2,000 million that was given to the richest 5 per cent. in that shameful Budget two months ago and provide money for the arts and money for those poor people in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington who have had money stolen from them by the Government on behalf of the rich. If he were attacking them, as he should be, he would find us on his side. He complained about subsidies for the theatre and the opera, but that is not the whole of art. His daughters go to pop concerts. Music is part of art.
1238
Glasgow city understands the importance of art. That is why the corporation is spending money to bring back some heart, some hope and some joy to people who have been devastated by the Government in terms of job losses. In my city of Paisley the cotton mills which 10 or 12 years ago employed 20,000 workers now employ none. I see the Linwood car factory which a few years ago had 8,000 workers and now has none. I look at Babcocks and Wilcox, the industrial factory just outside my constituency, which once employed 7,000 workers and now employs only 1,000. That devastation has been caused by the Government's fiscal policy. It has been caused by their giving £2,000 million to the richest, instead of giving it back to the poorer people. If the hon. Gentleman were to speak about that, as Byron would have done, we might support him. The hon. Gentleman was making a false contradiction. There is no contradiction between public money for music, theatre and the arts, and a proportion of public money for the poor and the old in society.
That is why I approve of the city of Paisley spending money on saving an old church. During the past two or three years an early 18th century church has been converted from desolation into an arts centre that is used not only by opera lovers but by people who want to play pop, rock and folk music. Does the hon. Gentleman think that Cavallo invented opera out of his forehead, that he woke up one day in the early 17th century and said, "I shall invent opera."? He did not. He drew it from the poorest of the poor, the strolling players with their small plays and their music, which he brought into the courts. The hon. Gentleman at least is at one with us in that the music stolen from the people has to be brought back to the people. He is quite right in saying that it should not be only for those who have subsidised seats and still pay £50. That is why we are in favour of giving money to the arts.
That is why the city of Glasgow, despite its devastation by the Government, is putting money into the arts and making it a city of culture. I could show the hon. Gentleman the People's palace, which reflects the lives and history of the people of Glasgow. That is why we are concerned about money for the arts. Glasgow has paid for the six magnificent panels by Ken Curry in the People's palace which represent the history of the working people in Glasgow whose lives have been so devastated by this Government.
I can give the hon. Gentleman another reason why we are in favour of providing money for the arts. At one time, the arts were an alternative form of communication. If people could not afford a printing press, at least they could sing, they could speak, they could put out their own leaflets. They cannot do that now. The control over the ordinary methods of communication in this country has crept into the hands of three people. The entire popular press is controlled by Maxwell, Murdoch and Stevens. The arts are no longer an alternative form of communication. The arts are virtually the only form of alternative communication that is not in the hands of the powerful and the rich.
That is why we are worried about threats to the future of companies such as 7:84. That company does not play to those whom the hon. Gentleman was attacking. It plays social theatre. It is under attack. I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will say more about that. I shall not go into detail, but I have a letter from a name that will strike some chords.
Mr. Dicks: May I explain to the hon. Gentleman that I have to leave now and that I do not mean to be disrespectful to him in any way.
Mr. Buchan: We are delighted. We welcome the hon. Gentleman's departure. I hope that he will take some advice from his daughters.
I have a letter about 7:84 and its difficulties, which Joan Littlewood sent to the Scottish Arts Council. It says:
"Dear Sir, What is the matter with 7:84 now? Too good? Not good enough? Or just not orthodox?
I passed my working life in the United Kingdom to the accompaniment of noises from a long line of Arts Council directors telling me that my work wouldn't do for them.
The truth being that they would have liked to see Theatre Workshop in hell since it challenged all the standards they held high. I know enough of John McGrath's work to suspect that 7:84 is in the same boat.
One expects mediocrity from your London Branch."—
That is the Arts Council headed by Rees Mogg—
"I would have been happy to know that Scotland had produced something better by now.
Yours faithfully, Joan Littlewood."
I was sent a copy of that letter because I was one of the people who, 30 years ago, saved Theatre Workshop and established it in the Theatre Royal in east London. We now see companies—of which 7:84 is an offshoot—under the same kind of attack.
As the Scottish Arts Council is only a sub-committee of the Arts Council, I ask the Minister to invite his colleagues north of the border to think again. The chairman of the Scottish Arts Council, Mr. Alan Peacock, is a friend of mine, but I regret to say that he is a free market thinker. Mr. Peacock should reverse what he considers doing about 7:84 and put it back on to proper revenue funding, instead of project funding.
I have been sidetracked by the eloquence of the Philistine hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. At least he did not quote Pope, which is some advantage.
I want to look briefly at sponsorship. We are told that there will be an 8·4 per cent. increase this year for the arts, and 3 per cent. in each of the next two years. Effectively, there will be a cut in the following two years. Presumably the arts are being given a little pump-priming this year while they look for sponsorship to help them to survive. This increase of 8·4 per cent. equals just over £11 million. A sum of £5 million is already earmarked for the new sponsorship scheme, which is worrying. It will only leave 3 to 4 per cent. to support the remainder of the schemes. If over half this money is for sponsorship, it will go to people only if private support is coming forward. The sinister aspect of this is that the intentions of the artistic
directors of the theatre companies, of the writers, or whoever it may be, will be pushed in the direction of schemes which will secure the organisation's private funding. I have seen this happening in my own family. My brother writes plays for the amateur theatre, and over the years he has been reducing the number of actors involved because of the cost. He now writes plays for, say three actors and two actresses. There is a distortion of what can be done.
For a theatre company or any arts company to get funds, it must have proven artistic merit and the ability to sustain that artistic excellence. That should always be the criterion for any funding, public or private. Secondly, it must give evidence that the money will have a demonstrable impact upon the applicant's artistic managerial and financial performance. That also should
1240
always be a criterion for support, whether public or private. The new criterion is the third one. This says that it must show evidence that the applicant has the ability to use the money to increase his permanent source of funds from the private sector, and the ability to carry through long-term planning. Therefore, this hailed sponsorship scheme is designed to promote the development of the private sector. It has nothing to do with the quality of the company, but everything to do with its ability to develop and secure the private sector. That is dangerous, because the private sector will set the agenda.
The scheme is even more reactionary than the one in America. The tendency of state funding in America is to earmark those organisations for which it encourages ' private funding to come forward. In other words, they list those organisations for which they recommend private funding, and which funding they will match if necessary, although it does not match it by very much.
The Government do the opposite. The private sector determines which organisations, which plays and which projects should be supported, and public money must then follow. In other words, the community, and the poor man that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke about, have to follow with their public money to fund those organisations that have been determined by the rich and commercial interests as appropriate for sponsorship. This cannot be right. That process does not work for the organisations that need funding.
The Government say that they want to encourage the private sector and the box office, but the box office in certain theatres has been doing well. I take for an example the Citizens theatre. There has been a 117 per cent. increase at the box office, which must cover every possible criterion that the Minister demands. However, it has gained only 0·8 per cent. of sponsorship. The Bush theatre has had an increase at the box office of 44 per cent., but has no sponsorship. Another example is the Hammersmith Lyric, which has increased its box office receipts by 117 per cent. but has seen an increase in its sponsorship of only 1·1 per cent.
One of the three theatres to which I am closest is the Theatre Royal at Stratford. Philip Hedley informed the National Campaign for the Arts that the Theatre Royal, which was started by Joan Littlewood in one of the poorest boroughs in the country, had abandoned the search for sponsorship in 1984, having paid a fund raiser for three years without managing even to raise his salary. Even the fact that it had won The Daily Telegraph's first annual award for the best use of sponsorship money did not seem an attraction. Therefore, sponsorship is dangerous, first because it puts the development of theatre in the hands of the private sector and, secondly, because where it should work, it does not.
I was subverted in my opening remarks by the two astonishing speeches about Pope and the other man. I was going to comment on how astonishing it is that when we discuss the arts we ignore the 90-odd per cent. of the arts with which we should be concerned. The main area of artistic activity in this country is broadcasting—in radio and television—as well as popular theatre and pop concerts. However, all the interest has been hinged on the tiny sector that is supported by the Arts Council. It is nevertheless, a crucially important sector, for the reasons that I have given and because the arts are now the only alternative form of communication.

1241
We must look at what is happening in that general area of communication. In one sense I do not distinguish between fact and fiction in communication. If I make a speech on unemployment and try to say that unemployment is a bad thing, that is no different from "The Boys from the Black Stuff", which is a play deploying the theme that unemployment is a bad thing. The connection between the two is communication. However, what we are seeing now is highly dangerous. A whole series of actions are putting at risk freedom of communication and freedom of expression. Just as the shades are going up in the Soviet Union with glasnost, so they are coming down here in several sinister ways.
It is worth listing what is happening, because, just as the private sector affects the development of the arts, of theatre and expression, so other things are affecting other aspects of communication. First, there is commercial monopoly and the fact that 80 per cent. of the popular newspapers in this country are controlled by three people. Secondly, at least two of those three people, joined by Berlusconi in Europe, are now buying, or have bought, into satellite broadcasting. Satellite broadcasting—indeed, all broadcasting—is moving towards deregulation in this country. The monopoly of the press will be repeated by monopoly in satellites because deregulation—removing controls in broadcasting—does not give freedom for all to broadcast. It gives to a few rich people freedom to broadcast. I cannot buy a satellite because I cannot afford it, but Maxwell and Murdoch can.
This country's great history of a free press has degenerated into monopoly control by three people, and the same will happen to the future of broadcasting under the Government's plans. Alongside the handing over of television to further commercial monopoly by deregulation in the Peacock report, and through the Green Paper on radio, we are seeing more and more direct intervention by the Government, prodded incidentally by Rees-Mogg, for example, on "Real Lives." The man who was put in to defend standards has initiated attacks on and interventions into broadcasting. That is why we see his appointment this week as not only wrong, but sinister.
As well as "Real Lives", there was Zircon and the attacks by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on the BBC and Kate Adie—the terrifying of the broadcaster and the creation of self-censorship in broadcasting. Broadcasters do not save themselves by self-censorship. They censored themselves over Zircon, but in the following week the police invaded the BBC in Scotland for those tapes. Self-censorship merely lowers the threshold at which censorship takes place.
The great phenomenon of communication—the marvellous gem of opportunity for communication in broadcasting, whether in the arts, theatre, music or documentary communication to tell us how the world works—is under threat more and more, as we saw with Zircon and "Real Lives". Those are examples of direct intervention on top of monopoly control. There is also the question of technological development and of satellites moving out of public control and regulation and into private monopoly sector control, which is dangerous.
The Government are beginning to surrender our public libraries to the private sector, as proposed in the Green
1242
Paper on libraries. When Hans Sloane left his collection to start the British museum, he said that it would be the future basis of the museum and said that
"it might be kept for the use and benefit of the public who may have free access to view and peruse the same."
That is no longer the case. Viewing museums is now becoming limited to the people who can afford it.
When I spoke to Doctor Cossons' the director of the National Maritime museum, he defended the introduction of charges at that museum on the grounds that people make a special trip to the musuem and that this would merely be a small additional cost. He said that he would not dream of introducing charges in South Kensington, yet he is now director of the Science museum and proposes to do precisely that. I do not believe that he wants to do that, but believes that he must do so because of the Government's restrictions. The Government are therefore forcing museums towards the private sector.
I do not understand how the Minister can claim that the museums are doing better and spending more money on research and collation, when fewer people are visiting the museums. All the evidence, including the example of the National Maritime museum, with its exceptional nature of one-off visits, have shown a rapid drop in attendance, and a slow resumption. The Natural History museum started charging a year ago, and attendance has dropped by almost half. Museums are for people, and if attendance drops by half they cannot be a success. A slow build-up can only be at the expense of those who cannot afford to visit the museums.
It was a marvellous occasion for a family with two children from Bermondsey or Battersea to visit the museums in South Kensington. They could visit the Victoria and Albert museum, the Natural History museum and the Science museum. Kids could come to the museums, play with buttons and see things working. They could visit the Victoria and Albert museum and see that marvellous collection of musical instruments that I pop in to see and gloat over from time to time. However, that cannot happen when one has to pay for each member of the family.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington bemoaned our attitude towards the poor, but the worst thing is to deprive them of opportunity. The words of Lord Gowrie, the previous Minister for the Arts, are burnt in my mind. When he opened a library in Ealing in 1984 he congratulated the employees on charging for the peripheral services. He said that it was impossible to charge for books because that would be illegal, not, incidentally, because it would be immoral. He claimed that people appreciate things better when they pay for them. That is the prerogative of the harlot through the ages.
Mr. David Martin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Buchan: I shall not give way for the moment because the hon. Gentleman has caught me in full flight.
Lord Gowrie added that that would prevent people from coming in on a whim. Where in the name of God are we going? I want people to enter museums or theatres on a whim. That is how we all started. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) only picked up Byron on a whim, and look at him now—he read the whole of Don Juan in one go, or so he tells me.
A child's interest is sparked off when he enters a museum on a whim. Lord Eccles said that I wanted people

1243
to go into arts galleries to shelter from the rain, but I cannot think of any better place to shelter from the rain. Lord Crawford used to call Lord Eccles "Lord Shekels", and I wish that I had thought of that myself.
Lord Gowrie also said that more resources would be provided if libraries charged. In other words, the purpose of reducing public expenditure—we have seen it happen before—is to try to force more and more on to the cash element. That does not work and it distorts arts provision.
Mr. David Martin: Boots the chemist, helped to introduce libraries with its own travelling libraries and fixed site libraries. It introduced many people to learning and to books, including the poor. Those libraries were put out of business when free libraries were introduced. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some credit is due to those who provide access to books, sometimes for profit, and that such a service does not deprive as long as it is used widely and the poor have access to it?
Mr. Buchan: I am delighted that Boots ran a cheap library, and that encouraged people to read. I am even more delighted that we learnt the lesson and made those libraries free so that even more people could use them. We thank Mr. Boots for the work that he did, but we have learnt more.
We are discussing the compression of the word. Somebody talked about the great English language, and that is now at risk as a result of the Government's intervention in broacasting in past years. The development of new technology is outside the control and regulation of the people. The language will be used, not as a marvellous instrument, but as an instrument of profit. That is a serious problem.
Imposed upon the structural fear, the monopoly fear, and the Government intervention fear is another quadruple challenge, that of clause 29. This would prevent Plato's Symposium from being taught. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent may recall that in 1940 a tax on books, similar to VAT on books, was rejected on the ground that one could not tax the word of God. A tax will now be imposed upon Plato. I have already seen a letter issued by Strathclyde region warning schools to be careful in their handling of Plato because of clause 29. Plato's Symposium is in danger, as is "Salomé" and other works by Oscar Wilde. Clause 29 is rubbish. The purpose of the clause is not to censor but to create an atmosphere of fear and timidity so that self-censorship occurs.
That was the purpose of the Obscene Publications Bill that was introduced last year. It also compressed the word. It was intended not to censor but to terrify the writer, the actor, the dramatist, the producer, the director or the theatre manager into the belief that it would be better not to risk doing a certain thing. It is all about self-censorship.
The compression of the word is also threatened by the attack on academic freedom. Thank heavens that our good old reactionary friends in the Lords are a damned sight more progressive than the Tory group in the elected House of Commons. At least they have tried to restore something of academic freedom, but I have no doubt that that progress will be reversed—just as the Tory party is reversing history—when the Bill comes back here. We were faced with the Obscene Publications Bill, and are faced with clause 29 and the threat to the universities. Now the Government have put a gauleiter in charge of the
1244
whole caboodle. What a man! The chairman of the Arts Council becomes chairman of censorship. What has happened to the Arts Council if the same man can hold both posts? That man's job is to encourage diversity, to encourage and develop the arts, and, if necessary to challenge the world. That same man is now put in charge to prevent such a challenge. We know what will happen.
I am also appalled by the contradictions within the Government's thinking. They are deregulating broadcasting—claimed in the name of freedom—in the knowledge that it will be taken up and controlled by the rich. That will destroy standards, but then the Government set up a standards council to protect standards. If we deregulate as proposed in the Green Paper and implement Peacock, we will have a ghetto-like section called public patronage, but the rest will be sleazy pap. Having created the structures whereby the only competition will be pap, the Government establish a Broadcasting Standards Council to ensure that it is not too dirty. I fear that it will not be the frivolous dirty that is avoided; it will be the serious. When we discussed the Bill, the only example that hon. Members kept referring to were the bare buttocks in the copulation scene in "The Singing Detective". But that happens to matter. It was important that the child should observe what was happening. It was serious, and the serious will be affected by this.
When the Prime Minister was asked what her reading was, she replied that she was re-reading Freddie Forsyth. As my wife said in a recent letter in The Independent, she must be the only person in Britain who would read a who dunnit, know who dunnit and then read it again to make sure. What a standard for a Prime Minister. When the Secretary of State for Education and Science was asked whether he could name any other members of the Cabinet interested in books, he could not think until he was going out of the door, when he said, "Douglas Hurd". That is appalling. When Rees-Mogg, the man put in charge of our standards, was asked what he liked, he said that he liked "'Allo, 'Allo". I do not worry about people liking situation comedies, but I should prefer them to like good ones. We have had "Fawlty Towers", "Neighbours", or "Who Dares Wins" and Monty Python, yet he likes "'Allo, 'Allo"—an imitation of cheap west end sit-comedies of the 1930s. Incidentally, the Resistance is a suspect basis for humour. God help us all.
The word is in danger. Censorship is creeping in. Glasnost is good enough for Gorbachev, but only censorship is good enough for this Government. That is what they have brought the arts to. They have not expanded but have diminished them. I rather like the Minister for the Arts, and I should say that because it does not always sound like it. He is a good guy, but he does not always understand what he is doing. I welcome what he did for Glasgow, making it the city of culture. That is not because we have active national theatres, but because we have an active city with small groups of people busy at the Third Eye Centre, the Citizens' theatre and the People's palace doing among other things, "The Steamie". It comes from the bones—I nearly said the bricks, but it is red sandstone—of Glasgow. The Minister was right to make Glasgow the city of culture.
But the Minister is not helped by his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has announced a £140 million cash clawback from local authorities. There is no use boasting about what local authorities have done for the arts and at the same whipping back all the cash. That

1245
is a contradiction, just as Thatcherism is a contradiction. The Government deprive us of the means of maintaining standards, remove regulations which can develop diversity of opinion, and nominate a gauleiter to control the dirty bits, at the same time as they boast about what local authorities have been doing. The Minister says that they are thriving and throbbing. Even Prince Charles quotes one of our folk songs when he comes to the city. We are delighted with that, but then the Government cut the means and the wherewithal. In other words, it is a case of, "We praise you all, but we shall cut your throats."
This is a bad Government in many ways. They are bad in terms of justice and their attitude towards the poor and needy. They are a Philistine Government and it is time they went.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that unless speeches are short some hon. Members will be disappointed.
12.13 pm
Mr. Chris Butler: I apologise in advance for the fact that, as I am probably the most peripheral Tory Member present, I shall have to leave early.
The tribute that Sir Peter Hall paid to my right hon. Friend the Minister on his incentive funding settlement contrasts starkly with the words of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who painted a gloomy picture of misery and sadness. The incentive funding project is having a good effect on the arts. It is encouraging a more independent attitude. It is encouraging arts bodies to become more attuned to the audiences for which they perform, and is having an unexpected effect. It is encouraging a proper evaluation of the artistic objectives of the arts bodies. It is having a beneficial effect not only in terms of funding but in terms of the arts themselves.
A logical extension of my right hon. Friend's policy on the arts would be to move further towards an endowment funding system. This is not a new idea. Bram Stoker, the author of "Dracula", toyed with the idea in 1908 when he thought of funding a chain of theatres with endowments. Such a system would have advantages. It would give full independence to the arts bodies concerned and would allow them to plan with much more certainty.
To achieve the full advantages of endowment, the umbilical cord of current funding would need to be cut. That is essential if the Treasury is to be persuaded to shell out the great capital sums that would be needed up front. I hope that my right hon. Friend will explore further the possibilities of endowment funding. It is a natural development of the successful Conservative policies that he has put in train for the arts.
Now that my right hon. Friend has the financial structures of the arts on the right tramlines, where should he next cast his eagle eye? One of the most maddening aspects of the arts is their tendency to contemplate their navel in endless conferences about administrative structures. It rather reminds me of the Liberal party.
I notice that no Liberal or SDP Members and no SLD Members, or whatever they call themselves nowadays, are
1246
attending this important debate. As we know from constituency experience, those parties produce a large amount of paper and push it around. They produced reams of arts policy before the last election. Rather than contributing to the debate, those hon. Members are probably out seeking the leadership of their various parties.
I admit to a twinge of impatience with them and with the arts world over this contemplation of their own navel. It is right that my right hon. Friend should investigate whether the arts are over-bureaucratised. The regional arts authorities have administrative overheads of between 15 and 33 per cent., however that may be defined. Even if we agree that 15 per cent. is acceptable—I put it in the frame of National Health Service overheads of about 7 per cent.—the variation up to 33 per cent. raises questions about the administrative overheads of the regional arts authorities.
I should like to see arts structures streamlined so that administrative overheads are minimised and the artistic pay offs are maximised. There is also the question of the role of the regional arts authorities and how they interlock with the arts councils. I suspect that that relationship could best be described as one of uncreative tension. No strategic thought has been given to the way in which that relationship should develop, and there is scope for investigating how a more efficient arts structure could be devised. I have a sneaking feeling that the present structure promotes hot air rather than hot art.
One of the most pleasing developments of the past few years is the tendency for the private patron to re-emerge I gather that there are individual donations of up to £50 million to the arts. That is excellent. I should like to move further towards the American model of a giving society. One of the most welcome developments was the institution of payroll giving in the 1986 Budget. It is a small but welcome advance towards a giving society and I welcome the Chancellor's decision to double the exempt limit to £240.
The charity agencies have made a slow start, and I gather that the total throughout this year is likely to be only about £5 million. That is a lesser demand on the resources of the Treasury than I suspect was expected. The Chancellor could be far more generous with his exempt limits without blowing a hole in his Budget. I ask my right hon. Friend to have a word with him. I freely declare an interest, in that I still maintain a connection with the Charities Trust.
I am told that architecture often reflects the spirit of the age. I am glad that there are recent signs that architects have become more confident and more justly proud of their creations. Part of the new town of Runcorn is in my constituency; it has a welcome, developing community spirit, and people are proud to live there. Yet when it was originally designed, little attention was given to how humans live. The design of much of it is soulless. Access for vehicles to some of the community's areas is wholly inadequate. Some parts have no pavements and are dangerous for pedestrians. Shops are hard to find and are located in bunkers that encourage vandalism. Whole streets have structural design faults and have needed to be repaired. Play areas have been badly sited and designed, and even houses relatively far away have suffered blight as a result There are cell-like flats with portholes in them

1247
which must be difficult to live in. I gather that the architect concerned went on to great accolades afterwards, but I suspect that he would pay not to have to live in the area.
I contrast all this with my home city of Cardiff, where the architects and planners have begun to develop buildings that derive their style largely from the past— from William Burges, who designed Cardiff castle. The modern art and style that have developed in Cardiff derive much power and taste from linking with the excellence of the past. From the time when William Burges and his contemporaries crammed their buildings with artistic taste we moved to a period in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when architecture seemed chunky, artless, brutal, bald and often structurally unsound.
I remember going to see the Hancock building in Boston, Massachusetts, which was designed by I. M. Pei. At one time, that massive building, glazed all round, had to have four security guards continuously patrolling it's base with binoculars,. through which they looked up at the windows and made sure that they were not turning brown, which was the sign that they were about to fall out on the pedestrians below. One might say that that could only happen in America, but not so. Liverpool Roman Catholic cathedral, affectionately known as "Paddy's wigwam", has a £5 million repair bill. The Cambridge university history faculty, built not long ago, was recently considered for demolition. The Sainsbury centre in Norwich, built only nine years ago, has a £2 million repair bill.
No wonder Sir Peter Hall sometimes gets tetchy. After all, his National theatre building has grave architectural and design problems and he has had to use up much of his grant patching over many of those grave mistakes. Someone, some time, will have to face up to these problems and I suspect that that someone will be the unfortunate British taxpayer once again. As it stands, the building would have difficulty in being given away.
About 15 years ago, I went to Glasgow and came away frightened by it. Its gloom and grime were foreboding and I would never have thought that the city would become the European city of culture.
Glasgow has shown by determination and motivation what regions can achieve. I understand that it has recently stolen a march on the London docklands by landing the catch of the great nine-hour epic, the "Mahabharatti". It was sold out before many people who would have wished to see it in the metropolis had even heard about it. Nevertheless many of the glitterati and intelligentsia managed to make it up to Glasgow—even the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. Peter Brook was there also. I hasten to add that he is the producer, not the right hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke).
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks about Glasgow, given that I am married to a Glaswegian and live on the outskirts of the city. Despite his strictures on modern architecture, the hon. Gentleman will surely agree that not all of it is bad. For example, does he agree that the building housing the Burrell collection admirably fits into its setting within the Pollock estate?
Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I had the balance right. I was trying to say that
1248
architecture had passed through a rather unfortunate state, but it now seems to be emerging. There are good exceptions, even to the period that I was talking about.
Glasgow was quick off the mark, and proved what regions can do if they have self-confidence. On a national level, too, we are moving towards a more self-confident era. We are emerging from a time when we felt that somehow, we had lost our empire. In the 1970s, the economy passed through bankruptcy, our industrial relations were appalling, and much architecture was devoid of durability and finesse. A parade of public projects gave national investment a bad name.
I sometimes wonder whether future generations will ask, "What monuments did the 1970s and 1980s leave us?" Perhaps they will regard the British Library as an achievement. I listened to what my right hon. Friend the Minister had to say about British Library, and I listened to what he did not have to say about the it. He will not thank me for saying that, but the story of the British Library should be told to the British public, and the lessons should be learnt. It is not helpful to cover up what happened in the past or what may be happening at the moment. It is not helpful for the Department of the Environment to give a blocking response when I ask about the cost of bricklayers.
I wonder what future generations will think of us. I wonder what they will say of us in the year 2000. I am not aware of any Government plans to celebrate the millenium. I should like to see a great exhibition in the Victorian style, suitably suffused, I suppose, with modern European flavour by then. If we determine to do it now, we can do it. It will certainly be a great event. I suspect that it will be a "grand évènement" in Paris, if we do not do it. We need to get away from Opposition Members' gloom and doom. We need the kind of confidence and vision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. On 18 April, she said:
"It has been part of my great pleasure that now that spirit of community, the spirit of feeling that life is not whole unless the arts are part of it, is returning."
That kind of attitude will bring us towards the kind of society that we wish to see, and the kind of vision that will produce the kind of millenium celebration that I wish to see.
I am reminded of a certain section of "Kelly's Heroes", in which Donald Sutherland was driving a tank—he is a bit hippyish—and said: "Don't come with those negative waves, man … Positive waves, man; positive waves."
12.29 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: When the Minister for the Arts gloats to the House of Commons that the Government are spending more and more on developing the arts, it is a contradiction in itself. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, it was the Minister who complained about the welfare state mentality in the arts in Britain. Although the Minister would argue that in real terms the Government are providing more for the arts than before 1979, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made it clear that that is not true.
That is not the whole story, because when we talk about public expenditure on the arts, we must take into account the ability of local authorities to make provision for arts within their regions. As I understand it, the Office of Arts and Libraries is expecting local authorities to cut their spending on museums and libraries by 4 per cent. in

1249
1988–89—that, is, from £520 million to £500 million. Spending is to be increased by 2 per cent. in 1989–90 and by 4 per cent. in 1990–91—that is, by less than the expected level of inflation next year. In the past, local authorities have taken a lead in ensuring that there is not only provision for the arts but for ensuring that it is possible for ordinary people to enjoy their heritage.
In Merseyside, the arts are still suffering from the blow inflicted two years ago by the abolition of the Merseyside county council. That local authority spent more than any other in England, outside the Greater London council, in ensuring that the heritage, of the Merseyside region was available not only to its citizens but as an attraction for those who came to this country. Unfortunately, the Merseyside county council was a victim of the fanatical Right-wing extremist in 10 Downing street and her political bigotry and vandalism, and it has gone. Many fear for the future of the arts heritage on Merseyside, of which all those who live there are very proud.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler)—I know that he is not the hon. Member for Warrington, North, because that is in my constituency—refer to Runcorn, which is in his constituency. Most of the people in that area still look to Liverpool and Merseyside as the focal point for their recreational activity, whether it is sport, theatregoing or listening to the Royal philharmonic orchestra. I agree that Runcorn is something of a cultural desert, not because the people are not interested but because the facilities are not available. Like him, I would like to see something more done for some of the smaller areas so that they can develop their own artistic talents.
Merseyside has much to be proud of, whether we talk about the Royal philharmonic orchestra, the repertory theatre at the Playhouse, or the newer addition of the Everyman theatre. The hon. philistine Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who has now left us, chided the Opposition Front Bench Members for being the products of public schools. The school to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) went might have been publicly provided for but it was not a public school.
On Merseyside we have a creditable community theatre which stems from the working class in the area. We are proud of that. Much of the pop scene which gave Liverpool such a boost during the 1960s stemmed from working-class youngsters who took on a new art form. Some might say that they conquered the world. The art form in which the Beatles and that generation participated is well known from New York to the Soviet Union. It is as well known as Beethoven.
Liverpool museums survived the attacks by the Luftwaffe. Although the buildings in which they were housed were almost entirely destroyed in the blitz of 1941, the museums survived. They are now surviving the attacks of another enemy of the people of Merseyside, the Tory Government, who abolished the county council. They are again beginning to thrive. The Walker and Lady Lever art galleries are both great attractions to people far and wide, not only to Merseysiders. Examples of our historic past—Speke hall and Croxteth hall—are surviving, despite the
1250
attacks made upon Merseysiders who want to provide for them, and not because of the Government's antics since 1979.
It was the Merseyside county council, under the promotion of the arts by Socialists such as the late Ben Shaw and a Conservative representative on the county council, John Last, that was responsible for establishing one of the finest maritime museums in the provinces. We also have a labour, working-class history museum. These museums are thriving. They enable Merseysiders and others throughout the country and the world to acquaint themselves with the heritage of ordinary people, including the merchant navy heritage of the port of Liverpool, which gave so much to the development of Britain.
The district councils have been starved of funds over the years. Irrespective of the arguments about the programme of the Liverpool city council during the 1980s, it has been starved of rate support grant. It has lost over £300 million in RSG. Even this year it is subject to rate capping. That authority, perhaps more than any other in the country, has been positively victimised by the Government. During the past year, despite the problems of providing for social services and housing in an area where 29,000 housing needs are unmet, about £1 million of new arts money was delivered by Liverpool city council and other authorities in the area.
Liverpool city council has published a number of strategy documents on tourism, economic generation and cultural activity. All these documents emphasise the crucial role of the arts in the city's economic regeneration. These papers have highlighted the need—I stress this because it is sometimes thought that Merseyside sees things only through rose-coloured glasses—for partnership between the public and private sectors in terms of employment-led initiatives and in the training of local people.
In 1987–88, the city of Liverpool's spending on the arts rose by no less than 400 per cent. and the arts are a major component in Liverpool city council's urban programme bid for 1988–89. I hope that the Minister will look kindly at that bid and use all his endeavours to ensure that it succeeds with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that the Government will regard the whole programme with sympathy. Items in the bid in respect of the arts include provision for a proposed new media centre and a number of major training initiatives, including projects at the Playhouse and Everyman theatres as well as a number of initiatives designed to encourage more private sector investment in the region's cultural infrastructure.
The Minister mentioned the Citadel arts centre in St. Helens. That is another example of a Labour-controlled local authority working with a major private sector concern—in this case, Pilkington—where both have at heart the interests of people in the area. They have come together not just to provide for their own people but to act as a source of promotion for the area in general. Sefton district council has also contributed to the Bootle arts development programme, and both St. Helens and Sefton are providing opportunities for young people to acquire new skills in the arts. There are also many important social purposes behind those initiatives.
What have the Government done to assist the arts on Merseyside? The contrast is considerable. Merseyside Arts is not just part of the Merseyside cultural heritage but part of the national cultural heritage. Apart from London, it is

1251
significant that only in Liverpool and Merseyside is the administration of the museums and art galleries the responsibility of a body known as National Museums on Merseyside, because the museums on Merseyside are truly national.
Conservative Members who believe that subsidies should be confined to assisting their friends in the National Farmers Union should note that in subsidising the arts we are often speculating with a view to accumulating more revenue for this country. There is no doubt that Merseyside Arts is a balance of payments asset to the nation's economy. Quite apart from the interests of people involved in the arts, even a philistine would accept that there is economic advantage to be derived from tourism as a result of the invisible earnings which accrue, albeit indirectly, from the funding of the arts.
What about the Government's organisations in this sphere? The Arts Council, still chaired by Sir William Rees-Mogg, is threatening to withdraw funding from the Playhouse and Everyman theatres although those theatres are a vital part of the Merseyside arts scene and responsible for developing important youth and community programmes as well as a joint training strategy with the city council and Merseyside Arts. The Playhouse theatre, and nowadays also the Everyman theatre, are the nursery of our artists and artistes. Over the years, there have been many examples of people who began their careers in repertory in Liverpool and, indeed, those who passed through my hands in a previous incarnation who have gone on to take roles at the Everyman theatre and thence to other things. Some of them can be found in our soap opera culture, if it is fair to describe "Brookside", which is set in my constituency, as cultural. It certainly affords pleasure to millions of people and it provides jobs, which are vital to my area.
It is inconceivable that there should be any reduction in Arts Council funding to the major theatres of Liverpool. I ask the Minister to use whatever influence he has—he must have more influence than most people—to ensure that the Arts Council does not cut its funding.
May I now deal with something that will no doubt be headline news on Tuesday next week—the opening of the Tate gallery of the north. Perhaps the Minister will be there. Unfortuntely, for reasons beyond my control, I shall be unable to attend the opening. But, like the Minister, I have done a little Gulliver's travel and have seen a preview of the gallery.
No doubt there will be a fanfare of trumpets at the Albert dock next Tuesday when Prince Charles opens the gallery. I hope that it will be more successful than some of the Merseyside development corporation's previous ventures. The Minister may have heard of Transworld, which was supposed to transform the international garden festival—until it went bankrupt. He may have heard of the recent proposal to build a private hospital on the Albert dock site, which was to be developed by someone who was recently described by a judge as a con man. But that is another story.
We believe that we can make a success of the Tate. The Government provided £5 million towards converting the old Albert dock buildings. The Office of Arts and Libraries contributed £500,000, and private sources contributed £2 million towards the first phase of conversion, and another £3 million needs to be raised for the second phase. But that is a one-off expenditure. If the Tate gallery is to be more than a cosmetic exercise, so that the Government, and
1252
expecially the Prime Minister, can say, "We are doing something for the inner cities," we must tackle the problem of revenue funding. The Office of Arts and Libraries has provided a £700,000 budget, and the Tate hopes to raise £350,000 through sponsorship. It is the inverse of the ratio to which the Minister referred, with £2 of public money for every £1 of private money. But the Tate bid for £1·4 million. It will open on 24 May and it is already underfunded.
The building has three floors. The ground floor will contain a collection, the first floor will be used for exhibitions, and the second floor will also be used for collections. But even before it has opened, the gallery proposes to close the first floor in September. The exhibition programme will be cut only four months after the gallery opens. Exhibitions are essential to art galleries. They are the major form of promotion. They help to pay for many ancillaries such as the bookshops, the reading rooms and the coffee shops.
I understand that even before it opens, the Tate gallery in Liverpool has had to cut its staff by 12. When it opens next Tuesday it will employ 45 staff. Half will be security staff, and half will be involved in the programme. The level of unemployment on Merseyside was reflected in the fact that, when 20 jobs at the Tate gallery were advertised, there were no fewer than 600 applicants.
The present funding allows no staff for a reading room, which is a vital part of an art gallery in the centre of a major city. It was hoped that there would be a community van. Like most export industries—this is one of them—there must be a sound domestic base. There is every reason that the new Tate gallery should contribute to education in Liverpool and Merseyside. It was proposed that there should be a community van as a major commitment to the region. That idea is now being scrapped because there is no money to staff it. That is a deplorable situation. If the Minister has a real commitment to the arts, not only in London but in the regions, I expect that he will take That problem on board and ensure that that major part of the planning of the Tate gallery of the north can be carried through.
There is a need for more baseline funding if the Tate of the north is to be anything more than a one-week wonder. I understand that 11 more staff are required to carry through the commitment to the community van, if there is to be a reading room open to the public, and that about £1·5 million—not the £700,000 budgeted for by the OAL—will be needed for real viability.
I agree with much that has been said by Opposition Members, and indeed by one or two of the comments made by Conservative Members, but I believe that if there is to be a real revolution in the arts, and that the talents of our people are to be shown—it is wrong to say that it is all a public school ideology and that working-class people are not interested in the arts.
When the Liverpool trades council, the oldest trades council in the country, celebrated its 125th anniversary in 1972, there was a huge exhibition of working-class art, presided over by Vic Feather, who was then the General Secretary of the TUC, and we saw the amount of talent of working people. Such talent must not be wasted. It will be wasted unless there is a real commitment, not a philistine commitment, to the arts in this country. I hope that it will not be very long before we can say that there are more dinosaurs in the Natural History museum than there are on the Government Front Bench.
12.53 pm
Mr. Gerald Bowden: My right hon. Friend the Minister should be congratulated on securing this opportunity in Government time to debate the arts and to give us an opportunity to parade and indulge our preferences and prejudices.
An earlier intervention reminded me of an occasion some 30 years ago when I was a student in Venice. I resented not one jot paying out of my meagre allowance to enter the galleries to look at the Tintorettos and the other paintings.
During that time, I became rather ill and I had to go to a doctor. I was surprised that in the doctor's waiting room—unlike that of my own doctor in London where there were fading and peeling posters stuck up on the walls with sellotape—there were a number of modern Venetian pictures. Those people who were waiting for their consultation were seen to be critically examining the pictures on the wall. There was no doubt that those pictures had a benign and therapeutic effect on those waiting to be treated. I suppose that it was similar to the philosophy that dentists should have fish swimming around in tanks to relax patients.
Thirty years later I went to my own doctor in a not very smart part of London, and I found hanging on his waiting room walls pictures of local London scenes, painted, I think, by local artists. They were not great works of art, but they were originals. I felt that we had taken a long time to get to where we realised that art was not just something in galleries, but something that was all around us—even in doctors' waiting rooms; and that there is nothing immoral about paying to see art in galleries or improper about doctors putting some of their practice profits into providing material to amuse, entertain and distract their patients while they wait for a consultation.
The debate has emphasised that art is somehow in a category of its own. It is a sacred shrine that can be attended only by those who have some business to be there. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) in his rather grudging and perhaps carping speech referred once or twice to the "art world". I am reminded of Bacon, who, in the 17th century, started an essay by saying:
"What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
I am glad that the hon. Member remains for a moment. In a somewhat carping speech, he referred on several occasions to the art world: the art world is offended by what the Minister is doing; the art world is affronted by the Government; and the art world is insulted by the priorities. Will the hon. Member tell us who that art world is? Who are this cosy coterie of self-regarding people who pronounce in the public prints about what should or should not be regarded as art, where it should be found and how we should react to it?
Mr. Fisher: The people I was referring to are artists, administrators and audiences all over the country.
Mr. Bowden: I am delighted that the hon. Member included audiences in that group. If it were merely artists and administrators, it would be a limited way of looking at this problem.
1254
We have a problem in the House with keeping in touch with the arts. Our duties here and the structure of our timetable means that we are often unable to attend when the performing arts are most readily available. I place on record my gratitude to the caring Whip, who recently made great efforts to allow me to be absent from my duties in the House to attend a magnificent gala performance of "Ondine" at Covent Garden. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is not here, because I make an offer to him now that, if ever the occasion should arise again when we can persuade the caring Whip to let us both go to the opera, I shall willingly pay the price of his ticket. I am sure that the performance that I saw a week last Monday could not fail to touch even his heart.
I think that there is a place for such a pinnacle of excellence as the royal opera house, Covent Garden provides. It provides a focal point for the arts in London and sets a standard of excellence by which other enterprises can be judged.
At the same time, we should look at the opportunities and challenges that are arising now. For example, there are changes and, as I said, nothing is secure within its boundaries. The arts flow into every area of our public debate. As hon. Members are aware, reforms are taking place in the structure of the Inner London education authority. Some institutions which have previously been supported by ILEA are slightly uncertain about their future. However, such threats and challenges bring forth their own response.
It is interesting to note that one of the lesser but very much treasured galleries in London, the Horniman museum, which provides a great educational function and a great source of amusement, entertainment and information for many people in south-east London and south-east England generally, is responding to the uncertainty about its future by forming its own group of friends. Such public involvement when official state involvement decreases is to be welcomed because it acknowledges that such institutions are not solely the preserve and the product of the state, but belong to the public at large and should be supported actively, and funded, by those who use them.
Alongside the Horniman museum, which is just outside my constituency, there is another, rather more interesting saga of municipal involvement with the theatre. Opposition Members have told us how important it is that there should be support from local authorities and the Government—and everybody else except perhaps the individual—in promoting the arts. I wonder whether, in any other country, a local authority which had the site of Shakespeare's playhouse, the Globe, would not only have been so neglectful of that fact but have set its face like flint deliberately to obstruct a privately funded reconstruction of that theatre, as Southwark council has done over the years. That says volumes in praise of Sam Wanamaker—an American who has come to this country, has helped us to protect our heritage and who has raised, from private finance, the means by which the Globe can be reconstructed on that site. That is an example to all of us of what could and should be done.
If we can release the arts world from its shackles of municipal and state funding—I accept that that must play a part—and if it can find independence elsewhere, the arts in this country will be much healthier.

1255
I want to touch briefly on one other aspect. The question of marketing the arts has arisen from time to time in the debate. There is a case for making sure that the marketing of the arts is done as professionally as possible. We should retain primacy in the art market in this country. Again, we trespass on Treasury territory, because as I understand it, the provisions of VAT may severely prejudice the way in which we enjoy the benefits of the fine art market being based in London. If the Treasury does not take account of its proposals in that sphere, we may well lose that real source of income for this country if the market goes to Japan, America or continental Europe.
Even more important than the financial aspect is the fact that we need to ensure that art marketing, the way in which we present the arts and the way in which we auction and sell artefacts and works of art, remains in this country, and primarily in London.
It is important to consider the broader aspect of the development of the arts to ensure that the conservation, preservation and presentation of art is improved in the future. That takes us back to education. Over the years our art schools have been very successful in producing innovative artists. It is important to ensure that our arts and crafts schools are equally confident in the future of being able to produce people who can restore, gild, frame and reconstruct, all of which are necessary support services that flourishing visual and performing arts require. In that context, we need to regard the arts not only as that special preserve and secret garden owned and tended by the arts world, but as a wider world of arts practitioners and those involved in the support services.
The debate gives us the opportunity to express our confidence in the future. The Government are approaching matters in a sensible way to ensure that support and interest in the arts is generated from a wider field. I welcome the opportunity to exchange vigorous opinions, which have added colour to our debate.
1.6 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish to confine my remarks to the Scottish arts, but in that connection, with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), I thank the Minister for his part in naming Glasgow as city of culture 1990. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would readily acknowledge that that decision was partly in response to Glasgow's importance and vitality as a city of the arts.
The Minister praised the Arts Council for, among other things, its imaginative and sensitive decision-making. There is a good deal of truth in such observations. However, the Scottish Arts Council's decision to withdraw revenue funding from the 7:84 theatre company is appallingly unimaginative and dreadfully insensitive. I assure the House that Scottish audiences will not allow that company to perish. It enjoys an excellent reputation, in Scotland and south of the border, and theatregoers will be disheartened by that daft decision.
The Scottish Arts Council has made several criticisms in reaching its decisions. First, it claimed that there was weakness in the board in terms of the financial and business expertise. Secondly, it claimed that the financial and administrative management of the company left a great deal to be desired. Thirdly, it criticised the company's artistic standards. The first two criticisms are not altogether without foundation, although I dispute the
1256
third criticism about the company's artistic standards. A couple of weeks ago John McGrath, the artistic director of the company, said:
"We are prepared to take the Scottish Arts Council's criticisms and concerns very seriously and act positively to fulfil their requirements."
That is a sensible and welcome response to the daft decision taken by the Scottish Arts Council.
A new chairman, Mr. Bill Speirs of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, has been appointed to the company. I remind the House that the STUC has a fine history and an excellent reputation for sponsoring the arts. John McGrath has also recently announced the appointment of Miss. Jo Beddoe to the post of general manager. She is a much respected and highly experienced theatre administrator whose theatrical experience includes employment at the Liverpool Playhouse, the Royal Court and the National theatre. I have no doubt that she will eradicate any of the weaknesses in the administration of the company that have been outlined by the Scottish Arts Council.
The company's artistic standard—I have seen many of its productions—is second to none. I think of the "The Cheviot," "The Stag," "The Black, Black Oil," "Blood Red Roses," "The Almanack," and "The Game's a Bogey." Those plays are well known to audiences throughout Scotland. The company also has a first-class reputation as a touring company from Dumfries to Stornoway and from Kirkwall to Lerwick. It is also well known in Europe and even south of the border.
On Tuesday an article in the Glasgow Herald, written by Carl Gordon, said:
"The 7:84 Theatre Company, warned recently by the Scottish Arts Council that its total funding is to be withdrawn from next April, hit back yesterday with an announcement that it has broken an advance ticket sales record with its current production. By yesterday afternoon tickets worth £34,271 had been sold for this week's performance of No Mean City at the King's Theatre in Glasgow and only a few seats were still available."
My wife tells me that it is now impossible to buy one. Because of that demand, Mr. Gordon says:
"7:84 is putting on the play for a further three weeks at the Citizens' Theatre from June 28."
The company is also well known for its adaptations and revivals of old plays by George Munro, Ena Lamont Stewart, Ewan MacColl and Joe Corrie. In that regard, the company not only has a Scottish reputation, but an international one. It is also one of the few companies that works in a variety of non-naturalistic styles.
I assure the House that the company has a high reputation in many of our more remote communities where the opportunities for visiting the theatre and seeing some of the classic plays and others of a more radical, political content are few. I hope that the Scottish Arts Council will rescind its decision in the light of the changes already undertaken by the 7: 84 company and those that John McGrath has promised to introduce. If that decision is rescinded it would be a fine gesture and win the approval of thousands of ordinary Scottish people.
Some hon. Gentlemen, in their philistine interventions, have talked about the theatregoer as a member of a small elite. They know nothing about Scotland because our theatres are enormously popular with ordinary people both in the urban industrial areas and in the small crating and fishing communities. I am not here to speak for a small theatre-going elite who live in the west end of Glasgow or Edinburgh's new town.

1257
I remind the House when I talk about the involvement of trade unionists in the arts in Scotland that when the Scottish Trades Union Congress decided to pay tribute to its then general secretary, the late Jimmy Milne, it did not buy him a bottle or case of whisky; it sponsored a concert of his favourite music and included in it a new composition. It was performed by the Scottish National orchestra in the city halls in Glasgow. Therefore, I am speaking on behalf of ordinary people in Scotland when I say that this company must continue to contribute to our theatrical activities. Incidentally, I do not know whether the TUC will pay a similar tribute to Norman Willis. That is up to the TUC.
Mr. Buchan: That is an interesting point. There is every reason why the TUC should do something like that for Norman Willis, unlike for the chairman of the chamber of commerce.
Dr. Godman: I confess that I am not as erudite as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), nor as well read. I have just been reading again some of Edwin Muir's poetry. I do not know the poetry written by Mr. Willis, but I promise to put that right in the near future.
The STUC was the first TUC to appoint a full-time arts officer and that in turn eventually led to the Mayfest which is under way. Many of the productions are played to capacity houses in Glasgow's theatres and in community centres. Strathclyde regional council—80 out of its 89 councillors are Labour—commissioned several compositions from Peter Maxwell-Davies, so there is involvement in the arts and concern for the well-being of 7:84.
The excellent reputation enjoyed by 7:84 is shown by Glasgow city council helping it to find premises in Glasgow. I only wish that the company would locate itself in Greenock or Port Glasgow, but the chances of that are slim.
The Scottish Arts Council has made a grievous mistake. I hope that its members have the generosity of spirit to make amends to 7:84 and its wide audience.
1.17 pm
Mr. John Bowis: This has been something of a Glasgow-dominated debate, but having visited that splendid city and seen its Burrell collection I understand hon. Gentlemen's pride in their city and its achievements.
The debate has been largely interesting and occasionally quirky. I am not pointing a finger in any direction, largely because the person to whom I would point it has gone. There has been the usual repartee between the parties. In this sort of debate it is largely about how fast, how far and, possibly, how—as the ends are broadly agreed. Therefore, one relies on the other oppositions to add spice to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who has now unfortunately left us, certainly provided that. It was pointed out that the third party has not put in an appearance today. Judging by the first draft of this new party's new policy, I suspect that my hon. Friend could happily have written the section relating to the arts and that it would have been adopted without further thought.
1258
His contribution was a sort of blend of Savonarola and Enid Blyton and, as is always the case in his contribution to arts debates, it was enjoyable. My right hon. Friend the Minister spoke about the theatres, operas and so on that he had visited. I hastily consulted my diary to see where I had been in the past few weeks. I, too, can claim a visit to Chichester for the opening of this year's festival season, which was a good production of "Hay Fever".
Chichester festival is an entirely self-supporting enterprise. It receives no funds from the Arts Council or the county or district council, but it has proved very successful in obtaining finance through sponsorship as well as by ticket sales. That is an excellent example of what can be done at the level of excellence that Chichester represents. That would not be possible for many other arts. It is not that they are not excellent, but they are not in the same sort of situation.
The Latchmere theatre in my constituency runs on a shoestring and looks for support through sponsorship or by way of assistance such as publicity from the local council. My diary also contains a record of visits to the Royal Academy summer exhibition. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who has slipped out for a moment, will no doubt pop in there because there he can see Sir William Rees-Mogg hanging. I got the impression from the hon. Gentleman's speech that that is the way he would like to see Sir William.
I visited the London Sinfonietta in its new residence at Kingston polytechnic and the National Puppet theatre at Battersea arts centre. That centre is a national resource in south London. I also attended a performance of a musical version of "The Pied Piper" at one of my local primary schools. Finally, I opened a new resource video centre for the disadvantaged at the Balham hill gallery.
In following my right hon. Friend's example by looking through my diary, I see a thread of the arts which is perhaps a thread to this debate. The thread of our interest in the arts is a cross-party link and shows just what the arts can achieve and how deeply into our society the arts can and should go. I hope that the arts will continue to receive the support from across our society that they deserve.
Sometimes when one listens to Opposition speeches one is inclined to recognise, enjoy and have an empathy with certain passions. Some of the passions relate to bygone years, in terms of what people can afford to contribute. I do not say that in any slighting way. One must recognise the increasing wealth in society and its increasing spread and say that we can achieve some of the objectives so passionately expressed in new and different ways, occasionally cheaper to the taxpayer.
I enjoyed the speech by the right hon. Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Foot). I suppose that in Byronic terms he is the Childe of Harold. I will not speak about the many friends of the right hon. Gentleman who seem to end up in Moscow. He wisely spoke about the use of English and the connection between English and the arts in relation to universities. As it develops, our language is very much the mirror of our developing arts heritage. The two intertwine and, of course, there is an international dimension to the arts and to our language.
No Government, be it national or local, can opt out of the arts. I would say that to my right hon. Friend if he were here and I shall say it to him on many occasions in future. Governments can contribute to poor quality in the arts. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who opened the debate for the Opposition, spoke

1259
about the arts flourishing despite the Government. As someone has said, that must be right; the arts must flourish despite Government. If the arts become so dependent on Government that they can flourish only with Government involvement, they will become stifled.
I do not want to take that too far: there must be Government support for the arts, but they must not depend on it completely. It may be a sign of the success of an arts policy if the arts can flourish, as some of my hon. Friends might put it, without the Government. There will always be a need for the link; it is, perhaps, a question of terminology.
Governments can harm the arts. Buildings must be built, but a good architect will design something that is pleasing and lasting. A poor one may save money in the short term, but at the expense of the environment. The same is true when the Government are the customers of the arts. One can scrimp and save, but the end product will not last or be of good quality, and ultimately the next generation will not bless us for it. That goes for the grants system, the tax system, and the planning system.
At a time when the Government are seeking to raise standards of education with the national curriculum and other aspects of the Education Reform Bill, this is not the moment to say that the Government have no role in raising standards in the arts. The two must go together; if we want a better educated society we must include the arts as part of that education.
Of course the public purse is not bottomless. Far too many people never go to a theatre or exhibition hall from one year to the next, although they would be sorely disappointed if, as a result of their non-attendance and the Government's non-subvention, every theatre that they passed was full of Paul Raymond's frolics. The other side of the coin is that there is a limit to which the taxpayer who does not interest himself in the arts will go. That is why we have to encourage other sources of funding—ticket sales, quality of performance, and encouraging private patronage are all important.
Just as the barons of yesterday saw it as their duty to support the arts, so we must encourage the barons of today to do likewise. I think particularly of companies, who can do more to sponsor performances and exhibitions. The same is true of the trade unions, with their massive resources. Perhaps we cannot quite envisage Harold Pinter taking up an arts residency in Congress house, but we can at least encourage the unions to sponsor the arts—particularly the community arts.
I know that the television companies are great sponsors of the arts by producing what they do. However, there is a problem with sponsorship by those companies. If they want to show a massive production at, say, Covent Garden, there is an undeniable cost. Covent Garden has its own sponsors, but under the IBA rules the television companies are precluded from talking to Covent Garden's sponsors—or those of Glyndebourne or the National theatre—to work out a quid pro quo under which the name of the sponsor could be highlighted on the credits of the televised version. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts could examine that problem with the broadcasting authorities to see whether IBA rules could be adapted to take into account the modern needs of the television companies. I am sure that we all want them to continue supporting the arts.
Without state sponsorship, national and local, large areas of the arts would remain out in the cold. These
1260
include the prestige productions of major opera and ballet companies, new forms of the arts, the arts in poorer and remote parts of the country, and the range of community arts. I believe the Government have a good record of funding the arts, and any Minister who has achieved for the first time three-year funding at the level that my right hon. Friend has achieved can be proud of what has been contributed to the arts.
One must be conscious of major companies' continuing need for Government sponsorship to enable them to do more than just put on big performances in London, but to take quality productions to the regions and abroad. There will be economic spin-offs for the country if that is done.
Meagre increases have gone to national companies. This year, the figure reached the dizzy height of a 2·5 per cent. increase for English National Opera. In some cases, there was a zero increase. We must examine whether the 25 per cent. cut that the ENO has suffered since 1979 is right. The ENO has done what the Government and I would ask it to do. It has gone out and got sponsorship. To a considerable extent, needs are not the same as they were in 1979. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend knows, there are obstacles. One obstacle is the incentive scheme limitations, whereby the limit is £250,000 in every fourth year. For a large company such as ENO, the grant increase is a mere 1 per cent. per year, however successful it is in raising private sector money.
A small adjustment could be made to encourage even more self-sufficiency among companies. But for English National Opera and its sister company, the London Festival Ballet, as my right hon. Friend knows, there is a much more important obstacle. It is the continuing inability of the Department of the Environment to resolve how they are to receive the money that, after the end of the GLC, was channelled through Westminster city council. Come the new local government finance system, that money will not be able to be channelled through Westminster city council.
The sum involved is not peanuts. In the case of English National Opera, it is about 9 per cent. of its income. For the London Festival Ballet, it is some 23 per cent. of its income. They are major items of expenditure, and they are preventing both companies from planning ahead. When a company has shown that it is willing to get sponsorship, that it can sell tickets, and put on quality productions, Parliament has a duty to respond. It is not the reponsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, but I urge him to put pressure on his colleagues from the Department of the Environment to get the matter put right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) briefly referred to the Horniman museum—I have taken an interest in it through the Education Reform Bill and in the Geffrye museum. We were pleased that, the other day, an announcement was made in the other place that funding is to be secured and that there will be national status for those museums. But it is not total national museum status, and funding is on a temporary basis through the London Residuary Body. The matter needs to be fleshed out a little if those museums are to have confidence in their future. My right hon. Friend the Minister is keen that they should have that confidence. In this case, it is a matter of his talking to his colleagues in the Education Department to ensure that the matter is put right.

1261
Politicians are not the best people to run the arts. We should leave it to bodies such as the Arts Council. We can always keep a safety net by appointing some bodies. The arm's-length approach is correct. Nevertheless, there is a need for a framework.
I declare an interest as a patron of the pub theatre network. These are the club theatres, which are small theatres which produce a lot of good and innovative work on a small scale to small audiences, and which answer a real need. Unfortunately, no set of rules governs them, so when local authorities inspect them to see whether they are meeting the requirements of the law, they are not sure by which rules to judge them.
The local authorities can look at the licensing Acts and say that as it is a club, it must be a drinking club. Occasionally, one gets drinks in pub theatres—surprise, surprise—so they are clobbered by rules designed for drinking clubs. Those rules are there not to protect the public from plays but to protect minors from alcoholism. That needs to be brought into line, particularly as the 48-hour requirement for membership of drinking clubs bears no relation to the needs of a pub theatre.
Club theatres can get clobbered under the cinema club rules, which are there to protect the public from obscenity and bear no relation to the small club theatre. Alternatively, they get clobbered under the licensed theatre rules, which are designed for theatres with a capacity of 150 to 200—rather than 25—and for separate buildings. I know that my right hon. Friend has taken this on board in the past, and I ask him to press the matter, particularly in the light of the current case with the Man in the Moon, which is having problems with its local council of Kensington. Because there are no guidelines or rules on health and safety for these theatres, they should be brought into our artistic life in a structured way as soon as possible.
We have been looking at the arts in general, and have picked up many themes. One is that the more that we can encourage participation in the arts, the more we shall contribute to society. The people who find fulfilment out of discovering their ability in the arts are the people who find self-confidence in their life as well. It may be that they are unemployed or have been in prison or are simply bored. However, if they can find a fulfilment through the arts, they will not be a problem to society. They will not be the vandals of tomorrow. The more that we can do through art in education, not just teaching it but using it, and the more we can do to enable people to participate, the better the society that we shall have to leave to the next generation.
The role of Governments in the arts is a delicate and critical one. It is one of nurturing, encouraging and sponsoring, of intervention without interference, of not controlling but not ignoring. If the Government can find the right balance between fostering by the state and letting children grow tall in the arts, they will have contributed greatly to the well-being of the nation, today and for future generations.
1.38 pm
Mr. David Martin: I have sat through the debate from the opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I was pleased to hear him
1262
say how important arts are in enriching society. I endorse the closing remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) about the importance of the arts to the nation and to all citizens, not just some sections of society.
In that respect, I would quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) who gave us the benefit of his wisdom in these matters. It has been suggested by a Minister, who had to take Trappist vows when he became a Minister—he is not in the Chamber—that when my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) becomes Prime Minister and forms his first Administration—something we are promised by various opinion polls in the media—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington can be the Minister for the Arts. We shall then see a change of direction. We shall see Mr. Average Citizen getting a far greater slice of the action within the arts than my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington asserts is now the position.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that the arts are vital to society and are in the finest tradition of any civilization, including Greece, Rome and Egypt. The arts have played an important part in all civilizations and I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister underlining their importance in his opening speech. His speech contrasted greatly with that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). The hon. Gentleman said that the Government's record on the arts is miserable and claimed that the Government have done nothing. I considered the Newcastle speech to be full of sound wisdom, but the hon. Gentleman thought it to be an unhappy one.
When listening to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, having heard my right hon. Friend the Minister, I was reminded of something that Burke said of Sheridan and his style of speaking. Burke said that his style was something between poetry and prose, and better than either. The style of the hon. Gentleman was something between dirge and lament, and worse than both. Much has been done by the Government for the arts that has been entirely positive. There is much to highlight rather than to complain about.
I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in his place. I am looking forward to reading his work on Byron. I sat opposite him in the Library the other day when he removed it from an enormous envelope and began to read it himself. I think that he was being far too modest. I am sure that there will be many readers of his work and that he had no need to sit in the Library and read it himself. Perhaps he will give me a signed copy for mentioning it in my speech and seeking to promote its reading.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent mentioned Byron, and I noted what he said about the ignorance, as he sees it, that is suppressing the celebration of Byron's 200th anniversary. He said that the event may be censored and that perhaps Britain is going through what Macaulay described as one of its periodic fits of morality. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that happens. I remember reading about Oscar Wilde's experiences in the 1890s. Even after he had been prosecuted and found guilty of offences, his plays were being shown in London. What did the theatre managers do? They did not take off the plays. Instead, they removed his name from them, and they appeared anonymously from then onwards. Maybe the

1263
same sort of thing will happen to Byron. I am sure, however, that, with the handling of the right hon. Gentleman, the reputation of Byron will be firmly re-established in the life of the nation. When we come to the 300th anniversary—with the right hon. Gentleman's longevity he might even be around for that—there may well be a different attitude towards Byron. I value hearing the contributions of the right hon. Gentleman because we are all aware of his civilised and well-read ways, which enable him to make such a significant contribution to our debates. I was privileged to hear the latest offering.
I have mentioned the contribution that the arts make to any civilised society and I have referred to Greece and Rome. The Emperor Tiberius established what was called a controller of pleasures. Perhaps that palm might be carried in the Government somewhere between my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Sport and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. It will please my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea when I say that the Emperor Tiberius, when talking about taxation, said that a good shepherd sheared his flock but did not flay it. There is no doubt that the marrying of private sponsorship and Government funding must be the way forward, without undue emphasis on either. Without both the Government and the private sector being interested in the future of the arts, we shall not have what we want to see. That applies to London and the provinces. I say that especially bearing in mind the area of Portsmouth that I represent.
Portsmouth has a great future in arts and museums. Its museums also have a great past. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) regards charging for entry to museums as disgraceful, but in Portsmouth there is a charge now for visiting HMS Victory, and the Mary Rose also attracts many visitors. As we have heard, charges have been introduced at the National Maritime museum in London and attendance has increased. I see nothing inimical to attendance in the making of modest charges, which add to the total funding and to the attractions and experience enjoyed by people, young and old, rich and poor, when they go to see the exhibits.
The young are given particular encouragement in the museums of Portsmouth. Little has been said in the debate so far about the encouragement of the young, especially in crafts, decorative arts and furniture making. There is sometimes insufficient support and appreciation of that aspect. I see nothing wrong in charging for exhibitions, but some help is essential to encourage young people, especially nowadays when there is the need to find jobs and to acquire many more skills. Skills in the arts must also be encouraged. At present, we rely on sponsorship and those who organise exhibitions have a constant battle to keep going. There is nothing wrong with that, but arts council grants are still vital. Without overdoing it, funding of that kind helps to promote schemes that we regard as important.
The conservation of buildings will always take up a good deal of the budget. We have inherited many beautiful historic buildings which need to he maintained at all times and it is a constant struggle to do so. In that respect, Portsmouth is no exception. Southsea castle dates from the time of Henry VIII and needs continual attention to keep it in good repair. Talking of the need for sponsorship and advertising to arouse people's interest, before I was elected to Parliament I recall seeing an advertisement in the London Underground encouraging people to visit the
1264
Tower of London. It carried a picture of Henry VIII asking for a return ticket to the Tower of London with graffiti underneath it saying, "And a single for the wife." I thought that that was an excellent promotion. We must promote the attractions of Southsea castle and those of other cities, not just those in London. I see no justification for making a distinction between one part of the country and another in terms of the importance of the arts.
I understand that the Arts Council also funds musical events and orchestras. The training of young people is equally important in this respect, and I am glad to see that there is to be increased emphasis on arts and music in our schools as a result of the Government's education reforms. It is extremely important to promote and encourage music. I have not yet heard the harpist playing in the Harcourt Room, but I look forward to the experience. I understand that there are no harpists provided in the House of Lords, perhaps because their Lordships are closer to the eternal harps than most of us are. I also look forward to seeing the promotions of the art festivals and orchestras that the Arts Council is so good at promoting and assisting.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister said today about helping and promoting the arts, which are important. The right balance has been struck between private sponsorship and Government funding. I hope that the arts will continue to be encouraged and that everyone will understand their importance to the nation.
1.49 pm
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I apologise to the House for my intermittent appearances in the debate. This was due to a constituency problem.
There is a great artistic tradition in Wimbledon. Wimbledon school of art is recognised nationally and internationally as a centre of excellence in fine art and, more markedly, in theatre design, covering sets and wardrobes. I take special pleasure in seeing the artistic expression in the school reflected in practical applications, but there is some uncertainty about its future funding. In its wisdom, Merton borough council has given the school enormous support over the years, but if it is to fall under the wing of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, I should appreciate an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the school will not lose any independence. There should be no link between funding and the independence of a centre of excellence which I hope will celebrate its centenary next year.
The Polka theatre in Wimbledon is a unique institution. It is a purpose-built theatre for children. We are lucky to have had it for about 10 years. Not only does it put on magnificent performances, but it has been a pioneer in providing artistic stimulation for handicapped children. As handicapped children are vulnerable in their special ways, so the Polka theatre is vulnerable. I hope that, through the Arts Council and other channels, my right hon. Friend will recognise that small really is beautiful, and that I have just mentioned two instances of it in my constituency.
To continue the theatrical theme, over the years I have researched the artistic works of a forebear of mine, George Clint. He was an artist, mainly in the theatrical world, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. His works grace the walls of the Garrick club. This morning I have seen hon.

1265
Members wearing that distinctive—even fluorescent—tie. I hope that they appreciate his works. He has been compared favourably with Zoffany in the past.
The point of mentioning George Clint was that I had immense difficulty finding one of his works, entitled "Falstaff and Mistress Ford". As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I floated down the Thames last night we must have passed the site—the announcement was in The Times today—of Sir John Falstaff's, or, to be historically more correct Sir John Fastog's house. I was told that the painting was owned by the National gallery, but after a long search it decided that it did not have it. I ended up at the Tate gallery, which admitted that it kept the painting. I asked to see it, and the gallery said that it would require notice. Notice was duly given, and some months later I was told that the painting was reposing in a warehouse in Acton.
I have not had the opportunity to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), so I do not know how large the warehouse is or what is in it, but it worries me to think of how many other paintings that are part of our national heritage, which have either been acquired by the nation of have been left to the nation by benefactors, are hidden from public view. One wonders whether full use is made of what may be undiscovered works of brilliance.
I should be most grateful if my right hon. Friend could say something about the Government's policy on—to use a not very appropriate phrase—recycling works of art. This came to mind when I saw a portrait of King James II in the office of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I suggested that perhaps in the tercentenary of the glorious revolution he would recycle that painting for some other work. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal would have any difficulty in replacing that work of art, but I would very much welcome some sign that he is aware of the problem. He may well be the custodian of a repository of much of our national heritage that is not available to the public.
I endorse the Government's policy of making art more available to the public. I welcome the Government's measures towards that end, and I look forward to my right hon. Friend's response to the more general, and perhaps also the parochial, points that I have raised.
1.56 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: One thing on which we are all agreed today is that we must congratulate the Minister on securing a debate on the arts. Even the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who has gone for an early bath, would join in those congratulations.
I have been fascinated by the debate, as I always am by arts debates. They are good, they are amusing, in certain respects they are learned, and, of course, they are totally devoid of crowd violence, which makes them a very unusual activity in this place. I was particularly fascinated by the list of places that the Minister had visited—his artistic odyssey. I was sitting there thinking what a lovely job he has and how much we look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) being in that position in the not-too-distant future.
1266
I should have liked the Minister to add to that odyssey by visiting my constituency in Newham to see "The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropist" at the Theatre Royal. I invited him to attend that excellent play, which had full audiences throughout the run. I even threw him the inducement of having a vegetable vindaloo—a real East End bum burner—in my constituency, but he declined. He said that he would come along at a later date; I shall hold him to that because we want him to see what we do in the London borough of Newham.
The Minister made great play with the level of Government spending on the arts. Much will depend on how the figures are interpreted, and what elements are included as to whether one considers that it has gone up or down in real terms. I am satisfied that, even with the welcome increase for this year, we are still not quite back to the level of 1979. That cannot be acceptable. It is completely unacceptable to add abolition money. After all, the Government were replacing, after considerable pressure, what they had effectively removed by the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils.
I shall not go over old ground too often, but I must remind the Minister that when I was the arts chair of the GLC, we increased the arts budget fourfold in real terms in fewer years and we would have continued to increase arts expenditure. Of course, what will happen is that the abolition money will effectively disappear as an identifiable part of the Arts Council budget, which means that the arts will lose that much more.
When one comes to look at the figures, everything is relative. We have heard how much money the Minister has won for the arts. I shall not pour scorn on him. I shall not say that that is an appalling indictment of his period in office. We must welcome everything that we can get. However, putting it into perspective, £362 million, which is the budget for the Office of Arts and Libraries for the current year, is about one third of 1 per cent. of the total central Government spending for 1988–89. That is £6·39 per head of the population. When one compares that expenditure with that of West Germany, where it is three times greater, or of France, where it is four times greater, one realises that public investment in the arts in this country does not stand favourable comparison with many other countries.
A number of hon. Members have asked, "Why spend money on the arts?", and different conclusions have been reached. I say that money should be spent on the arts because it is one of the finest forms of public investment that any country can make. I emphasise the word "investment" because it is an investment in the activities of people at their very best, whether as creators or enjoyers of art. We must continue to say "investment" because it is a "good guy" world. It means that we are seeing a return on the money that we put into something. We do not subsidise the arts, we invest in them. We subsidise farmers. We do not hear many complaints from Conservative Members about that subsidy. We subsidise defence, but we invest in education and the arts. I am still waiting for the terminology on public expenditure to be properly addressed in the House.
How is any age remembered? Often the unpleasant reality of everyday life recedes as one gets further from it. The suffering of the poor, the diseases and the wars all recede and we are left with the lasting monuments of any age. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr.

1267
Martin) mentioned buildings, but we are also left with the paintings, the sculptures, the music and the literature. Those are the legacies from past ages that we admire. Those are the bases on which we shall be judged. We shall be judged on what we have created within our society. I think that the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) touched on that point as well. We shall not be remembered for the obsolete weapons of death and mass destruction; we shall be judged by our art forms.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) plays the court jester in many respects in our arts debates, but he is nevertheless welcome. His muscular approach to the arts is well known. I remember the statement that he made on a television programme about Pavarotti being an overweight Italian—which he has said again today. He said also that the ballet was something for poofters in leotards. That was the level of his contribution on that occasion. He is to the arts what The Sun is to English literature, or what the A-Team is to embroidery.
However, what the hon. Gentleman was saying about selling off art treasures is only a logical extension of the Government's economic policy. I am surprised that he was so quickly rejected by his hon. Friends. It might be that it is only the more enlightened Conservative Members who now confront us, but I am sure that there are many members of the Cabinet who would support the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in his call for art treasures to be sold off. We are selling off the silver in terms of the socially owned industries. It will only be a matter of time before the Government start ransacking the British Museum to see what else they can sell off. What the hon. Member was saying had a ring of horrible portent.
There is also some truth in what the hon. Member said about the contrasting ways in which we approach public support for different leisure activities. I join hands with him on the question of why we should regard certain aspects of our leisure activities as unworthy of public support, while other activities are worthy.
We must address that issue. In many ways it comes down to the question, "What is art?" That is not just a philosophical question; it is a question of class and economics. The people will sit in judgment in the Arts Council and, in many cases, in local authorities and Ministries, and those who decide what is art and, therefore, what will receive funding, tend to have the values of white middle-class males. In drawing that to our attention, the hon. Gentleman did us a service—even if that was not his intention.
On the point about selling off things, I refer to the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) who restored my faith in Pope as a poet. Pope had been murdered by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)—to murder a poet is bad enough, but to murder a Pope must be a heinous crime. My right hon. Friend referred to the report on museum charges which has just been published, under the chairmanship of Brian Morris. It states:
"the Minister for the Arts has said that he aims 'to maintain the level of support from public funds [for the arts as a whole], but to encourage subsidised bodies to become more self-reliant in their development and growth'. This is his declared aim. The reality is different. Faced with shortfalls in Government funding, national museums have had to raise money to avoid cutting essential staff. They are having to become self-reliant to keep going."
It is not good enough for the Minister just to wash his hands and say it is a matter for the trustees. The Minister
1268
creates the economic climate in which the arts can flourish—he said that himself. Therefore, he must be responsible for the fact that many trustees are being forced to turn to admission charges as the only way in which they can do the sort of things which they know they should be doing. No trustee could sensibly or responsibly want to see a 30 or 40 per cent. reduction in attendances because of the introduction of charges. That must go against everything that every trustee stands for. So why do they do it? The Minister said that it is to improve public facilities. Therefore, they are improving public facilities by reducing the numbers of the public who can enjoy them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, attendances do not recover. That is unacceptable to us, as are charges for museums. It is a matter of party policy that when in government we shall abolish those charges.
Tourism has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) talked about people paying. There is something to be said for having charges for tourists in museums. Perhaps that could be done through some form of tourist tax, such as a bed tax. The money produced could be given to the museums and art galleries in the form of a subvention from Government. Perhaps the Minister will consider that when he is talking to some of his colleagues.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent about the Minister's use of "welfare state" as a pejorative term, which was highly obnoxious to us. This mean-minded and pernicious Government are not only trying to dismantle the welfare state, but to turn the word "welfare" into a pejorative term. I do not feel intimidated by the state. I see the state as "us" acting collectively. That is what the state should be. It is not an alien body to be hated or despised or dismantled. The Government's position is equivocal on this because on the one hand the state is held up as a creature which is alien to us all and which is not acting in our best interests; but on the other hand, the powers of the state are being increased and centralised by the Government all the time.
I want the state to spend our money and our taxes on a wide range of activities. I want more of my taxes to be spent on education, housing, health and the arts. and less on defence. It is absolutely right that the state, which, in this respect is central Government plus the local authorities, has taken over as a major patron of the arts from the private patrons of the past. One thing that makes that patronage so important is that it is disinterested, in the best sense of that word. Much private sponsorship is personally aligned to the wishes and the tastes of the board or the chairman of the board or the person who, when taking decisions about the level of business sponsorship, is looking to see whether there will be a good return for the company in terms of PR, image, or free seats for its clients.
We are not opposed to business sponsorship. We do not have any ideological objections to it, as many Conservative Members have towards state sponsorship of the arts, but we are sceptical about the figures quoted. I have written to Colin Tweedy, who does an excellent job at ASBA, and asked for more information because, if the Government are to rely more and more on business sponsorship and quote such sponsorship as a possible golden lifeline for the arts, we need to know whether those figures are accurate.
I very much doubt that those figures are accurate because I do not believe that the Minister can put his hand on his heart and say that he knows for certain that the

1269
money claimed to be raised through business sponsorship amounts to a particular sum. It is like invisible exports. They were suddenly revised upwards, but, as they were invisible, it is almost impossible to prove whether they are there, although they become convenient when trying to balance the trade figures. That is what the Minister has been doing with regard to business sponsorship for the funding of the arts.
We welcome the Minister's announcement of the 8 per cent. increase in grant to the Arts Council for 1988–89, but it still falls 21 per cent. short of the figure claimed by the council as necessary to meet the needs of its clients at an acceptable level. Three-year funding means 3 per cent. next year and 3 per cent. the year after, unless the Government can work economic miracles. Although they might claim to do so, I can assure Conservative Members that no miracles are being wrought at present.
We live in a candy-floss society. When North sea oil runs out, we will be revealed as the banana monarchy we have become as a result of the Government's economic policies. The 3 per cent. levels of inflation for the next two years do not appear to be realistic, so there will be real cuts for the next two years. Three-year funding is not very helpful if one knows that it will be cut.
The impact of Government cuts on regional arts associations has been severe, when inflation is taken into account. Greater London Arts has had its Arts Council grant cut by 1.8 per cent. It has lost £600,000 in the past two years. It is no good saying that that is a matter for the Arts Council, just as charges are a matter for museum trustees, because the Minister determines the overall budget and must therefore be responsible for the specific decisions that stem from that budget. He cannot duck his responsibilities.
Forty-seven GLA arts organisations have lost their grant this year. The increase for Northern Arts is only 0·6 per cent., which is, in effect, a cut. Merseyside has received an increase of only 2·2 per cent., which is also a real cut. The Council of Regional Arts Associations has calculated that, if the Arts Council is serious in its intention to bring the regions up to the existing levels of London as a minimum acceptable standard, there is an identifiable gap of some £42 million.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) made an excellent speech. It was so good that he has now been promoted to the post of the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary. That must be the most rapid piece of political promotion that I have ever seen. I have myself suffered a self-inflicted demotion within the past 24 hours, and am surprised to find myself still on the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Battersea referred to the position of the national companies, particularly English National Opera, which is not greatly favoured by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. It has suffered a 25 per cent. cut since 1979, while the national theatre has suffered a 13 per cent. cut since that date. As has been said, the building housing the National theatre is hideous both to look at and to work in. That should be taken into account when the Minister determines levels of grant for the national companies.
We have heard many excellent contributions today and I must mention that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) who spoke about
1270
broadcasting. This is an arts debate, but broadcasting is the most important medium for the arts and for the conveyance of information. We are aware just how powerful the arts can be if combined with television. "Cathy Come Home" said more about homelessness than all the political speeches bound together in one fat volume. "The Boys from the Black Stuff" said more about unemployment than any political speech delivered from either Dispatch Box, or any political broadcast.
When we talk about the arts, it is important to recognise the role of broadcasting. We must keep broadcasting free from the dead hand of Government censorship—the new Broadcasting Standards Council—which has been imposed by the wishes of Big Mother in No. 10 in her determination to make the BBC as objective and impartial as The Sun and the Daily Mail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South was absolutely right when he said that there was a conflict in Government thinking. The Government talk about maintaining broadcasting standards and at the same time they opt for deregulation. That, if anything, will guarantee a falling off in standards.
There are many other things that I should like to say, but I have enjoyed myself by listening to the excellent, if somewhat lengthy, speeches from my hon. Friends and from some Conservative Members. This has been a good debate and I am glad that I have had the opportunity to take part.
The Minister has said that he wants to create a climate in which the arts can flourish. That is fine for him, but the climate that has been created by the Government is one of intolerance and bigotry. That makes it difficult for the arts to flourish, notwithstanding any increase in grant. The Minister is a member of a cynical Government, but I would not wish him to have as his epitaph Oscar Wilde's definition of a cynic:
"A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".
2.16 pm
Mr. Luce: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
The debate has lasted for five hours and has illustrated the widespread and growing interest of the House in the arts and our heritage. I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). which was sparkling and entertaining, in contrast to that made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for whom I have great respect. I recommend that in future the hon. Gentleman takes an anti-depressant pill before he speaks. He always speaks with such gloom about everything, but at the same time he manages to accept, perhaps grudgingly, that good things are happening in the arts world and to our heritage. The hon. Gentleman likes to say that such good things have nothing to do with me, and he likes to put all the blame on me. I do not mind that, as long as he accepts that the arts are flourishing and expanding. That is all I mind about.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) put his finger on it when he said that what really matters is to create a climate in which the arts can flourish, whatever the Government. The arts should be as self-reliant as possible and should be independent of any Government. The freedom of artistic expression is at the

1271
heart of success in the arts. The less dependent the arts are on one source of funding, the better. That is at the centre of the Government's approach to the arts.
I shall try to respond to the points that have been made in the debate. I appreciate that in the time left I shall be unable to respond to every point, and should I fail to do so I shall try to write to hon. Members.
In fairness to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central I shall reply to his argument about core funding for the performing arts institutions. He said that, in line with Arts Council policy, such funding is only just keeping in line with inflation and that sometimes it is below it.
This financial year there was an increase of more than £11·5 million over last year to the Arts Council, and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was good enough to welcome that 8 per cent. increase. A substantial part of that money has been earmarked for certain purposes. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with some of those purposes, for example, some money is to be spent on touring. It is right that excellence in the arts through touring should be made available to as many people as possible.
Mr. Fisher indicated assent.
Mr. Luce: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's agreement. We are seeing an increase in touring activity.
Some of that money is devoted to the new concept of incentive funding by which, rather than penalising organisations which become more self-reliant by their own efforts, we are seeking to use an element—not a large element—of taxpayers' money to reward success and encourage self-reliance. That is good for the arts and it is right that those who succeed should get some acknowledgement through taxpayers' support.
A third sum has been earmarked for what is described as new developments. This is a decision of the Arts Council. It may be the right decision, and it is for the Arts Council to make that judgment. When taking account of what is happening in the performing arts it is important to realise that these sums are available to encourage particular developments and that all organisations which do well and provide the highest standards of excellence in the arts deserve to receive some acknowledgement through one of these three earmarked sums.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the important role of local authorities, and I recognise that. They are playing an increasingly important part in arts funding, and I welcome that. The national campaign for the arts recently produced a report on this subject and found that this funding goes across the party spectrum. Some Conservative-controlled authorities and some Socialist-controlled authorities provide good support, whereas some from either side do not give adequate support. Where local authorities have arts or heritage organisations in their area which play an important role for their ratepayers, they should at least give some support. I am not advocating vast increases in sums of money, but they should acknowledge that role.
A debate on the arts without a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) would be lacking. As always, he made a colourful contribution, speaking with firm conviction. He chides me for spending too much taxpayers' money on the arts when more should be spent on social services and argues for a continuing debate on how much priority should be given to certain public services and how much taxpayers' money
1272
should be allocated. With all these arts debates—this is the third one in which I have taken part—I am coming to believe that my hon. Friend is something of a national institution and that he needs to be preserved. Perhaps I should suggest to the Arts Council that a grant be allocated to ensure that he is preserved. He makes tremendous contributions and I welcome his view that the arts organisations should become as self-reliant as possible in their own interests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), who gave notice that he could not be present for my reply, made several meaty points. I agree with his encouragement for endowment funding and his encouragement for more giving. He drew attention to the payroll giving scheme and the fact that its threshold has been increased to £240, and spoke of his disappointment that not enough had come to the arts in that way. I echo that view. I hope that more and more people will, in the current positive climate of lower income tax and higher standards of living, see that that is a good mechanism for giving more to the arts world. I support his view on that.
My hon. Friend talked about the importance of our surroundings and architecture. It has been noticeable in the past few years how much stronger public interest is in our surroundings and environment. We should all welcome that. His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales has played an important role in stimulating that kind of interest, and that can only be good for the country.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) is in every sense a true House of Commons man and has been here for almost every minute of the debate. He did not appear at all times to be attending fully to every speech, but he has been here throughout the debate, as he always is for arts debates, and I warmly welcome that.
The right hon. Gentleman made some interesting points and said that I should take a stronger interest in the concept of a Commonwealth Open university. I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's speech and noted his view of the important role that is played by the English language. I shall consult my colleagues who would have some responsibility for implementing the idea that he has put forward.
I listened carefully also to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the museums and galleries report. I take the report very seriously. I have read it, and I shall read it again and study the points that are made in it. I value the role played by the Museums and Galleries Commission and realise that it is important for us to debate this issue.
Some hon. Members were highly selective in the way in which they picked out certain aspects of the report. It is easy for hon. Members to do that. It is an objective report and highlights some of the problems that we face about conservation and storage space. I am glad that the Government have been able to provide a new storage building, costing £11 million in taxpayers' money, in Blyth road, Hammersmith. It will help to overcome some of the storage problems of the Victoria and Albert museum, the British Museum and some of our other national museums.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea made a most interesting and stimulating speech. I can reassure him about the Horniman and Geffrye museums. In another place this week it was made clear that the Government will provide financial assistance to these museums. In clue course the Office of Arts and Libraries will take over responsibility for them. However, the method of running

1273
them has still to be worked out. We envisage the establishment of charitable trusts to help the museums in their tasks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) made an interesting speech. I welcome the fact that he thought that we should give more encouragement to young people in the arts. I draw his attention to the enterprise allowance scheme, which has done a great deal to encourage people to set up their own businesses. A growing number of artists are taking advantage of that allowance, and as a result many are able to become self-reliant and to practise their talents and skills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) drew attention to the range of facilities in Wimbledon, such as the Wimbledon school of art and the Polka theatre, and I am grateful to him for doing so. He also drew to our attention the matter of national treasures. I can only repeat what I said earlier, that I shall continue to give the highest priority to ensuring accessibility by the nation to our works of art. I shall do that by a variety of means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made an entertaining speech and fully advertised the celebrations tomorrow to mark the tercentenary of Alexander Pope. He also drew my attention to a painting entitled "The View from Richmond Hill". Representatives of the Government art collection fund are in touch with Marble hill about that and it should be possible to arrange a loan of the picture. I shall take a personal interest to see what I can do to help.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made an interesting speech about Liverpool. I look forward to attending the opening on Tuesday of the Tate of the north. This will be an important event for Liverpool and will make a great contribution to the regeneration of the area. I was very glad that he proclaimed the importance of the facilities of Liverpool, and it should do more, as Glasgow does, to get across to the nation what it has to offer in the way of heritage and the arts. If it did that, the regeneration of Liverpool would take place more quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) made an excellent speech and proclaimed the importance of self-reliance in the arts, which I entirely endorse.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) spoke feelingly about the role that Glasgow has to play. I
1274
am glad that Glasgow took the initiative in gaining the status of cultural city for Europe 1990. It deserves the credit, and has many facilities to offer. A great regeneration, artistic and economic, is already taking place—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

The Arts

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at any sitting at which Motions relating to Short Speeches or Public Petitions may be made by a Minister of the Crown, such motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon; and if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, any Amendments to the first such Motion which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may then be moved, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put successively the Question on the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other such Motion, which may then be made, and of any Amendments thereto which may have been selected by him and which may then be moved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Private Members' Bills
2.30 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is distressing that the Government are not prepared to allow time for private Members' Bills to be discussed in the House. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we wait quite a long—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I know the anxiety of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), but this is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter that must now be pursued with the Leader of the House through the usual channels. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to abuse the Standing Orders of the House by continually raising points of order on this matter. I ask him to pursue his object through the usual channels.
Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I respect what you say, because the Chair advises us. When we try to get a ten-minute Bill discussed, and when it has the support of both sides of the House, it should be discussed on a Friday—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is charming and wily. I shall not repeat what I have already said; I am sure that he will see it in the Official Report on Monday, and I can take no further points of order on this.

Travelling People (Greenwich)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
2.31 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise once again the intolerable nuisance being suffered by too many of my constituents as a result of the establishment of illegal caravan camps in their midst. This has been a long-running saga thoughout my 13½ years as the hon. Member for Woolwich. The first item in my thick file on the subject is dated 17 March 1975.
I make it clear at the outset that Greenwich council has not been unsympathetic to the needs of genuine gipsies and travellers. During my period as leader of the council in the early 1970s, we provided a site for about 54 caravans on what has since come to he called the Thistlebrook site in Abbey Wood. That site was planned in conjunction with the Gipsy Council and cost more than £300,000. Since then, more than another £100,000 has been spent on clearing the area, which had been contaminated by some of the residents' heavy metal breaking activities.
Although there were a number of travelling families living on the land before the official site was set up, Greenwich council has more than met its obligation under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. It is therefore a designated authority, which gives it the right to take legal action against travellers establishing themselves on the roadside or on publicly or privately owned land in the borough.
Such invasions of caravans occurred rarely in the early 1970s, and mainly in the Abbey Wood area. They were usually brought to an end by legal action after a few weeks. However, as the progressive development of Thamesmead opened up extensive areas of land that had until then been securely fenced off, large-scale caravan encampments became a more regular problem. Nevertheless, there was effective co-operation between Greenwich council, the GLC, which owned Thamesmead, and Thames Water, which also had substantial land holdings in the area.
The necessary legal action was begun as soon as the caravans arrived; it took time to complete and was reasonably effective, but sadly all that changed in about 1982. New political administrations in Greenwich town hall and the GLC adopted a dramatically different attitude to the traveller encampments. Legal action was regularly delayed for months on end, with the result that Thamesmead roadside verges were almost permanently disfigured by caravans. At times, there were more than 100 caravans at Thamesmead—about one fifth of all the unauthorised caravans in the whole of Greater London.
When Thamesmead Town Ltd. assumed full responsibility for the development, the position improved substantially. The impression of an open-door policy towards travellers that was built up during the GLC days was rapidly removed, and the area is now clear of caravans. Even Greenwich council, which previously proposed to provide a second permanent site for travellers in the borough, now seems to have lost some of its enthusiasm. Legal action has been taken to remove illegal encampments, even if not always as swiftly as my constituents would have wished. However, we are now faced with one of the worst cases of illegal occupation in the whole sorry history of the problems.
Towards the end of August 1987, I received complaints from local residents that, once again, travellers' caravans
1276
had moved onto the empty land alongside the southern outfall sewer at Church Manorway, Abbey Wood. That site is owned by the London borough of Greenwich, and it has been a regular target for illegal encampments in recent years.
The council's solicitor started legal proceedings that were due to be heard on 16 September 1987, when he intended to apply for a possession order against the travellers. However, on 15 September, he was requested by the deputy leader of the council to adjourn the proceedings. Apparently, that request resulted from discussions that the deputy leader had undertaken with the travellers. The situation was then considered at a special meeting of the relevant council committees on 1 October.
At that meeting, the district housing manager reported that he
"had been inundated with calls and complaints from frightened and concerned tenants in the area."
Local allotment holders were also calling for action to stop trespassing on their nearby plots. There were complaints of
"damage by horses, dogs, travellers' children, and verbal and physical abuse."
The meeting authorised the reinstatement of the legal action to remove the travellers from the land. Unfortunately, by the time the matter came before the courts on 29 March 1988, the council's case had been adversely affected by a decision of the Appeal Court relating to its official Thistlebrook site. The Appeal Court judgment held that all those living on the Thistlebrook site were long-stay residents and therefore not persons of a nomadic lifestyle. In effect, that meant that Thistlebrook was not a gipsy site under the terms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and that the council was not fulfilling the requirements of the Act. The Court of Appeal also held that Thistlebrook residents were protected by the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
Despite the Court of Appeal's decision, the council retains its designation under the 1968 Act, as it was granted by the Secretary of State for the Environment In theory, therefore, the council could try to evict illegal travellers through the magistrates courts, using its powers as a designated authority. However, in the Church Manorway case, the travellers sought an adjournment of the council's action, to enable them to apply to the High Court for a judicial review, on the ground that it was unreasonable for the council to evict them when it had been held by the Appeal Court to be in breach of its statutory duty to provide a site for people of a nomadic lifestyle. The judge granted such an adjournment. We do not yet know whether the travellers have been granted leave to apply for judicial review. Nevertheless, the council believes that similar applications will be made in respect of travellers' camps in the borough, making it difficult or impossible to move them.
The implications of the Court of Appeal's decision in that case are extremely worrying for Greenwich council. It would require it to clear the Thistlebrook site and then to re-let it to travellers, ensuring that they stay on the site for no more than six months at a time. That is certain to be a difficult and lengthy business, particularly as the Court of Appeal appears to have stated that travellers would have the protection of the Mobile Homes Act. The alternative would be for Greenwich council to provide a totally new

1277
site for a minimum of 15 caravans, to be managed on a short-stay basis. Not surprisingly, the council stated that neither alternative is in any way attractive.
Every other local authority in London and in many other parts of the country apparently operates its caravan sites on the same basis as Greenwich. Therefore, the impact of the complex legal decision will be felt on a national rather than purely local basis, and the whole thrust of the 1968 legislation could be seriously undermined.
Greenwich has sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but even if leave is granted, it will take time to resolve the issue and it will add substantially to the overall bill that Greenwich ratepayers must bear as a direct result of the activities of travellers who seem extremely reluctant to travel.
While the law takes its slow and stately course, my constituents in the vicinity of the Church Manorway camp are suffering intolerable nuisance. There are now at least 30 caravans, together with vans and lorries, parked on high ground overlooking the neighbouring houses. Large quantities of rubbish and litter of all kinds have been strewn down the side of the slope. Lorries regularly fly-tip massive quantities of rubble in the immediate area. Some of the travellers regularly burn copper wire and lorry tires. The resulting cloud of acrid black smoke covers the entire neighbourhood.
Worst of all, there are absolutely no sanitary facilities on the site and the standard of hygiene displayed by some of the travellers gives grave offence to many of the neighbouring residents. As one of my constituents put it to me in a letter this week:
"The adults and children just drop their pants and go to the toilet where ever… that is just going too far, it's disgusting."
This has been going on since last August. As the warmer weather arrives, there are further complaints about flies, obnoxious smells and frequent sightings of rats feeding on the accumulated piles of filth and rubbish. The concern about the public health hazard is understandable. It is monstrous that we should have such a shanty town established with such primitive conditions in inner London in 1988.
The complaints do not relate only to the appalling impact of the encampment on the immediate environment. There are also cases of deliberate vandalism and destruction. The bowling green of the nearby Royal Arsenal sports club has been systematically dug up. Bricks and bottles have been strewn over the playing surfaces, and the groundsman has been physically threatened. It is unreasonable to expect residents to put up with such behaviour for months on end, while the courts argue out the finer points of the law.
Even Greenwich council has now been forced to consider using the Public Order Act 1986 to move some of the caravans that are now on allotment land. However, there are apparently difficulties about attempting to use these public order powers against the main encampment, since the travellers claim that they were given permission to stay on the land by the council's deputy leader.
What makes me particularly angry about this issue is that most of those who support the travellers' cause do so from a distance. They do not have to put up with the sort of conditions that my constituents in Abbey Wood and
1278
Thamesmead have regularly had to endure. I cannot help feeling that if travellers established themselves on Blackheath, or similar pleasant middle class areas, a way to move them would soon be discovered.
Nor is there any truth in the suggestion that the Thamesmead development has deprived travellers of their traditional camping sites. Before it was opened up for building, this land was occupied by the Woolwich arsenal, and it was totally secure. Even if they had been able to get into the land, the travellers would certainly not have been camping in between the remains of guns, shells, explosives and all the other military hardware that littered the land.
As the House will understand, this is an issue on which I feel strongly on behalf of my hard-pressed constituents. I have raised the general principle with successive Ministers who have had the misfortune to include responsibility for gipsies and travellers within their departmental briefs. I have raised it in the Chamber, in written questions, in correspondence and in personal meetings with Ministers, and, I must confess, with little obvious result.
The traditional attitude of Ministers was summed up by the present Secretary of State for the Environment in a written reply last year. After yet another review of the legislation, he told an expectant world:
"The Government have decided that there should be no amendment of the legislation at this stage, although we shall continue to keep the position under review."—[Official Report, 6 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 856.]
This is my first encounter with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the present Minister to deal with the matter. I hope that she will not offer that time-honoured ministerial formula, and instead will offer us some ideas as to how we can sort out the legal catch 22 in which Greenwich and many other local authorities seem to be trapped as a result of the Appeal Court ruling. Most important of all, I hope that she will offer some message of sympathy and some encouragement and hope to my Abbey Wood constituents, who have unfairly been asked to put up with far too much for far too long.
2.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) for raising the issue of travellers' encampments in the Greenwich area. I know that this is a subject close to his heart and one that he has raised before in the House, in correspondence and elsewhere.
I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern for the residents of Greenwich and for the need to ensure that public order is maintained and the law upheld. It is common ground between us that gipsies, like everyone else, must comply with the law. I hope that it is also common ground that the way forward is through the provision of adequate sites for gipsies. The Government are fully committed to this approach.
The hon. Member will recall that in February last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced his conclusions, following the review of policy for the provision of gipsy sites. He concluded, after a careful examination of responses to a consultation letter and after considering the analysis of these responses by an independent adviser, Professor Gerald Wibberley, that the

1279
way forward was to continue with the present legislative duty to provide sites coupled with the additional controls available through designation.
I think it might be helpful if I were to outline briefly what the law has to say on the subject of gipsies. County, London borough and metropolitan district councils have a duty under section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide sites for gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas. For London boroughs and metropolitan districts, this duty is restricted to provision for up to 15 caravans at a time. However, in a number of London boroughs, such as Greenwich, there are more than that number of gipsies who have by long custom been encamped in these areas. Where this is so, and authorities can arrange for their accommodation, they should do so.
When my right hon. Friend can be satisfied that adequate provision exists for the accommodation of gipsies in a particular area, or that in all the circumstances it is not necessary or expedient to make adequate provision, he can consider an application from the local authorities, which have a statutory duty to provide accommodation, that the area should be designated under the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Designation gives the authorities greater power to control unauthorised camping by gipsies in their area.
We recognise that there may in certain cases be a problem of interpretation of the statutory definition of gipsies. The Act defines them as
"persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin."
Local authorities have generally been able to decide who meets this statutory definition for site provision, but the definition is wide and there is increasing concern that other groups may seek the benefits which the Act provides. We are examining this, and it may be that some further clarification will be desirable. I have to stress, however, that the onus of deciding who is a gipsy for the purposes of the statutory duty will have to rest with the local authorities themselves, in the light of the statutory definition.
The London borough of Greenwich is a designated authority which therefore enjoys additional powers for controlling unauthorised camping by gipsies. Where the council owns the land on which the encampment is situated it may apply to the county court for a possession order. As a designated authority the council may also initiate proceedings under the 1968 Act in the magistrates' court to deal with unauthorised camping and secure the removal of unlawful encampments. Where caravans are sited on highways land, the council may anyway take action under the Highways Act.
The Government consider that these powers should be sufficient to deal with unauthorised sites. It must, however, be for the council or landowner concerned to consider which specific legal remedy is most appropriate to deal with a given situation. If local residents are not satisfied with the action being taken by their council, it is open to them to press the council, to refer the matter to the local ombudsman, or to take legal advice. It is not a matter for the Government.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the use of the Public Order Act 1986. As he will be aware, this Act gives the police powers, acting on a complaint, in certain circumstances to remove trespassers from land. Although the Public Order Act has on occasion been used to deal with gipsies, he will know that it was enacted to deal with
1280
the problem of large hippy convoys, and not with gipsies. Greenwich as a designated authority has available to it the various powers that I have just described, and I imagine that the council may well consider it more appropriate to use the special provisions of the Caravan Sites Act, which was framed with gipsies in mind rather than resort to the Public Order Act. I should stress that this is a decision for the council, not for the Government.
I recognise the difficulties that exist over the provision of sites in some areas, including Greenwich, but we should also recognise the progress that has been made. At the beginning of the year there were, countrywide, about 258 local authority sites providing approximately 4,250 pitches for gipsy caravans. Additionally, we believe that there are 2,300 caravans on private sites. We recognise, however, that there is still a need for more than 3,000 pitches countrywide to accommodate the considerable number of gipsy caravans for which there is as yet no legal provision.
The Government have given, and will continue to give, extensive assistance to authorities in the performance of their statutory duties under the caravan Acts. We make 100 per cent. Exchequer grant available for sites provided by local authorities, and we have set aside £6 million for this purpose in the current financial year. We have issued advice to local authorities in circulars and in research reports, as a result of which there is a considerable weight of advice available on the location, design and management of sites, as well as on the promotion of private site initiatives.
We supplement formal advice with regular and informal liaison between the Department and individual local authorities, as they may require, to help them in the fulfilment of their statutory duty. In short, we have a legislative package which balances a duty to provide sites with the availability of special controls on unauthorised camping. We try to operate it sensibly and we consider that it can be made to work.
The hon. Member may like to know that the Department has had discussions with Greenwich officials as to the availability of grant for the existing authorised travellers' site at Thistlebrook. We understand that the council has since been considering possible alternative sites in the borough, which would, however, have to be acceptable to the community. The offer of financial assistance stands. It is for the council to take it up.
I understand that the council may be concerned to know where it stands with regard to the provision of gipsy sites in the light of the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of London Borough of Greenwich v. Powell and another. The judgment as it stands clearly has some implications which we shall need to consider and which might have repercussions for gipsy site policy in a wider context.
I understand that the London borough of Greenwich has petitioned for leave to appeal against the judgment and that it has been agreed that there is to be an oral hearing of the petition, but I understand that no date has yet been fixed for the hearing. Clearly, we must await the outcome of the petition. Until we have it, there is probably not very much that we can or should do in the matter, other than to give careful consideration in cases coming for decision—for example, planning appeals and applications—to the circumstances of the individuals concerned.
It would be entirely wrong for me to comment at present upon the likely effects of the Court of Appeal judgment. I remind the House that that judgment was in

1281
fact directed towards the question of security of tenure under the provisions of the Mobile Homes Act. The merits of that question happen to turn on the question of gipsy status of the occupants of the council's site and, by extension, on the status of the site itself. So far as I can detect, local authorities are in general continuing to approach their statutory responsibilities to provide gipsy sites much as before. The problem of unauthorised camping continues to require remedial action, and it continues to be the Government's view that the provision of authorised caravan sites is the best way to provide the remedy.
Concern has been expressed about the eligibility of the borough to continue to enjoy the status of a designated area under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. I assure hon. Members that there is no intention on the part of my Department to take action to disturb the present position. As I said, the important thing is to maintain the status quo until we know the outcome of the petition to appeal. We must then consider what, if any, action is necessary. Hon. Members may be assured that it will be our primary concern to ensure that any action taken is fair to all concerned and continues to tackle the problem of gipsy accommodation need and unauthorised camping.
The hon. Member referred to unauthorised encampments in Greenwich borough. I understand that in the case of Church Manor way, the council has instituted proceedings in the county court, but they have been adjourned by the court following an application by the defendants to the High Court for a judicial review of the council's decision to evict. The council has considered whether in the circumstances it should seek an alternative
1282
legal remedy, but it has been advised to pursue its existing action. I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member and local residents, but this matter is wholly within the competence of the local authority. Nor would it be appropriate for me to comment on matters that are before the courts.
I understand that the council has succeeded in obtaining eviction orders in relation to an unauthorised site at Brocklebank. It is also investigating complaints about a site at Bramshot avenue. A major issue here appears likely to be the ownership of the land.
The hon. Member criticised Greenwich council's handling of some of these matters. I appreciate the feeling of frustration among local residents if they see no action taken to deal with long-standing nuisances. The council would doubtless maintain that it has had success in dealing with some unauthorised sites. It has initiated appropriate proceedings elsewhere and cannot be held responsible for difficulties that have arisen on legal proceedings. It would not be appropriate for me to express views on those matters. They arise at local level. As I explained, the council is the locally elected body, which is answerable to its electors for its actions.
The Government's role has been to issue general guidance to authorities about their powers and duties; to offer informal advice, if desired; and to make available 100 per cent. Exchequer grant for authorised sites provided by authorities. I fully appreciate the hon. Member's concern about difficulties that have arisen in his constituency, but I trust that he will accept my contention that adequate provisions for dealing with problems exist. It must be for the local community and, if necessary, the courts to resolve them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Debt Provision
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, for each year from 1973 to 1987, the average interest rate for six-month Eurodollar variable debt.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Six month Eurodollar interest rates (Per cent. per annum)

  Year

  Per cent.

  1973

  9·3

  1974

  11·1

  1975

  7·6

  1976

  6·1

  1977

  6·4

  1978

  9·4

  1979

  12·0

  1980

  14·1

  1981

  16·5

  1982

  13·2

  1983

  9·8

  1984

  11·0

  1985

  8·5

  1986

  6·6

  1987

  7·2

  Source: Bank of England

  Pound Sterling
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from manufacturing industries in the last 12 months about the value of the pound; what industrial categories such representations have been received from; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Own Resources
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about early payment of non-value added tax own resources to the European Communities in May.

  Mr. Brooke
  The European Commission estimates that its spending obligations in June will exceed its available revenues under the provisional twelfths regime. In accordance with article 10(2) of Council regulation 2891/77, the Commission has requested member states to advance from June the payment of own resources, other than VAT, in respect of agricultural, sugar and isoglucose levies and customs duties collected by the Government on its behalf.

  The Government are satisfied that this request is within the vires of article 10(2) and accordingly will make a
  584
  payment today, 20 May, of £153 million from the Consolidated Fund under section 2(3) of the European Communities Act, 1972. The payment of levies and duties on 20 June will be reduced by the amount of the advance.

  The article 10(2) facility does not affect the total amount which the Community is authorised to spend during the year. The Commission's request does not, therefore, involve any net addition to public expenditure.

  VAT
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to extend the category of those able to acquire a wheelchair exempt from value added tax to include elderly people who are unable to walk.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: Wheelchairs are zero-rated for VAT purposes when supplied to a handicapped person. Anyone who is permanently unable to walk will qualify for this relief.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy with regard to dealing with individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with the Law Officers' Departments through the medium of the Welsh language.

  The Attorney-General
  It is the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department to facilitate communication through the medium of the Welsh language, so far as is reasonably possible, and to that end Courts and offices for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible and which do not have access to a Welsh speaker are able to take advantage of an arrangement with the Welsh Office to provide a translation service.

  My own Department has no facilities for translating communications received in Welsh, and in those circumstances my officials would seek advice from the Welsh Office.

  Wright Memoirs
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will estimate the total current cost of the pursual of the legal cases to prevent publication of the Wright memoirs: and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  In the "Spycatcher" litigation here and in Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong, the total amount of costs expended to date by the Government is about £787,000.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the establishment, by grade, of the legal aid area office, Birmingham; and how many people are presently in place.

  The Attorney-General
  Staffing levels in the individual area offices are the responsibility of the legal aid administration of the Law Society. There is no formal establishment figure, but I understand that there are 79.5 members of staff in post with one unfilled vacancy at administrative officer level.
  585
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average time taken by the legal aid area office, Birmingham, to deal with applications for legal aid; and what were the equivalent figures one and two years ago.

  The Attorney-General
  The latest figures available are published in appendix 2G of the 37th legal aid annual reports. These show that, for legal aid area No. 6, it took an average 78·13 days (actual, not working) from receipt of a legal aid application to the issue of a certificate during the financial year 1986–87. The equivalent figure for 1985–86 was 50·89 days. Prior to 1985–86, figures for individual area offices are not available.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the legal aid area office, Birmingham, to make a decision upon an application on behalf of Mr. John Walker, reference No. 06018805154 QB3 which was submitted in February and acknowledged on 15 March; and what are the reasons for the time taken to deal with this application.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand from the legal aid administration of the Law Society that Mr. Walker's application is being processed in the normal way, and that a decision will be made on the application imminently.

  GEC/Marconi
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has decided whether a prosecution will take place following the investigation by the Ministry of Defence police into certain conduct of GEC/Marconi.

  The Attorney-General
  The investigation to which the hon. Member refers is not yet complete. It is being conducted in conjunction with the Serious Fraud Office. The director of the Serious Fraud Office will decide in due course whether any criminal proceedings should be instituted.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were in prison mother-and-baby units on the most recent convenient date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 13 May, there were 70 women in prison mother-and-baby units.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of sentenced male and female prisoners, respectively, on the most recent convenient date had not served a previous custodial sentence;

  (2) what proportion of sentenced males and females under 21 years who were received into prison in the most recent convenient year had not previously served a custodial sentence;

  (3) what proportion of sentenced males and females under 21 years in custody on the most recent convenient date had not previously served a custodial sentence;

  (4) what proportion of sentenced males and females under 21 years received into custody in the most recent convenient year had not previously served a custodial sentence.
  586
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not recorded centrally. The readily available statistics relate to all previous convictions and are published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (tables 3.5, 3.11, 4.3, 4.10, 5.3 and 5.10 of the latest volume, for 1986, (Cm. 210)), copies of which are in the Library.

  Civil Defence (Regional Government)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations he has received to improve procedures for the operation of regional government headquarters in wartime following the civil defence region No. 2 REGEX exercise; and if he will place a copy of the post-exercise report in the Library.

  Mr. John Patten
  The exercise is being evaluated, but it is not the practice to give details of these wartime arrangements.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy with regard to dealing with individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with his Department through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Department has standing arrangements for translating and dealing with the small amount of correspondence received in Welsh.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to issue a circular to local authorities in Wales on the implications of the outcome of Newport's scheme to provide cheap television licences to pensioners.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will circularise to all Welsh local authorities information advising them of the rules by which certain accommodation for elderly people can be adapted so that they can benefit from concessionary television licences.

  Mr. Renton
  No. Guidance on the requirements for eligibility for the accommodation for residential care licence is available on demand from the National TV Licence Records Office.

  Mr. Poonawalla Hatimbhai
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to give a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Hammersmith of 2 February, concerning the case of Mr. Poonawalla Hatimbhai (Home Office Ref.: P336477/2(s)); and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in dealing with this case.

  Mr. Renton
  I replied to the hon Member's letter on 7 March indicating that further inquiries into Mr. Poonawalla's case would be required. These inquiries have now been completed, and a decision has been taken to grant the application. The time taken to deal with this case arose from the need to ensure that Mr. Poonawalla's application met the requirements of the immigration rules, and I am satisfied that there was no unnecessary delay.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the Lotteries Act 1976 to allow the establishment of a national lottery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are aware of interest in the idea of a national lottery in the light of recent developments and will continue to keep the position under review.

  Foreign Visitors
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors by nationality(a) arrived in the United Kingdom, (b) were admitted, (c) were required to submit to secondary examination and (d) were refused leave to enter for each month from January 1987 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 3 May 1988]: I have today written to the hon. Member enclosing in tabular form the available information requested. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  UN Relief and Works Administration
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to which Governments in the most recent year for which the figures are available, contributed to the funds of the United Nations relief and works administration, and as to how much each such Government contributed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  This information is contained in annex I of the addendum to the report of the Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency of October 1987, UN Official Record No. A/42/13/Add I, copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects undertaken in the Falkland Islands to promote economic development which have received financial support from the United Kingdom and the extent of that support in each case to date at current and 1988 prices.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Following is the information:

  £ thousands

  Total expenditure to 31 March 1988

  Project

  At current

  At 1987–88 prices (using GDP deflators)

  Falkland Islands Development Corporation

  7,234

  7,588

  Land Transfer

  2,500

  2,718

  Port Stanley Electricity

  3,855

  4,243

  Port Stanley Water

  1,617

  1,658

  Fuel Depot

  43

  43

  School Hostel

  1,211

  1,392

  Foxbay Electricity

  72

  82

  Stanley-Mount Pleasant Airport Road

  1,359

  1,562

  Camptracks

  197

  200

  Wool Mill

  32

  37

  588

  Total expenditure to 31 March 1988

  Project

  At current

  At 1987–88 prices (using GDP deflators)

  Computers

  45

  45

  Technical Cooperation

  8,180

  8,918

  Hospital

  5,947

  6,322

  Stanley Airport Road

  262

  272

  Brewster Housing

  6,960

  8,551

  Stanley Roads

  2,500

  3,081

  Repairs/Replacements

  5,151

  6,324

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost to date of civilian projects undertaken by the Government in each year since the end of the war in the Falkland Islands at both current and 1988 prices.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Following is the information:

  £000s

  Financial year

  Current prices

  1987–88 Prices2

  1982–83

  9,429

  11,842

  1983–84

  6,037

  7,243

  1984–85

  7,005

  8,052

  1985–86

  8,509

  9,226

  1986–87

  9,683

  10,168

  1987–881

  6,502

  6,502

  Total

  47,165

  53,033

  1 Provisional.

  2 Using GDP deflators.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been given to the request on 14 April from the Government of Vietnam for assistance with the serious food shortage arising from the recent drought in northern Vietnam.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The request is under consideration by the European Community and international agencies. We shall not be making any bilateral response.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will ensure that Ministers answering parliamentary questions by reference to previous answers enclose copies of such answers to the hon. Member asking the question.

  The Prime Minister
  My usual practice in such cases is to enclose copies of previous answers. I shall arrange for the hon. Gentleman's concern to be drawn to the attention of Departments generally.

  Ministerial Statements
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will set out her policy with regard to the making of statements about information reported on television, radio, or in the press and magazines.

  The Prime Minister
  Each case is decided on its merits.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what co-ordination takes place between all those Government Departments which operate in Wales concerning their use of the Welsh language when dealing with the public;

  (2) what guidelines exist concerning the use of the Welsh language when dealing with the public by those Government Departments which have responsibility for aspects of the Government's work in Wales.

  The Prime Minister
  It is for each Department to decide how it responds to correspondence and deals with the public. Departments with offices in Wales seek to ensure that suitable arrangements exist so that letters written in Welsh are replied to in Welsh.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her policy with regard to dealing with individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with those offices for which she has direct ministerial responsibility through the medium of the Welsh language.

  The Prime Minister
  To refer the communication to the Welsh Office.

  1986

  Rates per 1,000 births

  Registered nurses and midwives in special care baby units at 30 September 1986

  District Health Authority

  Still births per 1,000 live and still births

  1All neo-natal deaths per 1,000 live births

  2Whole-time equivalent per 100 low weight births

  Trafford

  5·9

  4·2

  31·4

  Sheffield

  6·1

  4·7

  6·7

  Wandsworth

  4·4

  4·1

  7·5

  West Lambeth

  4·2

  4·6

  8·8

  North Lincolnshire

  6·7

  3·1

  31·9

  Sources: OPCS; DHSS Annual Census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Neonatal deaths are deaths within 28 days.

  2 Calculated on unrounded whole-time equivalent staff in post and number of births.

  3 Trafford and North Lincolnshire health authorities export cases to other districts as they have limited neo-natal intensive care facilities. (NortthLincolnshirehaszerointensivecarecots;

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has published or intends to publish statistics outlining the impact of the social security changes on the Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is not possible to give the information requested. No information on ethnic minorities is contained in the national census, the annual family expenditure survey or DHSS administrative statistics.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has published or intends to publish statistics outlining the impact of the social security changes on people resident in(a) the inner cities, (b) the Greater London area and (c) Brent, South constituency.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that statistically reliable estimates for the areas requested cannot be provided.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Davyhulme of 22 March,Official Report, column 88, he will make a statement on the progress made in amending the social security rules.

  Mrs. Margaret Harris (Letter)
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to reply to Mrs. Margaret Harris, of the Helping Hands Homecare Agency, 61 Hilltop road, Worsley in response to questions raised in her letter dated 12 March.

  The Prime Minister
  Following my usual practice with regard to such matters, I have asked the relevant Department, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, to reply to Mrs. Harris as soon as possible.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Child Mortality Rates
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the child mortality rates both at birth and within a month of birth, in Trafford, Sheffield, Wandsworth, West Lambeth and North Lincolnshire health authorities; what is the number of registered nurses in special care baby units per 100 low birthweight births in those authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is in the table.

  Mr. Portillo
  We shall be considering proposals in the near future.

  Departmental Staff (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the designated staff level for his Department's Burnley office for the current year; how many staff were in post on 1 April; what were the comparable figures for 1987 and 1986; and what is the comparable work load position for the same period.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows:

  Complement

  Staff

  1986–87

  212

  1987–88

  236

  1988–89

  210·5

  591

  Staff in Post

  Staff

  1 April 1986

  214·5

  1 April 1987

  211

  1 April 1988

  226·5

  17 December 1985

  16 December 1986

  17 November 1987

  Supplementary benefits live load

  16,308

  16,772

  15,701

  Short term benefits live load

  6,660

  6,851

  7,054

  Comparable figures are not available for the full range of contributory benefits.

  The 1987 work load figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Direct comparisons between the numbers of staff and the live load are misleading as workloads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes.

  Income Support
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether young people in full-time education who have become aged 19 years after 11 April are entitled to income support; and whether their parents are able to claim income support for them.

  Mr. Portillo
  People of 19 years and over in full-time education are treated as students for social security purposes. Disabled students, and lone-parent students, are eligible for income support throughout the year. Other students can claim only during the summer vacation. Parents cannot claim income support dependency additions for a person aged 19.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy with regard to dealing with individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to correspond with his Department through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Portillo
  Local offices of the Department in Wales will reply in Welsh to any letters received in that language.

  There are facilities for local social security offices outside Wales to have any document or correspondence received in Welsh translated into English, but the reply will normally be in English.

  Some social security benefits are administered centrally from offices outside Wales. Correspondence from Wales in Welsh received by any of these central offices is normally answered in Welsh.

  Benefits Regulations
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when his Department's leaflets P11, D11, G11 and H11, explaining the new regulations regarding benefits covering National Health Service treatment charges will be delivered to the two offices of his Department in Birkenhead.
  592
  The latest caseload counts, based on a 100 per cent, count of all cases in action, and the corresponding figures for previous yars are as folows:

  Mr. Portillo
  The delivery of leaflets P11, D11, G11 and H11 to local offices is scheduled for mid-July. In the meantime, people with inquiries should use the freeline social security service, which can be contacted by dialling 0800–666555 free of charge, or alternatively contact their local DHSS office.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that there is adequate consultation between the regional health authorities in planning the hospital building programmes; and if he will make it his policy that no proposal for new hospital building close to Worthing health authority district will be considered without taking fully into account the location of existing hospitals and the case for giving priority to the construction of phase II of the Worthing hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is incumbent on all health authorities when planning capital schemes to take into account developments planned or in the pipeline in neighbouring authorities. In the case of Worthing and Brighton the authorities concerned are considering jointly the location of and services provided by existing hospitals in those districts and future plans for new building before submitting proposals to the Department.

  Income Support
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make it his policy that the compensatory element to be built into the April 1989 income support rates to reflect 20 per cent. of the average community charge will be, in the case of a single person aged 18 to 24 years inclusive, the same as that for a single person aged 25 years or over;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that the compensatory element to be built into the April 1989 income support rates to reflect 20 per cent. of the average community charge be paid to a full uprating of the remainder of the income support rates, according to the movement of the retail prices index exclusive of housing costs over the relevant measurement period.

  Mr. Portillo
  Decisions regarding the uprating of income support and the compensation for the liability to meet 20 per cent. of the average community charge will be taken in the autumn.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to which countries in
  593
  Europe, other than the United Kingdom, pensions are paid (a) at a higher rate to married men than to single men or (b) to married women by virtue of their husbands' contributions.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 18 May 1988]: Among the member states of the European Community married men are paid higher pensions than single men in Belgium, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. However, the rate of increase is in several cases very small. In Denmark a married couple receive a higher pension than the single person rate only if both partners qualify for a pension. The United Kingdom and Gibraltar are the only parts of the European Community in which a separate pension is paid to a wife by virtue of her husband's contributions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Companies
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to which companies have their headquarters in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and have subsidiaries abroad.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are 52,171 companies which have their registered office address in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. The information concerning foreign subsidiaries could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  BP (Kuwaiti Shareholding)
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he proposes to take, pending a report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in the event that the Kuwaiti Investment Office increases its shareholding in BP by taking its dividend in the form of additional shares.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In accordance with normal practice, the Office of Fair Trading has invited the Kuwait Investment Office to give an undertaking, pending the outcome of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry, that it will not acquire additional BP shares.

  Mobile Communications
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why Mr. Arthur Bird of 3 Ashanti close, Shoeburyness, has been advised that the allocation of a radio frequency cannot be given for his taxi firm for 10 weeks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 17 May 1988]: The assignment of frequencies for private mobile radio users is a complex process. At present, over 1,000 cases a month are being received and there is a backlog of work. Steps are being taken to deal with this backlog, and new applications are now generally taking less than six weeks. I will write to the hon. Member about the options available to those who have an urgent need for mobile communications.

  Furnishings (Fire Safety)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what account was taken in drawing up the 594
  draft Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations of the relevant European Economic Community standards.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: I am not aware of any such standards.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department has had any discussions with the European Commission about the draft Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: Several such discussions have taken place; the most recent was in Brussels on 17 May.

  Departmental Research Establishments
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the regional distribution of his Department's research establishments.

  Mr. Butcher [holding answer 19 May 1988]
  The distribution is as follows:

  Scotland

  National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride.

  South East Region

  Warren Spring Laboratory at Stevenage.

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist at Waterloo (London).

  National Physical Laboratory at Teddington.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory at Teddington.

ENERGY

  Ministerial Statements
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy towards making statements in Parliament on matters raised by television or radio broadcasts or in the press and magazine articles.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Each case is decided on its merits.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
  what is his policy with regard to dealing with those individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with his Department through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Energy Efficiency Office can deal with inquiries in Welsh and issues selected publications in Welsh. If a wish emerged from individuals and bodies in Wales to communicate in Welsh with other parts of my Department, I would explore whether suitable arrangements could be made.

  THORP (Contracts)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the current contracts signed for THORP at Sellafield with non-United Kingdom companies is allocated for the expenditure to be incurred by(a) United Kingdom Nirex Ltd., (b) its successor body if reorganised under privatisation and (c) British Nuclear Fuels plc for the long-term storage or disposal of (i) low-level wastes and (ii) intermediate-level wastes to be retained in the United Kingdom after reprocessing.
  595
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Since 1976 BNFL's contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. Contracts signed before 1976 do not contain such options and therefore cover the costs of long-term storage and disposal of low and intermediate level wastes. I understand from BNFL that the costs of such storage and disposal are estimated to be less than 5 per cent. of the total costs associated with current contracts signed for THORP without return of waste options.

  Coal Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will extend the date for receipt of evidence submitted to his Department for its consultation paper, "Coal Mining Subsidence Compensation: Proposals For Legislation" until the autumn.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No; the deadline of three months from the issuing of the paper is a reasonable time to allow interested parties to comment.

  The Department is, however, always pleased to have the views of those with an interest in coal mining subsidence and where possible to take these into account.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will direct British Coal to make available to the owners of properties thought to be damaged by coal mining subsidence reports commissioned by the corporation with outside agencies or consultancies.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. Such reports belong to British Coal. This is a matter for the corporation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Irish Language
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of students in teacher training institutions who are currently studying Irish as part of their teacher training course.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Forty-eight.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy with regard to dealing with individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with his Department through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Generally, it is the practice of the Department to respond in English where a communication is received in another language, but so far as is reasonably practicable, the Department would seek to respond both in English and Welsh to correspondence received in the Welsh language. There is no facility in the Department for dealing orally with questions raised in that language.

  Haberdashers' Aske's Schools
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, 16 May,Official
  596
  Report, column 319, what advice has been given to the governing body of Haberdashers' Aske's schools about entitlement to redundancy payments of staff of their Lewisham schools consequent upon any change of status to a city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My officials have given no advice to the governing body of the Haberdashers' Aske's schools on this subject.

  Schools Councils
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the setting up of the shadow National Curriculum Council and the shadow School Examinations and Assessment Council.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  During the debate on Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill, on 1 December 1987, at column 776, I announced my intention to set up the National Curriculum Council (NCC) and the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) in shadow form during the passage of the Bill. Establishment of the councils in this way, which is without prejudice o parliamentary approval of the provisions in the Bill relating to the creation of statutory councils, will enable the bodies to begin planning: for implementation of the national curriculum and its associated assessment arrangements, and for the approval of qualifications and syllabuses provided for under the Bill. In particular. it will enable the shadow NCC to plan for consideration of, and consultations on, the reports of the curriculum working groups in mathematics and science due at the end of June.

  I am pleased to say that Mr. Duncan Graham, who is currently the chief executive of Humberside county council and formerly chief education officer of Suffolk, has agreed to be chairman and chief executive of the shadow NCC. Mr. Philip Halsey, deputy secretary in the Department of Education and Science until his retirement earlier this month, has agreed to be chairman and chief executive of the shadow SEAC. I am also appointing the following people as members of the shadow councils:

  National Curriculum Council

  Professor Paul J. Black, OBE. PhD: Professor of Science Education, Kings College, London and Head of the Centre for Educational Studies.

  Mr. Malcolm Brigg: TVEI Regional Adviser, Northern Region.

  Ms. Judith Chaplin: Head of institute of Directors' Policy Unit.

  Mrs. Daphne Gould: Head of Mulberry Girls' School, Tower Hamlets.

  Dr. Hilary Nicolle: Headmistress of Tiffin Girls' School, Kingston-upon-Thames.

  Mr. Colin Smith MBE: Headmaster, Delaval County Middle School, Northumberland.

  Mr. Christopher J. Webb: Principal, Handsworth Technical College, Birmingham.

  Mr. J. Peter Whitehouse: Industrial Consultant.

  School Examinations and Assessment Council

  Mr. Ivor H. Cohen: Chairman of Remploy Ltd.

  Mr. Richard Daughtery: Dean of the Faculty of Educational Studies, University College, Swansea.

  Mr. John Day: Secretary-General of the Associated Examining Board.

  Mr. Neil Fitton: Director of Education, Cheshire LEA.

  Dr. Arthur Hearnden: General Secretary of the Independent Schools Joint Council.

  Dr. Stephen Nepaulsingh: Deputy Headmaster, Heath Park High School, Wolverhampton.

  597

  Dr. Margaret Rayner: Vice-Principal, St. Hilda's College, Oxford.

  Ms. Hilary Steedman: Senior Research Officer at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

  Mrs. Elizabeth Tarr: Head, Thornbury Primary School, Plymouth.

  Ms. Kathleen Tattersall: Joint Secretary of the Northern Examinations Authority. Secretary of the North-West Regional Examinations Board.

  Mr. Christopher J. Webb: Principal, Handsworth Technical College, Birmingham.

  Mr. J. Peter Whitehouse: Industrial consultant.

  They have been chosen after a good deal of consultation with interests directly concerned with the work of the two councils, and between them reflect a wide range of knowledge and experience of educational matters. I am grateful to all for their willingness to serve.

  I have chosen not to fill all the places available on each council—15 if the Bill is passed in its present form—because I wish to consider further appointments in the light of the councils' early experience and of further comment about interests which should be reflected. But I shall be seeking to make an early further appointment to the NCC to bring to bear more knowledge and experience of primary education, and I also intend to ensure that people knowledgeable about special educational needs are appointed to both bodies.

  Subject to the Education Reform Bill completing its passage through Parliament and receiving Royal Assent, I expect to confirm the appointments to their respective councils of the chairmen/chief executives and of the members at a later date.

  The School Curriculum Development Committee and the Secondary Examinations Council, which will respectively be replaced by the NCC and SEAC, will continue their present work for the time being, but will be formally wound up in the autumn after Royal Assent. I am very grateful to their members, and to their chairmen, Professor Roger Blin-Stoyle and Sir Wilfred Cockcroft, for the valuable service they have given and for continuing to serve until the new councils are formally established.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bangladesh
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost of the United Kingdom military training assistance scheme relating to Bangladesh.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We meet the cost of providing a three-man team to help with instruction at the Bangladesh defence services command and staff college. In addition, we meet the cost of attendance by Bangladeshi students at a small number of military training courses in the United Kingdom. It is not our practice to disclose the cost of assistance to individual countries.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have offered any financial assistance to Falkland Islanders who wish to emigrate from the islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have not offered any financial assistance to Falkland Islanders wishing to emigrate from the islands. The FICZ has increased job opportunities in 598
  the islands over the last 18 months. The 1986 census showed an increase in population for the first time since 1930.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present permanent population of the Falkland Islands; what was the population in 1980; and what proportion of the present population are native to the islands.

  Mr. Eggar
  At the last census held on 16 November 1986, the population of the Falkland Islands was 1,916. In 1980 the population was 1,813. The 1986 census figures established that at that time 67 per cent. of the population was born in the Falkland Islands.

  Ministerial Statements
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards making statements on matters raised by television or radio broadcasts or published in the press and magazines.

  Mr. Eggar
  Each case is decided on its merits.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with regard to dealing with individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with his Department through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Eggar
  We would make the necessary arrangements for the translation of any communication received in the Welsh language.

  Gibraltar (Shootings)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his statement on 7 March,Official Report, column 22, on the shootings in Gibraltar, whether full information on the bullet wounds inflicted on the terrorists will be made available by the British Army and the commissioner of the Gibraltar police to the coroner; and whether it is the Government's intention to release this information to the public when the inquest has been completed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  It will be for the coroner to decide to whom he makes available the evidence laid before the inquest.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his statement of 7 March on the shootings in Gibraltar,Official Report, column 21, to whom the police commissioner addressed his request for military assistance; and when.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend on 7 March.

  Albania
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations with Albania.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have no diplomatic relations with Albania but a British trade mission has recently visited that country and there are other unofficial contacts.
  599
  In 1980, we offered to establish diplomatic relations with Albania without preconditions. That offer remains open, but unfortunately the Albanians have not taken it up. FCO officials held talks with Albanian officials in 1985, with a view to finding mutually acceptable solutions to the outstanding problems. These talks did not lead to agreement, but we should be glad to resume discussion if this seemed likely to lead to a satisfactory outcome.

SCOTLAND

  Cavendish Memoirs
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the current cost of the pursual of the legal case to prevent publication of the Cavendish memoirs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Proceedings in Scotland in relation to Anthony Cavendish's book "Inside Intelligence" have been brought by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Government. Those proceedings have not been concluded and in these circumstances it would be inappropriate for any estimate to be made as to the current cost of the pursual of the proceedings. My right hon. and learned Friend therefore does not intend to make any statement in relation to the matter.

  Radioactivity (Monitoring)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for East Lothian on 16 May,Official Report, column 347, if he will list the 26 sites for radioactivity monitoring stations in Scotland; and if it is his intention to make information collected at these stations available to the public.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The location of a number of the 26 monitoring stations to be established in Scotland has yet to be decided. Those 18 sites which will be established this year under phase 1 of the scheme are as listed. (I regret that my reply of 16 May erroneously gave this number as 20.) The locations of the remaining eight sites required to complete the network will be decided later this year and their installation and the automation of all 26 sites are expected within the next two years.

  The information collected at these stations will be made available to local authorities and to other interested bodies or members of the public.

  Phase 1 monitoring stations in Scotland

  Aultbea

  Leuchars

  Aviemore

  Lossiemouth

  Benbecula

  Machrihanish

  Dalcross

  Oban

  Dyce

  Stranraer

  Eskdalemuir

  Stornoway

  Fort William

  Tiree

  Kirkwall

  Tummel Bridge

  Lerwick

  Wick

  Paisley
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the delay in the commencement of the Paisley town centre development; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have received a number of representations on behalf of a company which has 600
  indicated an interest in acquiring land purchased with public funds and owned by Paisley college of technology in order to facilitate a projected development in Paisley town centre. In reply I have explained that the site in question will be disposed of by open tender; and that the Scottish Education Department will not stand in the way of any arrangement which is in the interests of the college and which secures a proper return on the sale of a publicly-acquired asset.

  Paisley College (Land Drainage)
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he last met the governors of Paisley college to discuss the situation regarding land owned by the college in Storie street, Paisley; what was the outcome of these discussions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what advice his Department gave, and on what date, to the governors of Paisley college regarding the land at Stork street, Paisley, which is in the ownership of the college; what action was taken by the governors; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what plans he has to discuss with the governors of Paisley college the anticipated completion date for the disposal of the land owned by the college at Storie street, Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have had no discussions with the governors of Paisley college about the land owned by the college in Storie street. However, officials of the Scottish Education Department have on a number of occasions in the last few months had discussions about the land with senior management of the college. They offered advice on various options for marketing the land so as to secure the best return on a publicly-acquired asset. I understand that the land will be exposed for sale by tender shortly.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he had to assist the town of Paisley in celebration of the 500th anniversary of its formation by grant of Royal Charter during 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None, nor has any such assistance been sought. My right hon. and learned Friend would like, however, to extend to the citizens of Paisley every good wish in this their 500th anniversary year.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has of the number of jobs which will be created by the development of the Paisley shopping centre(a) during construction, and (b) when completed.

  Mr. Lang
  The project, which is due to begin early next year, is expected to create 200 construction jobs. It is estimated that it will provide 500 retail jobs when completed in 1991.

  Sheepmeat
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the procedures adopted following the discovery of sheep with bequerel readings in excess of 1,000 per kilogram to stop(a) the tested sheepmeat carcases concerned and (b) sheepmeat from carcases in the same batch entering the food chain.
  601
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since there have been no cases of the discovery in slaughterhouses of sheep for sale with readings in excess of 1,000 bq/kg it has not been necessary for any such procedures to be adopted.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what time elapsed from the sampling of sheep at slaughterhouses under the Food and Environment Act to the results becoming available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On average four days.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the monitoring of sheep at slaughterhouses under the Food and Environment Protection Act was introduced; and if this was by live monitoring.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The monitoring of caesium levels in sheep at slaughterhouses was introduced on 28 May 1986. It serves as a check on the effectiveness of movement and slaughter restrictions and is undertaken on carcases.

ENVIRONMENT

  Nuclear Waste (Sea Dumping)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to ensure that sub-seabed burial of low and medium level nuclear waste will conform with recent resolutions of the contracting parties to the London dumping convention; whether it would require London dumping convention approval; and what assessment he has made as to whether it would involve levels of technology as yet untried and untested for that purpose.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There are no current proposals to bury low-level or intermediate-level radioactive waste under the sea-bed. Any future proposals would, of course, have to satisfy all national and international safety requirements.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff were employed by each English water authority at the latest available date.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As of 31 March 1988, the numbers of staff employed by each regional water authority was:

  Staff

  Anglian

  5,102

  Northumbrian

  1,459

  North West

  7,936

  Severn Trent

  8,174

  Southern

  3,162

  South West

  1,958

  Thames

  9,210

  Wessex

  1,891

  Yorkshire

  4,981

  Ofwat
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals his Department is currently making with regard to the protective powers of Ofwat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The conditions of appointment of the water utility companies will provide a framework of protection to be operated by the water services office 602
  under powers to be provided in legislation to be laid before Parliament. A series of policy letters, copies of which will be placed in the Library, was announced in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 8 March, at column 121. The letters will give details of the regulatory framework. The first dealt with the regulation of charges by the new water utility companies.

  Water Supply
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how much the Thames water authority spent in each of the last five years on controlling the levels of nitrites and nitrates in rivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department does not hold such information.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to(a) nitrate levels, and (b) nitrite levels in the rivers within the Thames water authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information held by the Department on nitrite and nitrate levels in rivers within Thames water authority over the last five years is as follows:

  Mean annual levels of nitrate expressed in milligrams of nitrogen per litre

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Cherwell Oxford

  7·1

  7·8

  10·0

  8·2

  8·6

  Thame Dorchester bridge

  8·9

  9·8

  9·3

  8·8

  8·3

  Kennet

  4·8

  5·4

  4·8

  4·8

  4·5

  Loddon, Twyford

  6·8

  7·1

  7·1

  6·1

  6·0

  Thames, Egham

  7·0

  7·7

  7·8

  6·9

  7·0

  Colne

  6·8

  7·1

  6·1

  7·3

  6·8

  Wey

  5·6

  6·2

  6·2

  5·6

  5·4

  Mole

  7·4

  7·6

  7·0

  6·5

  6·3

  Thames, Teddington

  7·1

  7·5

  7·5

  6·9

  6·9

  Lee Waterhall

  10·7

  9·9

  12·4

  11·6

  11·6

  Lee, Ware

  7·7

  7·5

  7·8

  8·8

  8·4

  Lee, Springfield

  12·5

  13·0

  12·8

  9·7

  10·8

  Roding, Redbridge

  9·8

  11·5

  8·2

  10·9

  9·5

  Mean annual levels of nitrite expressed in milligrams of nitrogen per litre

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Cherwell, Oxford

  —

  —

  —

  <0·07

  0·09

  Thame, Dorchester bridge

  —

  —

  —

  <0·05

  0·05

  Kennet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·07

  Lodden, Twyford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·08

  Thames Egham

  —

  —

  —

  <0·07

  0·07

  Colne

  <0·08

  <0·10

  <0·13

  <0·67

  <0·10

  Wey

  —

  —

  0·14

  <0·13

  0·12

  Mole

  —

  —

  <0·22

  <0·17

  0·13

  Thames, Teddington

  —

  —

  <0·13

  <0·10

  0·10

  Lee, Waterhall

  0·15

  <0·10

  0·17

  <0·10

  0·18

  Lee, Ware

  <0·08

  <0·07

  <0·07

  <0·12

  0·06

  Lee, Springfield

  <0·17

  0·29

  0·25

  —

  —

  Roding, Redbridge

  0·54

  <0·60

  0·20

  0·68

  —

  < signifies - less than.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations will be made by his
  603
  Department at the international conference on low and intermediate-level nuclear waste management organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Commission of the European Communities to be held in Stockholm from 16 to 20 May;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report all those United Kingdom participants referred by his Department for the International Atomic Energy Agency Commission of the European Communities joint international symposium on low and intermediate-level nuclear wastes to be held in Stockholm on 16 to 20 May; and what specific departmental representation is arranged.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Twenty five United Kingdom delegates attended the IAEA/CEC symposium on low and intermediate level waste held in Stockholm 16–20 May. The following organisations were represented:HM Inspectorate of Pollution; HM Industrial Pollution Inspectorate; United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; Central Electricity Generating Board; South of Scotland Electricity Board; British Nuclear Fuels plc; National Radiological Protection Board; Taywood Engineering Ltd; Associated Nuclear Services; and the Open university.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what physical checks are made on consignments of radioactive wastes on arrival at the Drigg dump near Sellafield to ensure that the packaged waste contains only what Her Majesty's Pollution Inspectorate authorisations allow.

  Mr. Moynihan
  BNF plc is responsible for quality assurance monitoring at the Drigg site. Her Majesty's Inspectors of Pollution also carry out quality checking. Material can be removed to an independent laboratory for analysis by inspectors.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total radioactivity content in becquerels of nuclear wastes currently deposited at the Drigg dump near Sellafield; and what authorisations exist for disposal up to the year 2010.

  Mr. Moynihan
  470 terabecquerels were disposed of at Drigg up to 1 January 1986. An authorisation controlling the disposal of solid radioactive waste to the Drigg site was issued on 1 February 1988. It will be reviewed by 1992.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards the import by the United Kingdom of foreign nuclear wastes in low and intermediate categories for(a) treatment, incineration and compaction and (b) disposal, once Nirex has finalised its search for a suitable deep disposal site.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No low and intermediate level waste arising from anywhere in the world is imported into the United Kingdom. Any proposals to do so would be considered on its merits, with a view to ensuring that neither the public nor the environment should be placed at any risk.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any consideration of planning gains to be offered to the residents of Drigg and Carleton in Cumbria near Sellafield in the light of the planning and environmental blight brought about by the radioactive waste dump at Drigg; and if he will make a statement.
  604
  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has made no consideration of planning gains in the Drigg area. This is a matter for BNFL and the local authorities.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total plutonium content(a) by weight and (b) by radioactivity content of plutonium contamination material currently deposited at the Drigg dump near Sellafield; and if he will make a statement on the extractability of the plutonium by current methods or methods known to his Department presently under development.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand from BNFL that there are about 500 g of plutonium dispersed throughout 700,000 cum of low-level radioactive waste currently deposited at Drigg. The radioactive content of this is estimated to be approximately 25 tera becqerels. Much research has been carried out into methods to remove plutonium from wastes prior to disposal; however, none has proved to be worth while.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to initiate a special development order to permit British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to conduct borehole testing as part of suitability evaluation for deep disposal of nuclear waste at the Sellafield site, in light of the rejection of the planning application for such a test from British Nuclear Fuels plc by the Copeland borough council planning committee.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have at present no plans to initiate a special development order.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of radioactive wastes currently deposited at the Drigg dump near Sellafield arise from contracts made with foreign companies or Governments; and what proportion of the volume of wastes expected to be deposited at the Drigg dump by the year 2010 will be of foreign origin.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Approximately 4 per cent. by volume of the radioactive waste disposed of by burial into the ground at the Drigg disposal site up to the end of 1987 arose from British Nuclear Fuel's contracts with foreign customers. This percentage is not expected to change significantly in the period to 2010.

  Ministerial Statements
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy regarding making, statements in Parliament on matters raised by television or radio programmes or in the press and magazines articles.

  Mr. Ridley
  Each case is decided on its merits.

  Heat Exchangers (Nuclear Plants)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current policy towards the disposal of heat exchangers from decommissioned nuclear power plants.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The power plant operator is responsible for management of decommissioned wastes. I expect him to make proposals for safe disposal to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution who will assess them against radiological and environmental criteria set out in the HMSO booklet "Disposal facilities on land for low and
  605
  intermediate level radioactive wastes: Principles for the protection of the human environment." If I am satisfied with the proposal and the assessment the operator will be authorised to proceed.

  Mustard Gas (Clwyd)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to publish the report commissioned from the laboratory of the Government Chemist by the Property Services Agency in 1985 on mustard gas contamination at Rhydymwyn in Clwyd.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The report commissioned from the Government Chemist to assess the level of mustard gas contamination on this site was not prepared nor intended for publication.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy with regard to dealing with those individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with his Department through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Department's policy is to answer communications in languages other than English in the writer's language wherever possible. Normally, unless an urgent reply is required, any correspondence to the Department that is written in Welsh will be answered in Welsh.

  Office of Water Regulation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his Department proposes that the members of the Office of Water Regulation will be selected; what the composition of the Office of Water Regulation will be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Planning for the establishment of the water services office is still at an early stage, but we expect to recruit a suitably experienced and qualified Director General of Water Services. The staff of the office is likely to be a mixture of civil servants on loan from their Departments and specialist staff recruited on contract from elsewhere.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources his Department intends to place at the disposal of the Office of Water Regulation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The water service offices is likely to be a non-ministerial department, the Exchequer costs of which will be financed by licence fees from the utility companies which will hold appointments as water and sewerage undertakers. The Department will ensure that it is established with adequate resources to commence its regulatory tasks; thereafter this will he the reponsibility of the Director General of Water Services.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers the Office of Water Regulation will have with regard to the level of charges paid by water customers/users.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The charges of water utility companies will be limited in accordance with one of their conditions of appointment, which will be administered by the 606
  Director General of Water Services. The arrangements for the regulation of charges are described in a policy letter dated 3 March 1988 (reference WRP1), copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Water Industry (Privatisation)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his Department estimates the severance costs will be to the water industry, or to any other body covering these costs of breaking up the water industry into private companies and a National Rivers Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No information is yet available. Following Royal Assent to the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act, water authorities have been asked to provide outline schemes of organisation on the separation of their businesses into a utility and NRA component. These will identify, inter alia, any costs of the necessary reorganisation. The National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee will be scrutinising these restructuring proposals very carefully.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers the National Rivers Authority will have with regard to monitoring and influencing levels of capital expenditure by privatised water companies on their assets.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Regulatory decisions taken by the National Rivers Authority in respect of abstraction and impounding licences and discharge consents may influence levels of capital expenditure by privatised water companies. The expenditure needed will be taken into account by the Director General of Water Services in reviewing the prices which companies may charge their customers. In addition, the NRA will have an interest in the costs which companies incur in maintaining and operating river-regulating reservoirs, for which the NRA will pay them a charge.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many water pollution incidents were recorded in each English water authority in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The numbers of water pollution incidents reported by English water authorities in the last three years for which figures are available are:

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Anglian

  1,557

  1,707

  1,468

  Northumbrian

  654

  722

  729

  North West

  2,241

  2,202

  2,480

  Severn Trent

  4,372

  4,500

  4,497

  Southern

  1,574

  1,668

  1,743

  South West

  1,685

  1,718

  2,075

  Thames

  2,486

  2,695

  2,890

  Wessex

  1,125

  993

  1,332

  Yorkshire

  1,536

  2,006

  2,262

  The Water Authorities Association will publish figures for 1987–88 later this year.

WALES

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of water pollution incidents recorded for each of the last three years in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh water authority's annual water quality report shows the reported water pollution incidents for the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87 were 1,418, 1,681 and 1,619 respectively.

  The report for 1987–88 is expected to be issued in the near future.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is now in a position to he able to announce the outcome of the consultation process undertaken by his Department during 1986–87 concerning the desirability of initiating new Welsh language legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 25 April, at columns 6–7.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the evidence submitted to his Department in response to its consultation exercise on the desirability of new Welsh language legislation carried out in 1986 and 1987 to be made available to the public for inspection.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 15 January at column 426.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what detailed evaluation has been carried out by his Department of the responses to its consultation exercise on the desirability of new Welsh language legislation carried out in 1986 and 1987; in what form he expects such evaluation to he made available to the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Substantive comments have been individually considered in depth and the main thrust of these will he reflected in the announcement which my right hon. Friend hopes to make shortly on his plans for action with regard to the Welsh language.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider publishing a White Paper on reform of the legal status of the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon of Friday 11 March,Official Report, column 367, why his Department has not compiled a list of those persons, bodies and associations which submitted evidence to his Department on the desirability of new Welsh language legislation during the consultation exercise carried out in 1986 and 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on 11 March, at column 367.

  Nursery Nurses (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified nursery nurses are employed by 608
  each of the local education authorities in Wales; if he will grant extra funds to Clwyd education authority so as to avoid cutbacks in nursery nurse numbers in the junior schools of Clwyd; if he will meet the Clwyd parent-teacher associations to discuss the work of nursery nurses in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The number of qualified nursery assistants employed by each local education authority in Wales as at September 1987 is as follows:

  Local Education Authority

  Number

  Clwyd

  309

  Dyfed

  152

  Gwent

  339

  Gwynedd

  64

  Mid Glamorgan

  341

  Powys

  74

  South Glamorgan

  105

  West Glamorgan

  260

  It is for Clwyd local education authority to determine its own priorities within the total resources available to it.

  We have no plans to meet the Clwyd parent-teachers associations.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he will prepare regional coalfield statements In Wales concerning opencast coalmining; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In accordance with the code of practice produced by the local authority associations, British Coal Corporation has agreed to prepare a national assessment of the market requirement for opencast coal.

  Subsequently, British Coal will prepare regional coalfield statements which will indicate the regional impact of the national assessment, for discussion with the mineral planning authorities in each region.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he will ensure that local people, as well as county mineral planning authorities, will be involved in opencast mining applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The Government believe that local people should be given the opportunity to make their views known both to the industry and to the mineral planning authorities. Thus the law requires an applicant for planning permission for opencast mining to advertise his proposals in the local press and on a notice to be displayed on the site. The application cannot then be determined for a minimum of 21 days during which members of the public and anyone with an interest in the land may make representations to the mineral planning authority. In addition, where proposals relate to large sites or sites that may be worked over many years the Government encourage the industry to discuss the proposals at an early stage with the local community by holding public exhibitions and meetings.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further action he proposes to take to combat homelessness in Wales.
  609
  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: There are specific proposals in the Housing Bill which aim to increase the supply of rented accommodation for those in greatest housing need.

  Housing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses in Wales are classified as unfit to live in.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: The results of the Welsh house condition survey show that in 1986 the number of dwellings in Wales classified as unfit was 79,700. In 1981 there were 90,000 unfit dwellings.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses in Wales lack(a) one or more basic amenity, (b) an inside toilet and (c) a fixed bath.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: The results of the Welsh house condition survey show that in 1986 there were 47,600 dwellings in Wales lacking one or more basic amenity, 20,800 dwellings in Wales lacking a WC inside the dwelling, and 16,300 dwellings in Wales lacking a fixed bath or shower inside the dwelling. These figures show a significant improvement on the situation in 1981 when 83,600 lacked one or more basic amenity, 55,000 lacked a WC inside the dwelling, and 44,300 lacked a fixed bath in a bathroom.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the cost of compiling the latest Welsh house condition survey; and what assessment he has made of its value to his Department.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 17 May 1988]: The 1986 Welsh house condition survey was the first undertaken at the district level and provides both the Department and district councils in Wales with a uniquely detailed picture of the Welsh housing stock, and with a large amount of social data about householders. The report identifies the considerable progress we have made in improving housing conditions in Wales and also highlights the areas with outstanding housing problems. It will assist us in determining priorities and financial allocations. The cost of the survey was £1·6 million. The value of the survey will be determined by the extent to which local authorities and others make use of the results.

DEFENCE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to extend monitoring of equal opportunities in Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's evidence to the Defence Committee. The Committee's report (HC 391) was published on 25 April and we shall be responding to it shortly.

  Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many current procurement contracts valued at more than £10 million are currently behind schedule.
  610
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry has a well-developed system which ensures that all projects running seriously behind schedule are brought to the notice of senior officials and, for major projects, Ministers. Information about major projects is also regularly made available to the Public Accounts and Defence Select Committees. The detailed information requested, however, would require a special survey and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of the defence of the Falkland Islands since the end of the conflict; and what percentage of the expenditure involved represents payments to United Kingdom-based contractors in respect of construction works and so on.

  Mr. Freeman
  The additional cost of maintaining a garrison in the Falkland Islands from April 1983 to the end of the last financial year is estimated to be £1,544 million (including campaign costs in 1982–83 but excluding residual campaign costs subsequently). Approximately one third of this amount has been spent on capital works projects. The placing and management of works contracts is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the annual cost of defending the Falklands.

  Mr. Freeman
  The additional cost of maintaining a garrison in the Falkland Islands in 1988–89 is estimated to be £97 million. This includes all extra costs relating to the Falklands garrison; it excludes residual campaign costs, and those personnel, equipment and other costs which would be incurred in the absence of the Falklands commitment.

  Ministerial Statements
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards making statements in Parliament on matters raised by television or radio or in the press and magazine articles.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Each case is decided on its merits.

  Deaf Persons
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people employed in his Department are(a) deaf without speech, (b) deaf with speech, and (c) hard of hearing, for the latest date for which figures are available; and what percentage this represents of all employees in his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I regret the information requested is not held centrally. However, action is being taken within the Ministry of Defence to set up a central database on people with disabilities.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to dealing with individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with his Department through the medium of the Welsh language.
  611
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Written presentations to the Ministry of Defence in any language other than English are translated within the Department or sent to commercial agencies for translation if resources are not available.

  It is normal practice to reply in English, the working language of the Department, irrespective of the language used by the original inquiry.

  P and O Staff (Training)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training facilities are provided at Deal barracks for staff of the P and 0 company; and when such facilities were first made available.

  Mr. Freeman
  No training facilities are being provided at Deal barracks for staff of the P and O company. The Royal Marines school of music owns a swimming pool outside the camp which is regularly made available to the general public and commercial organisations—including the cross-Channel operators. P and O has been using the pool from time to time since 9 May and I understand that it has carried out some staff training in life saving duties there.

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of compiling the Defence Estimates White Paper.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The estimated costs of producing the 1988 Statement on the Defence Estimates were approximately £63,000.

  Fishermen (Compensation)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he proposes to take to compensate fishermen whose boats and gear are damaged or sunk after being ensnared by submarines at sea.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There is already a well-established procedure by which fishermen may claim compensation when their boats or gear are damaged or sunk by Her Majesty's ships, including submarines. Every incident reported is carefully investigated and compensation is paid where it is shown that the Ministry of Defence is legally liable.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has introduced to improve the employment prospects of disabled persons in the armed forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  No new measures have been initiated. It is not our practice to recruit disabled people and the nature of employment in the armed forces is such that it is not often possible to continue to employ service personnel disabled whilst in the forces, though individual cases are considered on their merits.

  HIV Screening
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce HIV screening for pilots of fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement.
  612
  Mr. Freeman
  No. It is not Ministry of Defence policy to impose compulsory HIV screening within any area of the armed forces. This accords with the current overall Government policy on employment.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food and Environment Protection Act
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library copies of all the correspondence sent to farmers affected by restrictions under the Food and Environment Protection Act since 20 June 1986.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the correspondence sent by my officials to all farmers in England affected by restrictions under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made on the development of a tuberculosis vaccine for badgers; what research is presently carried out with that aim; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: Research work on the development of a reliable vaccine for use in badgers has been carried out at the Middlesex hospital. Proposals for field trials to determine the efficacy of the vaccine and a suitable method of administration are under active and careful consideration.

EMPLOYMENT

  Self-employment
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the fact that a self-employed worker on the enterprise allowance scheme or otherwise has only one initial client for his services constitutes a valid reason for denying or refusing such work a self-employed status.

  Mr. Cope
  The employment status of workers for tax and national insurance purposes is determined on a case by case basis. The number of clients will be one of the factors taken into account in deciding whether a person is self-employed.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has of the number of employees who would become self-employed if employers and workers were able to agree such status, free from existing legal constraints.

  Mr. Cope
  Employers and employees are, in general, free to agree whatever contractual arrangements they wish. For tax and national insurance purposes, self-employed status applies only to those people who are genuinely taking the business risks associated with self-employment. We can make no estimate of the numbers who might be affected by a change in these arrangements.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases in which employed or self-employed status was in dispute came to the attention of officials in his Department in 1987.
  613
  Mr. Cope
  Questions about employment or self-employment status are primarily a matter for the Inland Revenue and Department of Health and Social Security. However, Ministers received 30 representations about cases concerning employment status in 1987. This excludes cases and inquiries handled by the small firms service.

  Mines and Quarries Act 1954
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what responses he has received to the consultative document entitled "Restrictions on Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation which refers to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954"; and whether these will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department has received a total of 81 responses to the consultative document from various organisations and individuals. They will not be placed in the Library for reasons of confidentiality.

  Special Learning Needs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what specialist courses will be available under the new training scheme to bridge the skills gap for those with special learning needs.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training will offer all participants an individual action plan, drawn up to meet their particular training needs. This may involve training designed specifically for those people with learning difficulties.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take so that training agents and managers in the new programme are aware of the potential of people with disabilities and of the help available to assist them where appropriate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training will cater for the needs of all unemployed including those with disabilities.

  The MSC will ensure this in a number of ways. A guide for trainers of disabled participants will be produced together with a handbook for both training agents and training managers. Awareness modules will also be organised and a short presentation video produced.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about equal opportunities and protection from sexual harassment in Manpower Services Commission training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Manpower Services Commission is committed to, and actively implements, a policy of equal opportunities throughout its training programmes. The commission will not tolerate sexual harassment by its officials, its training providers or by its trainees.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent by the Manpower Services Commission and his Department for each of the 614
  years 1985, 1986 and 1987 and in each of the standard regions on (a) direct employment services for the disabled in jobcentres, (b) disabled resettlement officers and (c) advertising and promotional material.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 17 May 1988]: I regret that the information for (a) is not available. Information at (b) is not available by region, but nationally is estimated as: 1985–86— £7·1 million; 1986–87— £7·1 million; 1987–88£7·4 million. Exact figures are not available as jobcentre costs are not separately apportioned between DROs and other jobcentre staff. Information for (c) is not available by region, but nationally is 1985–86— £223,000; 1986–87—£201,000; 1987–88—£488,000.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Cleaning Staff
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, answering on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, whether he is operating a vacancy discount system to the cleaning staff establishment; how long each of the 16 unfilled vacancies have been unfilled; which posts are currently in the process of being filled; what instructions have been given to reduce the cleaning specifications; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of standards of cleanliness.

  Mr. Beith
  No. As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Lady on 17 May 1988, at column 436, the difference between the complement of posts and cleaning staff employed represents the number of unfilled vacancies due to the steady and continuous turnover of staff. Two additional cleaning staff began work on 16 May 1988, reducing the shortfall against complement from 14 to 12. Another recruitment exercise is in progress, with a closing date for applications of 20 May 1988. No instructions have been given to reduce the cleaning specification. I understand that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee plans to review the adequacy of standards of cleanliness.

TRANSPORT

  National Bus Company
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what inquiries he made as to the status of purchasers of National Bus Company assests in relation to the holding of public service vehicle licences before the National Bus Company's assets were sold.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Before putting forward its proposals for disposal of subsidiary companies NBC took steps to satisfy itself about the suitability of prospective purchasers including, where appropriate, their status as PSV operators.

  London Underground
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the basis of the current statutory rules relating to the operations of one-person deep tube railways in London, other than the Victoria line; on what date they commenced; and what was the respective preceding instrument.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Section 2 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 makes London Regional Transport
  615
  statutorily responsible for the safe running of its railways. There are no statutory rules relating specifically to one-person-operation. However, the criteria adopted for one-person-operation were drawn up by London Underground Limited in consultation with the Railway Inspectorate.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the owners of the Channel tunnel do not reduce their fares to less than the full cost, including interest payments on capital, in order to force the Channel ferries out of business.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Under the Channel fixed link treaty and concession agreement, Eurotunnel is free to set tariffs without Government interference. It is, however, subject to national and Community competition law. Any necessary action would be for the Director General of Fair Trading and the European Commission or, since Community law is of direct effect, for private parties in the courts.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish in the Official Report (a) the projected cross-Channel passenger and freight traffic for 1987 as given or implied in his Department's 1973–74 report on the economics of the Channel tunnel, (b) the assumed level of fares and rates in 1987 in terms of 1987 prices and (c) the realised 1987 figures in each case.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The forecasts to which the hon. Member refers are those in a report by Coopers and Lybrand Associates Ltd. presented to the then Secretary of State for the Environment on 31 May 1973. These forecasts were published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in "The Channel Tunnel: A United Kingdom transport cost benefit study."

  Section V of the report deals with traffic between Britain and Europe in the absence of a Channel tunnel and includes passenger and freight forecasts (tables 5.1 and 5.2). These forecasts relate to 1980 and 1990. The table compares the actual figures for passengers and freight in 1986, the latest year for which full figures are available, with the forecasts given in the report for 1980 and 1990.

  Forecast

  Actual

  1980

  1990

  1986

  PASSENGER TRAFFIC (000'S)

  Shipping services:

  Accompanied vehicle passengers

  9,230

  19,331

  14,000

  Other passengers

  7,756

  10,718

  7,300

  Air services:

  passengers

  29,778

  63,221

  33,200

  Total passengers

  46,764

  93,270

  54,500

  FREIGHT TRAFFIC (tonnes 000's)

  616

  Forecast

  Actual

  1980

  1990

  1986

  Roll-on/Roll-off and container traffic

  13,139

  25,283

  23,800

  The forecasts assumed that fares and rates would remain at the 1971 level in real terms (except for a 20 per cent. increase in real terms on the Belgian straits shipping routes). As I indicated in my reply to a question from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on Friday 13 May, at column 275, the Department has no responsibility for ferry fares and does not compile records of ferry fare levels.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with regard to dealing with individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with his Department through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's policy is to answer communications written in languages other than English in the same language, when practicable. Where there are time constraints, a reply in English is given. At the driver and vehicle licensing centre in Swansea, letters written in the Welsh language are answered in the same medium.

  Mr. J. M. Heron (Accident)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the recent accident to Mr. Herron, a seaman on the P and. O vessel European Trader, and what information he has as to Mr. Herron's previous maritime experience.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is assumed that the person referred to in the question is Mr. J. M. Heron who is a seaman on the European Trader. It is understood that Mr. Heron suffered bruising to his legs in an incident during mooring on 15 May.

  Mr. Heron passed the examination for an efficient deck hand certificate in 1984.

  Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 364, what specific aspects of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill he discussed with the chairman of Associated British Ports at their meeting on 24 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The chairman explained ABP's proposals for developments at King's Lynn, Port Talbot and Immingham. It is perfectly normal and proper for the chairman of a major port undertaking to keep Ministers informed from time to time about developments affecting their ports. Among other things, he informed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the extent of the opposition to this Bill and of I he petitions against it.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD AMPTHILL on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Fletton Bricks: Supplies
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will investigate the effect on the construction industry of the shortage of common Fletton bricks.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, decisions on the production and supply of these bricks are a matter for the commercial judgment of the industry and it would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene directly.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that members of the Federation of Master Builders are reporting that they are often given a supply time for common Fletton bricks of four months, and that the alternative of importing bricks from Denmark and Germany is both ludicrous and expensive? Bearing in mind that the Oxford clay used for the making of common Flettons is in a virtual monopoly situation with the London Brick Company, what steps do the Government propose to take to ensure that British bricklayers are able to lay British-made bricks?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there may be a slight misunderstanding about the common brick. A Fletton is the term used for a special make of common brick. Of course there are other types of common brick produced in this country and indeed there are alternatives that can be used for common bricks. I can assure your Lordships that the percentage of net imports of both common and facing bricks last year was under 0·75 per cent.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister is of course quite right when he says that there are other types of brick besides Fletton. Does he not accept that the overwhelming experience of bricklayers in this country is not only that they have relied upon them but that many of the houses that have been built—which from time to time need renovation and repair—rely upon a supply of common Fletton bricks? Further, bearing in mind the fact that the virtual monopoly supplier is also undertaking studies to acquire a source of concrete for making bricks, what steps are the Government taking to monitor the predatory activities of those who are involved in such activity in the brick-making business?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Director-General of Fair Trading considered the take-over of
580
the London Brick Company in 1984 and recommended to my right honourable friend that there were no grounds for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Last year the production of Fletton commons amounted to 165 million out of a total of commons produced in Great Britain of over 1,042 million.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister not appreciate that there are trends that need to be watched? If he is telling us that only 0·75 per cent. of common bricks are imported, is he not monitoring the situation? Further, can he assure the House that should the situation worsen, he will consider taking some action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it was commons and facings that were imported. I am not able to give the noble Lord the breakdown between common and facing bricks imported. However, we are watching the situation; otherwise I would not have been able to give him the figures that I have quoted.

Gas Burn in Power Stations
11.9 a.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What powers they now have to prevent the excessive use of limited natural gas resources, particularly in large new power stations.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, gas burn in power stations is regulated under the Energy Act 1976 which implements Directive 75/404/EEC. There is no restriction on gas burn in power stations below 10 megawatts. Above this level, application must be made to the Secretary of State for Energy, who will consider each case on its merits.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, can he assure me that there will be no difference in the requirement for the Government to give permission after the electricity industry is privatised?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Viscount will I am sure be pleased to hear that my honourable friend Mr. Morrison announced yesterday that he had given his consent for the proposed 290 megawatt power station at Leicester, which is a combined heat and power plant to be fired by gas. This follows the approval given on 9th May for the 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power station at Barking. I can assure the noble Viscount that the situation will be no different after privatisation.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Viscount ask his colleagues to bear in mind that gas is of quite unique value to the housewife and the householder for cooking, central heating, and so on; therefore we should not allow our reserves to be diminished so fast that sooner or later the housewife will have nothing to cook with?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that was the purpose behind the EC directive.

South Africa: Sanctions Policy
11.12 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was their response to the call made by African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to the EC Council of Ministers on 26th April for tougher sanctions to be applied against the Government of South Africa.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we implement existing restrictive measures in full. We do not consider that additional measures would contribute to the objective shared by all noble Lords; namely, the early and complete elimination by peaceful means of the deeply repugnant apartheid system.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Ministei aware that at the meeting in Mauritius the acting president of the EC Council of Ministers, the Foreign Minister of West Germany, indicated that because the South Africans had now cut off all channels for the supply of humanitarian aid to South Africa the EC was considering further measures or sanctions against South Africa?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the full implications of the recent South African Government actions in this respect are not absolutely clear. I should like to make it clear that the United Kingdom Government would regret and oppose any curtailment of aid programmes. We have made strong representations to the South African Government on this point, both bilaterally and jointly with our colleagues in the Twelve.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the tougher sanctions asked for in this Question would apply not so much to the Government of South Africa as to the people of South Africa? Can he say whether we do people in difficulties any good by making them unemployed?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the implication of my noble friend's question. The Government believe that sanctions are ineffective as a means of ending apartheid and would stiffen the resistance of those who oppose change. We also believe that the punitive sanctions that have already been imposed have failed to hasten reform, have reduced external influence and indeed have strengthened those who we believe are unhelpful in this matter.
One interesting point is that notable anti-apartheid campaigners in South Africa itself, such as leaders of the Progressive Federal Party, believe like we do that the course of negotiation is to be preferred to sanctions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the policies of the South African Government have become increasingly repressive over the past few months, as exemplified by the banning of political parties and the closing of moderate newspapers? Can the noble Lord say what further action Her Majesty's Government are proposing to take to modify that? As to the view enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is the Leader of the House aware that the overwhelming majority of the black people in South Africa would be glad to see sanctions, because they believe as we do that that would ensure the more rapid departure of apartheid?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord's first question asks about the South African Government cutting off peaceful avenues of political change. I agree with the noble Lord that frustration and despair breed violence. We very much deplore what the South African Government have been doing in relation to the matters referred to in that part of the noble Lord's question.
On the noble Lord's second point, I have already made clear in my answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the United Kingdom Government fundamentally disagree with what the noble Lord said in the second part of his question.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the front line states have been notable for toughening sanctions or pretending to but not carrying them out? Do they have a good or a bad record in regard to the suppression of opposition parties?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we are moving a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may content myself, in answer to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, with saying that the United Kingdom's record with regard to southern African states and the assistance we give to them is very good indeed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that his right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said this week that Her Majesty's Government are maintaining contact with the ANC? Is he aware that the ANC, which represents the majority of the black people of South Africa, is very much in favour of sanctions? Are Her Majesty's Government to discuss sanctions with the ANC?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, officials meet ANC representatives from time to time as necessary. The question of further meetings with Ministers at present would be entirely hypothetical. The noble Lord did not mention this, but I should like to make the point that these contacts which we have at official level do not mean in any way that we therefore agree with the views of the ANC. I must repeat to the noble Lord that the views of the United Kingdom Government on sanctions are quite clear. I have given them today in answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the systematic and indeed illegal persecution of a young British athlete on the grounds of her race and national origin which has given her a nervous breakdown and forced her out of the country will unfortunately greatly reinforce white South African suspicions of and contempt for outside advice and interference?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, what is the difference between the deprivations that millions of people suffered to defeat Nazism and African people doing the same to defeat apartheid?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I made it clear in my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that it is the objective of the United Kingdom Government, and I assume of all noble Lords, that there should be the early and complete elimination of the deeply repugnant apartheid system, but by peaceful means.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that during the last war the late, unlamented Lord Haw-Haw made remarks very similar to those we have heard in this Chamber this morning? He said that if the British Government were to stand alone it would be the British people who suffered. We suffered, but we stood and ultimately we had the majority with us.
Is the Minister aware that we are the head of a remarkable multi-racial Commonwealth, the greatest mankind has seen, and that the majority of people in the great British Commonwealth believe that we, the British Government, have tried very hard to get the South African Government to abolish apartheid? We have failed using diplomatic measures and people in the British Commonwealth believe, as many people in this country believe, that we ought now seriously to consider severe sanctions.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that when the noble Lord comes to look at the first part of the Question which he asked he may regret it. As regards the second part, I think it goes wide of the original Question.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I am glad to have the matter clarified. Recognising the difficulty about sanctions, may I ask the Minister—and I hope he does not say that it is another question—where Zimbabwe gets its oil. That country is fervent about sanctions against South Africa.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is another question.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I recently spent a considerable time in South Africa? I visited many shanty towns, as I would call them, the zinc houses where I would not choose to live but where I learnt of the deep divisions among the black people about sanctions. I saw in Khayelitsha, which is a name not unknown to people in South Africa, slogans printed on some of these zinc
584
houses, "Hang the ANC murderers". I saw it. Therefore, ought we not to think twice before we speak with such emphasis about how South Africa should solve its problems?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most interested to hear what the noble Viscount says after having visited South Africa and seen it at first hand. I do not wish this morning to go further than the original Answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, why is it that successive Ministers from the Government Front Bench pick out an organisation like the Federal Progressive Party and ignore the whole bulk of African leadership? That leadership has expressed itself not only in favour of sanctions but of being prepared to suffer their effects rather than continue in the present circumstances.
Is it not the case that when the South African Government cut off the channels for humanitarian aid to South Africa it was suggested at the meeting of the EC that the British Government might not be averse to the inclusion of sanctions against coal imports into this country? That would be part of the measures to stop the kind of oppression that we have seen over the last few weeks, rather than to continue to utter pious criticisms of apartheid which have had no effect other than to increase the oppression under the apartheid regime.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as regards the point which the noble Lord made towards the end of his remarks, we should be willing to implement a ban on imports of coal from South Africa if a consensus could be reached among the Community partners. The reason why Ministers from this Bench have been giving consistent answers is that there is no alternative to working for peaceful change through dialogue and negotiation. Change, we believe, must come from within. We do not think that there can be a quick or easy solution.
We therefore believe that it is right for Her Majesty's Government to continue with contact, pressure, advocacy, persuasion, dialogue and indeed aid.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if all the questions to which we have had to listen on this subject over the last decade were placed end to end, would that make any difference?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, maybe not. Nonetheless, it is a course around which we go frequently.

West Bank and Gaza: Economic Hardship
11.24 a.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking any measures to alleviate economic hardship in occupied Palestine, and whether they will take steps to ensure that producers in the West Bank and Gaza have as easy access to EC markets as producers in Israel.
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords. We give aid to the occupied territories through our bilateral programme, though the European Community and through our contributions to organisations such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. In 1986 the European Community decided at the United Kingdom's instigation to grant Palestinian producers preferential access for industrial and agricultural produce. We have repeatedly urged the Israelis to allow implementation of these arrangements in line with a signed undertaking which they gave in December 1987.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Does he not agree that it is quite unacceptable that Israel should enjoy full access to EC markets while preventing producers in the West Bank and Gaza from having the same access? Will the Government strongly support the efforts of Commissioner Cheysson to end this thoroughly unsatisfactory situation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, yes. Commissioner Cheysson is active in this matter, as the noble Lord says, and the United Kingdom certainly supports the activities of the commissioner.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Government's attitude on this appalling problem has been very loyal to the principles of freedom and democracy? To a degree the Government have encouraged those who are living in parts of their own land which are now occupied. The British Government have every right to be proud of the views they have held. However, the time is coming when a little action must be taken. Would it not possibly be helpful if those who live in lands occupied by foreign powers were allowed to trade with Europe? All this might bring the possibility of some understanding towards increasing trade, alleviating suffering and ending the occupation.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think I can add to the Answer which I have just given to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, will the Government consider asking the rich oil-producing Arab states in the Middle East to make a contribution towards easing the problem for the Palestinian refugees?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, although I quite understand why the noble Lord asks this question, negotiations on all these matters need at the first instance to be bilateral. Of course we are interested, particularly as a member of the European Community, but first and foremost bilateral negotiations are most important.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that just last month I was in Israel and was given incontrovertible proof that products from the occupied territories were being obstructed? In some cases the papers were being destroyed and the exports from the occupied territories to the EC were being deliberately blocked by, at the least, agents of the Israeli Government. Will the noble Lord look into
586
this? It is a very real problem. I can give him concrete evidence of what is taking place now in the obstruction of the export of goods from the occupied territories to the EC.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, certainly there is no need, if I may say so, for the United Kingdom to look into it. The Community made a demarche to the Israelis on 31st March. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said in his supplementary question, there is continuing activity through Commissioner Cheysson. If we can unlock this problem the Community will certainly try to do so.

Electricity Privatisation Proposals
11.28 a.m.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper on privatising electricity—the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales (Cmnd. 322).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will remember that when I repeated the Statement on the White Paper on 25th February I said that I would try to arrange a debate through the usual channels. I am happy to say that the usual channels were most co-operative, although unfortunately the only day available, for reasons which will be well understood by your Lordships, was a Friday. Nevertheless, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a Friday is better than no day and I hope that the House will welcome this opportunity to debate the Government's proposals.
The privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales is an issue of great national importance. The United Kingdom energy market has been dominated by nationalised energy utilities since the Second World War—namely, coal, gas and electricity. The successful privatisation of British Gas proved that there is no reason at all why a successful energy utility, even with significant monopolistic parts of its business, should be run within the public rather than the private sector.
Our privatisation proposals will free the electricity supply industry to act as every industry should—commercially and without state interference. We have taken our decisions on the future structure of the industry. These were published at the end of February. But there remains a lot of detailed work to do in conjunction with the industry and other interested parties before legislation can be introduced. The legislation will build on the industry's strengths.
In bringing forward our proposals, we have already consulted widely, not only with the industry but with other interested parties. We have listened to many people and many views. We will continue to do so to ensure that we get the best possible deal for the industry's customers, employees and shareholders.
Our proposals have been designed to encourage the industry to grow. We are not in the business of transforming the electricity industry overnight. That

587
would be neither possible nor desirable. We believe the new structure will preserve and enhance what is best about the industry. It will create a framework in which a modern competitive industry will develop. The 12 distribution companies will be free to find the cheapest sources of power for their customers. A new industry, moulded by and developing to meet the needs of its customers, will evolve.
Our proposals will introduce competition in the generation of electricity. They will give new rights to the customer. They will regulate the monopolies that remain. They will open up new opportunities for employees and allow the management to use its initiative.
At present the CEGB has a statutory obligation to supply and has an effective monopoly of power generation, and through its ownership of the national grid it controls access to the market for bulk supplies of electricity. At the time of nationalisation this provision was intended to secure a measure of security of supply by placing a final responsibility to provide supplies on the statutory monopoly generating corporation.
But it has meant that because of its need to be sure of generating enough electricity to meet demand, the CEGB has had the final say on the number and type of power stations needed; it has had to own and control the grid; and because of the nature of its obligation it has had to have the ability to recover the costs of meeting its obligation in full. Our proposals will introduce real competition into generation and allow all generators equitable access to the grid. This will put downward pressure on costs which will of course be to the consumer's good.
It is imperative that we introduce competition in the power stations in order to keep generating costs down. Parliament agreed to that in passing the Energy Act in 1983. That was meant to encourage competition in generation.
We can see that that has not been as effective as we intended because the Act left the CEGB in control as the dominant monopoly supplier and an owner of the bulk supply system. Our new proposals will work because, as I have said, that distorting monopoly will no longer exist. Of course companies can compete to build power stations more efficiently and of course they can also compete to operate them more efficiently.
The distribution companies will have a key role to play. They will be among the largest private sector companies in their regions. With about one to three million customers each, they will each have a strong and immediate local identity. And they will have a real incentive to get the best deal for their customers.
They will have the freedom to use their initiative. They will become a force for development in their local economies. They will become real independent companies nurturing local interests, not just the distributing branches for the CEGB's electricity.
In ending the CEGB's monopoly and removing its obligation to supply, the distribution companies will no longer be obliged to take all their electricity from one supplier. The distribution companies will own the grid and they will be able to bring new suppliers.
588
on to the system. They will be able to shop around for the cheapest electricity. And they will certainly have plenty of choice.
The customer may not be able to have more than one switch; but the distribution companies can, and will, have more than one supplier. They will be able to contract for local sources of power supply into their own distribution networks. They will be able to contract for power from Scotland or France, from the two largest generating companies, or from new private generators. A framework will have been created in which a modern competitive industry can develop, supplied by diverse energy sources—coal, oil, nuclear, gas and renewables.
At present, independent generation accounts for some 6 per cent. of electricity produced in Britain. We hope to see a major expansion in this sector. Already a number of private sector consortia are developing major new generation proposals.
As I said in reply to a Question earlier today Thames Power has just been created to build a 1,000 MW gas fired station at Barking and Leicester Energy Ltd are pressing ahead with their 290 MW CHP plant. Both projects have been given consent by the Secretary of State for Energy to burn gas.
Security of supply is vital as there are no alternatives to electricity in many of its uses. We need diversity if we are to have secure supplies. Our commitment to nuclear is part of our strategy to maintain this all-important diversity, and hence the security of our nation's power supplies.
The obligation that will he placed on the distribution companies to contract for a specified minimum proportion of non-fossil fuelled generating capacity is not to ensure that the nuclear portion grows; that will be up to the market. It is simply to ensure that nuclear, along with other non-fossil fuels, continue to form part of a balanced portfolio. That proportion will be roughly equal to present levels.
I have heard the criticism that competition will be stifled by oppressive regulation. Our aim is quite the opposite. The regulatory regime is being designed to promote competition. There will be competition in the generation of electricity. Regulation will ensure that the benefits of that competition are passed on to the customer via his electricity bill.
There will be a clear and effective regulatory system and our White Paper sets out the principles on which it will be based. The emphasis will be on regulating the prices charged by the distribution companies. This will prevent monopoly profits being syphoned off by any part of the industry. The initial contracts put in place for supply from existing power stations will also have to be regulated. But the Government's guiding principle will be to promote competition, not strangle it.
The regulatory system will reinforce the distribution companies' incentives to seek the cheapest supplies. But in addition to this we will put competitive pressures on the distribution companies themselves. Large customers will be free to buy electricity direct from generators.
The regulatory system will ensure that they can use the grid and distribution systems to do this and will

589
improve on the existing provisions in the 1983 Energy Act on common carriage. The distribution companies will not be allowed to develop local monopolies in generating electricity themselves. And, of course, the regulatory system will prevent them cross-subsidising their high street retail shops with income from the sale of electricity.
Real competition in generating electricity in power stations will be the best protection for the consumer because it will put downward pressure on three-quarters of the costs of electricity. Price regulation of the 12 distribution companies will put pressure on the remainder.
But customers will not just benefit from competition and regulation: they will have new rights as well. To this end we are developing a new concept in standards of service. Guaranteed levels of service will be set by the regulator, in consultation with the industry, which will ensure that in the areas of business where a monopoly is held, the customer can be sure of the quality of service which is his right. For example, the distribution companies could be required to meet all agreed appointments to carry out work on the customer's premises, for example to replace or move meters, to provide new supplies within a particular period, and so on. Where they fail to meet these levels of service, the customer will get compensation.
The system will have real teeth to snap down on poor service so that where the industry has a monopoly, the consumer will have an obvious right of redress.
We are therefore determined to ensure that the customer benefits from privatisation, not just in prices, but in quality of service. And I believe this scheme will be welcomed by the industry. It will not only help customers. It will give management valuable information on failures of service and an incentive to make improvements. It will be effective and it will work.
Arrangements will also be made to represent consumer interests in the new structure of the industry. The advantages of the existing consumer and consultative councils will be preserved. A code of practice on disconnections, approved by the regulator, will mean that customers are protected. Our aim is always to ensure that the customer benefits.
Employees too will be able to benefit from privatisation. They will have the right to acquire a direct stake in their industry. As with previous privatisations there will be attractive provisions to help them acquire shares. The negotiating and consultation machinery and pension rights of employees will be safeguarded.
The new structure of the industry will also provide wider career opportunities. More companies will enter the market; they will be looking for people with experience. And there will be fair competition for the highest positions in the industry. Boards will no longer be chosen by Ministers and filled with non-executives representing particular interests. They will be filled by those who demonstrate ability in the industry and elsewhere. Above all, the changes
590
proposed will enable the industry's employees to provide a better service.
The majority of those employees work for the area boards and they are enthusiastic about the new structure. They are confident it will provide real benefits for their customers. The chairman of the Electricity Council, the head of the industry, supports our proposals. So too does the Electricity Consumers' Council.
Change is rarely welcomed and proposals for change are often taken as criticism. But that is not the case here. The Government have the highest regard for the industry and its employees. We are confident they will make a success of the new structure. It builds on their undoubted strengths.
The structure will preserve the integrity of the grid and the operation of power stations in merit order. The CEGB's nuclear resources will be preserved intact, ensuring continuity and high standards in managing the nuclear programme. As competition develops, there will be a developing market for those skilled in electricity generation.
I can assure your Lordships that the privatised industry will not cut corners on safety and environmental considerations. Whether the industry is in the public or private sector, it will still have to meet the same safety and environmental standards. In no way will private ownership reduce the high standards that the industry has to meet.
The United Kingdom has a wealth of energy resources and we are developing modern, efficient industries to utilise these valuable assets safely and responsibly. Privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales is another step towards achieving this goal. Our proposals will bring competition and choice, wider share ownership and new opportunities for employees and new rights for consumers.
Above all there will be commercial initiative where previously there was nothing but state controlled monopoly. There will be a better deal for both the industry and its customers, and for the UK. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper on Privatising Electricity—The Government's proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales (Cm. 322).—(Viscount Davidson.)
11.42 a.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for his introduction to this important debate. His objective is to persuade us that the Government are right in their intention to transfer the electricity industry from public to private ownership and that the consequences of such a transfer—a highly complicated operation, as the Secretary of State for Energy said in another place—will be wholly beneficial to the people of this country.
That is done in pursuance of the Government's so-called privatisation policy. We should be clear about one thing, not only in this House but as a nation. The Prime Minister and most of her

591
colleagues are determined to abolish the mixed economy which has served this country well under successive governments since the end of the war. I fear that we are steadily and surely returning to the pre-war days of uncertainty and insecurity. In that confused economic climate, it is the less well-off in the community who always suffer.
We are assured by Ministers that privatisation means handing the industries back to the people. That is the broad justification which is advanced by them. However, I think that that is the most farcical argument of all. Does anyone really believe that a modest shareholding in the hands of a small percentage of the population gives the public a firm grasp on the destiny of the industry in question? I have no objection to holding shares. I believe in the mixed economy. But it is not the producer of the nation's wealth who makes money when great transfers take place. It is the financial manipulators and the Government in pursuance of policies which are dubious at times.
When we deal with great public services like electricity which affect every home, business and industry in the country, governments must be sure beyond doubt that their actions are beneficial to all the people of the country and not just to a sectional interest. I realise that Mr. Edward Heath is not popular with everyone in the Conservative Party at the moment. However, it would do well to heed the warnings contained in his address last Saturday when he said that the privatisation of natural resources was divisive and unpopular. He was not merely stating his own opinion; he was reflecting a view which is widely held throughout the country.
The central question in our debate is whether the people of this country will be better off as a result of privatising electricity. Will the industry be more efficient? Will it give a better service to the community and the consumer? And will the cost of electricity to the householder and to industry be at least as fair as it is at present?
I do not believe in legislating on issues such as this unless it is absolutely essential to do so. We have enough legislative problems on our hands without embarking on new and unnecessary Bills. The fact is that whatever the Government may say about their mandate in the election—and that was vague enough—there was, and is, no public demand for privatisation of electricity. Since the industry was taken into public ownership, it has been an acknowledged success. The Government have admitted that in the White Paper. Paragraph 5 of the introduction states:
"The electricity industry has a record of technical and professional excellence, acknowledged throughout the world. Its greatest assets are the people who work in it".
That is a high tribute. However, to justify their position the Government say:
"What hampers the industry is its structure and its position in the public sector".
There is no clear evidence in the White Paper and no clear evidence has been given in ministerial speeches that the industry is being significantly hampered by its structure and position. Those are
592
generalisations without substance. We cannot build up a record of technical and professional excellence which the world admires if there is a serious deficiency in the structure.
The White Paper speaks in a vague way of accountability to shareholders and new customer rights. I am concerned about the customer; there is no doubt in my mind that so far as accountability is concerned, the consumer will be far worse off than he is now. It has been my experience that after privatisation, the customer, the local authorities and indeed Members of Parliament have found it far more difficult to make contact with management than was the case under public ownership. I should like to hear the comments of the noble Viscount on that point.
If the lines of communication between the consumer and the management of the industry are being weakened by privatisation, that is yet another reason for the Government not to proceed. Some may argue that that is a good thing, that the link should be broken, and that interference from Parliament and local authorities is an unnecessary nuisance. They may argue that the industries and the boards of directors should be allowed to get on with the job without Members of Parliament ringing them up and writing them letters.
However, electricity, gas, water and telecommunications are great and essential public services. It will be a bad day for Britain if they fall into the hands of remote and inaccessible managers whose eyes are mainly fixed on making a profit. I talked recently to a telephone engineer in North Wales. I asked him how things were going under the new dispensation. His reply was that under the previous system, managers had concentrated on the service; now they keep their eye on the profits. That was his immediate response.
I wish to return for a moment to the Government's criticism of the structure of the industry and their contention that if the structure is unwieldy or faulty in some way it should be reorganised. That could be done without privatisation. However, as I read the White Paper, the Government are not interfering drastically with structure. That is to be seen on pages 5, 6 and 7 of the White Paper. The 12 area boards and the national grid are being retained. However, the boards will he privatised.
We in Wales are deeply concerned about the management of the privatised boards. Who will own them? Who will be in charge? And what rights will be left to the people of Wales? Perhaps we shall have Sir Jeffrey Stirling, Mr. James Sherwood or some of the entrepreneurs of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, coming to Wales to put things right. What a prospect, my Lords! We can see the sun rising in Wales every day under the aegis of Sir Jeffrey Stirling!
The Government make much of ending monopoly. We shall still have monopoly—private monopoly. Like most people I prefer public monopoly to private monopoly. It is far easier to investigate and scrutinise the affairs of a public monopoly than a private monopoly and therefore very much more in the public interest.

593
The White Paper is not clear about the possible functions—I mean the final functions—of the new regional companies. They could develop into monopolies of generation and distribution. They could launch into other enterprises distantly related or even unrelated to their primary function. They might, for example, decide to compete with the Orient Express!
We do not yet know enough about the so-called regulatory system to be able to place our confidence in it. The Electricity Consumers Council has said in its report that there will be no role for it after privatisation. The regulator will be all-powerful. There is not enough in the White Paper to fill one with confidence. The two major roles mentioned in paragraph 50, namely, to promote competition and safeguard the consumer are not necessarily compatible.
Furthermore, the abolition of the CEGB could well be a calamity. The board has been one of the chief reasons for the acclaimed success of the electricity industry. I am not personally an advocate of the centralisation of all power. But there is a strong argument, in view of the comparatively small size of this country and the need for stability of supply, for a central board. The CEGB has done its work competently and with its chairman deserves to be congratulated most warmly. For those reasons the dismantling of the CEGB in the manner proposed in the White Paper fills me with foreboding.
I should like to turn to the performance of the CEGB, the present system and the public view of it. My own opinion—for what it is worth—is that the system works well, as paragraph 5 confirms, and that the public are content with it. I noted that during his speech in another place on 10th March the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy said:
"We have to introduce competition into the power stations to keep the costs down".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/88; col. 50.]
The Minister is implying that the CEGB is inefficient in its operations. I should like the noble Viscount to comment on that, if he will, when he winds up the debate. Is that what the Government mean? If so, what inefficiencies can they point to? Is it inefficiency in manpower, in plant, or in machinery?
The truth is that people generally believe that they have enjoyed a secure and economic service under the present system. Lest there be any doubt about that, perhaps I may be allowed to quote some figures to demonstrate the efficiency and achievement of the CEGB. They will be the only figures that I quote in my speech. First, it is one of Britain's biggest industries—bigger than BP, bigger than British Gas—with net assets of £27 million. In 1986–87 its turnover was £8,094 million and its profits £772 million before interest. Secondly, the average price per unit in electricity fell in real terms for the fourth year running. It is now 3 per cent. lower than in 1958–59 despite a 34 per cent. increase in fossil fuel prices.
Since April 1983, the CEGB has saved £950 million in an attack on costs. Again in 1986–87 the thermal efficiency of CEGB power stations achieved a new high level of 35·08 per cent. compared with 27 per
594
cent. 30 years ago. The productivity of the labour force has also trebled over the same period. It is by any standards a remarkable record as the Government admit in the White Paper. The typical consumer paid less per kilowatt hour for electricity than consumers in Japan, West Germany, Italy and most of the USA.
That is the organisation the Government are now proposing to tamper with, not in the public interest, not for greater efficiency, not to secure price stability but purely on grounds of ideology. It is a deplorable and indefensible policy. We have, therefore, a right to be concerned about the dangers of cost trimming under private ownership. If it happened it could have disastrous results as everyone here must agree. Any change which takes place must involve no reduction in safety or security of supply.
What is the test of efficiency in an industry? That is one of the questions we should ask in this debate. It is the ability of that industry to cope with a critical situation. How does the electricity industry stand up to that test? Has it ever let us down in a crisis since it was taken into public ownership in 1949?
A grim test did occur on 16th October last year when the worst storm on record took place. Many noble Lords in this House were affected by that great hurricane. It left a trail of havoc in southern and South-East England. Millions of people lost their electricity supply. Several national grid circuits were put out of action, including the two main circuits around London. Six power stations in the South-East including four supplying power at the time had to shut down. As the storm gathered momentum the CEGB engineers realised that they had a crisis on their hands which threatened the whole electricity system in England and Wales through a progressive collapse of the national grid. How did the CEGB cope?
In the event it controlled the situation brilliantly and succeeded in arresting the collapse of the system. It was a remarkable achievement. I understand that the operation, which was crucial in the national interest, was controlled and co-ordinated by the CEGB from the control centre not far from this House in Southwark. As I read the White Paper I wondered, and I had the right to wonder, what the consequences would have been if the CEGB had been broken up in the way the Government propose.
We are living in a world of unpredicted and unpredictable storms. Electricity is not just another commodity to play about with like baked beans or ice cream. The life of our community and its people, and our economy, depend on its efficient functioning. The Government have no right to play "ducks and drakes" with it.
There are several other aspects of the proposal which I should like to examine, but I know that my noble friends who are to speak have important points to make. My noble friend Lord Peston will deal specifically with competition when he winds up for the Opposition.
We are very concerned about the future of power stations generally, especially when we read almost daily about the planning of new private power stations. We shall need to know a good deal more

595
about that. These are, in the public mind, probably the most sensitive of all planning proposals and it is essential that they should remain subject to the most stringent planning procedures. I would prefer nuclear power stations to be in the public sector and not the private sector.
I hope that the noble Viscount will give me an assurance when he replies that there is to be no change and certainly no relaxation in the relevant planning processes, and a further assurance that there is no intention to set aside environmental considerations. He will be aware that we in North Wales are deeply concerned about current and future plans for the Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear power stations.
In conclusion, I wish to draw attention to one omission in the White Paper. The introduction deals with the history of the electricity supply industry since the late 19th century but no mention is made of the historic advance after the industry passed into public hands in 1949. Those were the years which revolutionised electricity generation and supply and which laid the foundation of the excellence referred to in paragraph 5 of the White Paper. It is a pity that Ministers have not chosen to pay a tribute to that achievement.
I remember the years before the war. In rural Wales there was no electricity to speak of; and after the war, when I was a parliamentary candidate and a county councillor, the villages of Anglesey and North Wales still lacked electricity. Indeed, they lacked piped water as well. When electricity came, I was invited to switch it on in many of the villages of Anglesey. I witnessed in the cottages the great transition from the oil lamp and candle to the electric bulb. They were thrilling days which would not have come when they did had it not been for the vision and determination of those who wished every community and every section of society to share the services that only a few had enjoyed before. It would not have happened without public ownership—which, under these proposals, is to disappear.
It is against that background and in that spirit that we view the White Paper with apprehension and doubt.
12 noon
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in November last in this House during his masterly survey of the privatisation proposals of the Government, my noble friend Lord Ezra made a prediction. He foretold that when the Government's proposals for the electricity supply industry were published, in practice they would not provide effectively for competition. Had my noble friend not been unavoidably absent today—an absence which is keenly regretted—he might claim to have been a true prophet. I and my noble friend support most warmly the principles of breaking up monopolies, increasing competition and redressing the balance of power in favour of consumers, but we are not convinced that those principles will be put into effect by the proposals put forward by the Government.
The White Paper gives the strong impression that the Government did not begin by asking the
596
questions: What are the actual problems? Where exactly are things going wrong? What are the simplest and most practical remedies? Instead the Government seem to have started by asking: How can we apply to the electricity supply industry the philosophy of the British Conservative Party? That is the impression that their approach to the problem has given to the country and both Houses of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, effectively quoted the words of Mr. Heath, who said that privatisation is divisive and is rejected by the community. A little research would probably uncover Mr. Heath also saying that nationalisation is divisive and rejected by the community.
I must confess that once I believed that the problems of British industry could be solved by the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. But I was only a lad at the time. It surprises me to find that same doctrinaire approach to the problems of industry from persons of mature years. That happens both on the Right and on the Left of politics and I and my noble friends reject such an approach.
Exactly why can one expect these proposals to produce competition, a better service and lower prices for the consumer? The noble Viscount said that they would produce competition between generators and if that were so they would of course be warmly welcomed. If electricity generation were to be opened up to a number of firms that operate on equal terms, which is the recommendation of the Consumer Council, it might well produce competition and it would be very welcome even though in the circumstances, owing to the nature of industry, competition would be very difficult to achieve.
I should like to quote some words from the report of the Consumer Council:
"Even where there is the maximum potential for getting different generating companies to compete to supply the market, that market will have to be regulated at least in a major part by some form of explicit economic regulation. Competition on its own will not be sufficient".
According to the Consumer Council, even if there were a proper opening-up of generation, competition would not by any means be enough.
It may not be going too far to describe the Government's proposals as replacing a public monopoly with a privately owned duopoly. We are not far from that. Of course there will be private companies offering the service of electricity generation but the two big brothers that the Government propose to set up will dominate the whole of the supply. They will need long-term contracts in order to plan for the future. In practice they will monopolise nuclear power generation. What will be left for the smaller companies to which the Government make such copious reference? Faced with the big two who will carry the bulk of the basic load and the greater part of nuclear generation, they will not have much of a look-in. Maybe if supplies run short they will have the chance to make up the shortfall, but as the White Paper and the statements of Ministers have indicated, the prospects are that there will not be genuine competition even on the generating side.

597
Even though there were to be competition on the generating side, owing to the special circumstances of the industry it would not necessarily mean that this would reduce the costs. There is bound to be an extra excess capacity if there is competition. I was very struck by the comment that came from the Electrical Power Engineers Association:
"For there to be real competition there will have to be significant excess capacity. This will have to be rather greater than the 22 per cent. spare capacity now built into the system … There will be a straightforward cost burden to the system which the consumer will have to bear".
I should like the noble Viscount, or whichever Minister replies to this debate, to address himself to that very important point which has not received very much attention so far as I can see.
One cannot look for competition among the distributors either. The noble Viscount mentioned the solid point that there may indeed be competition at the boundaries and that would be very helpful and welcome. However, the Government also have repeatedly acknowledged that, apart from such competition at the boundaries, distribution is bound to be a natural monopoly. Therefore the interests of the consumer will be looked after by the regulator. We have not been given any details about how that will be done. We have simply been told dogmatically that there will be a regulator to protect the consumer, to avoid the imposition of monopoly prices and so on. We should like to know a great deal more about that matter because it is a very complicated and difficult question. In fact there is a lack of information on very important matters over the whole range of the proposals.
Let us consider the evidence given to the Energy Committee and the supplementary information volunteered to that committee by the Department of Energy. The following are one or two of the questions put to the Department of Energy and the Government's answers:
"'By what criteria will the Director General of Electricity Supply judge whether or not the companies are promoting the improved efficiency of electricity energy use with sufficient vigour?'—'The scope for possible roles for the Regulator and the Distribution Companies in this area has yet to be decided'. 'Which parts of the market would you consider it appropriate to exclude from price control?'—'This is still under consideration'. 'Why might it not be feasible to have the same regulatory formula for all 12 distribution companies?'—`This is still under consideration'. 'Do you plan to hand over to the two generation companies … the sites owned … by the CEGBT—'This is a matter for discussion with the industry'. 'What is the current state of thinking about the future of (a) research and development and (b) matters like advertising and industrial relations?'—'We are discussing these important questions with the industry'".
On environment, I noticed that the noble Viscount in a single give-away, throw-away sentence brought in the word "environmental". He said that the Government would take steps to see that environmental issues were properly handled—or reassuring words to that effect. However, in the whole of the White Paper there is no mention of the environment. How will the environment benefit from these proposals? Who is responsible? Are the Government or is industry responsible? I am told that the electricity supply industry produces more than one half of the acid emissions for the whole of the United Kingdom and most of the nuclear waste. Who is responsible for this vast problem? Who will pay for desulphurisation equipment? It will be these new generating companies, we are told. Will they be
598
required to fit denuclearisation controls? Surely we should at least be told about this. The Government seem not to have considered it.
In conclusion all this confirms what I was saying at the beginning. The overall impression we have of these proposals is that the decision to privatise the electricity supply industry was taken because the Conservative Party believes in the principle of privatisation, and analyses of the problems, the needs of the industry and the interests of the consumer and the environment have come afterwards. In some cases the analyses have not been completed; in some cases they have not even begun.
12.12 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I do not wish to spend long discussing the Government's overall policy on privatisation but rather to point out where it is likely to fail. However I must again repeat that the six principles in the White Paper are nothing more than a political statement and a pious hope without any foundation for their realistion.
It is quite clear and confirmed by what the Minister said in another place that the Government have moved ahead without considering the side effects of their action or how greater efficiency and lower costs for electricity can arise. They seem to think that competition is bound to give this result. The major flaw in this argument is that only very limited competition is possible in this industry.
I suggest that the Government's chief reasons for privatisation have not been declared and that they are these: the money which the sale of the assets will provide and the favourable effect on the PSBR if new power stations can be financed from the private sector; that it will relieve the Government of the political difficulty of giving free choice to the power stations to buy coal from overseas; and, that they hope it may improve the security of supply by decreasing the power of the unions. But they now have moderate sensible unions in the industry, and the change may well make the situation less stable.
Before criticising the Government's proposals in detail, I should like to make it clear that I see nothing in principle against new privately owned generating stations. Most certainly, smaller generating stations could be economic, in particular if they could also develop combined heat and power (CHP) schemes in some urban areas. I am, however, very doubtful about the private financing of large power stations.
Before the City will invest, there must be a guarantee that nearly all the power generated will he taken by the grid for the lifetime of the station—nearly half a century—and it could well be that such a guarantee would not provide the most economic electricity. There is a practical limit to how far power can be sent through the grid because of the destabilising effect due to the inductance of the line producing a low power factor. The inductive loss in sending all the power from a 2,000 megawatt station 200 miles could be 10 per cent. or more of the station's output, even in a dedicated six-times-four quad line, which is the absolute maximum for existing pylons. Even then expensive special equipment is required to prevent an incident such as,

599
for example, the recent power failure in Tokyo. Such inductive losses completely swamp the marginal cost advantages between power stations and the choice between power stations therefore depends more upon the capacity compensation of the grid than upon the performance of the power station. All this is in addition to the well known (and more easily understood) resistive loss, which might be 4 per cent. or more in this case. Moreover, the siting of large power stations is governed by environmental and other technical considerations. I conclude that real competition is a chimera.
Turning to the area boards, I cannot see how there can be any real element of competition between them after privatisation. In this case the market is a captive one, because electricity is essential to all of us. To prevent excessively high tariffs, the regulatory authority will have to intervene and make a Solomon's judgment taking into account many extraneous factors and whether money is being saved at the expense of long-term commitments. Inevitably tariffs will vary greatly over the country and will penalise many consumers. With the necessary degree of regulation, the situation becomes equivalent to that of a Marxist economy.
I understand that some boards are delighted to be free of Big Brother, the CEGB, and intend to diversify into all sorts of irrelevant activities. Is this appropriate? I thought that we now took a more balanced view on the merits of diversification.
The Government propose to make each area board responsible for the security of its supplies, but with the generating capacity owned and operated by someone else. But how can the generating companies obtain planning permission for a new generating station if required? Surely a large economical station must be planned and sited on a national basis, not an area basis, if it is to be as useful and economic as possible.
I find it hard to imagine how the board could be responsible for running the grid. Each board will have its own axe to grind and any debatable decision would at the very best be the lowest common denominator in order to reach agreement. In my view the grid must be controlled by an independent, non profit-making company, perhaps jointly owned by the generating companies, the distribution companies, with a controlling interest held by the Government, who could appoint the chairman. If not, it is likely that considerations will prevail which are unconnected with bringing stations in in order of their merit efficiency, and thus of cost to the consumer.
I am gravely concerned about what will happen to our research facilities and their staff. Most certainly private enterprise will not be sufficiently concerned with the necessary long-term research, for example on fast reactors. Compulsory redundancy may be an unfortunate necessity in unprofitable industries; it should not be accepted in these quite different circumstances. Can the Government give an assurance on this matter and give protection to the existing terms and conditions of service, including pensions, for current employees? I am particularly
600
concerned with the generating and construction division of the CEGB at Barnwood, Gloucestershire, as it cannot just be reproduced in industry. We can well remember what happened to the three consortia in the Dungeness power stations. One cannot suddenly move a lot of people from where they are as a joint team into industry.
If we are concerned, as we ought to be because of acid rain and the possibly devastating greenhouse effect, we must move towards non-polluting energy generating and energy saving. Three obvious solutions are tidal power, combined heat and power for use in large conurbations, and insulation and solar gain from well-built houses. None of these will get off the ground without government help. Surely the Government ought to be willing to use some of the capital gained from privatising the electricity supply industry for this purpose. It must be emphasised that none of the other renewable sources, with possible exception of wind turbines (if they are environmentally acceptable) can supply more than a very small fraction of our energy needs.
Finally and regretfully, I must end by saying that this is an example (the poll tax is another) of a government who gained at the election just 40 per cent. of the electorate and are now pushing forward regardless on their manifesto. This manifesto was problably disagreed in detail by many of their supporters. It is not a mandate, meaning a demand, and it is political rubbish to say so. Having been a Conservative supporter years ago, I liked to think that these dogmatic policies were confined to the extreme elements in the Labour Party. I have recently been very badly disillusioned. Although there may be areas where improved efficiency might be possible overall, any benefit to consumers as a whole is at the very best a gamble and can probably never justify the trauma and the disruption of a reasonably efficient industry. Let us not forget that electricity prices have already been raised by 9 per cent. with another 6 per cent. expected; largely, even if not entirely, to make possible selling off the national assets.
I do not believe in overstating a case, but as a parting and unkind shot let me say that were it not for the suggested motivation of the Government which I gave at the start of my speech, they could be condemned as dogmatic fools, but I think that on balance knaves might be a more appropriate epithet.
12.24 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, may I start with an apology? I have a long standing engagement in the West Country and I may not therefore be able to stay to the end of the debate.
I am a supporter of privatisation, obviously in the best possible manner. I am a strong supporter of the nuclear policy. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, about the likely contribution from renewable sources to the coming generation of power stations, which in my judgment is negligible. It would be folly to place total reliance on fossil fuels, notably coal. I wholly support the new generating programme developed by the CEGB and adopted in the White Paper. The problem there is not so much privatisation or no privatisation; it is the ability to get

601
planning permission which seems to be increasingly difficult in the case of nuclear power and equally coal.
I have two points and a comment to make. In the first place, from the standpoint of the consumer the assurance of the availability of power is the most important thing. This is the responsibility presently held by the CEGB. I believe all would agree that it has carried out its duty with considerable success. In England and Wales there is no notable or excessive surplus of generating capacity. Yet that excess, with flexibility, dealt with the evident crisis of the coal strike without the lights going out.
As I understand it, the proposal is that this responsibility shall be transferred to the 12 area companies jointly and severally. Jointly and severally is a difficult concept in itself. It is in fact the case for the Channel Tunnel contractors; and I am told they are not entirely comfortable in that respect. However, that is a five-year building job while responsibility for the availability of power is indefinite. How it should be enforced I do not know, and I certainly wonder whether a responsibility held by an entity owning the generating capacity which meets the commitment is as well held by 12 separate entities, none at the outset having any generating capacity itself. The companies will have to contract it and ensure that somebody else will produce it, be it a private entity or one of the two generating companies proposed in the White Paper.
There is a further problem. The cash flow, which is very substantial, from the CEGB once the privatisation has been completed—and that may be some years forward—will not be tied to the building of the power stations which this country will require. Indeed if the two generating companies as proposed in the White Paper are totally private companies, their managements may consider that the cash flow should be put into totally different kinds of businesses. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comment on that. The problem is very large. The cash flow generated from the existing stations would be helpful to produce new stations, as has been the case in the past. I feel therefore that the security of power, which I look upon as essential, will not be as secure under the new arrangements as it is at present. I shall be interested to hear the Minster's comments.
My second point relates to finance. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State quoted a figure of £45 billion in the debate in another place. This presumably includes a reasonable going concern value for the existing assets to which must be added an estimation of the cost of the new programme. That is a very large amount of money. We read of investors' interest, and no doubt there is interest. When I was in that line of business I realised that any hanker or investor was interested in a new piece of business; and this is a very large piece of business.
When it comes to analysing in detail the problems of the investment, that can be another matter. This is a new investment in the United Kingdom and it is difficult to find an adequate comparison. To the extent that the United States is a valid comparison and there are similarities, it is not particularly encouraging. The major utilities, which are well-established and substantial companies, sell in the
602
stock market to give a dividend yield of 6 per cent. to 10 per cent. They sell on a price-earnings ratio of about six to 10 times. It follows that new financing in the United States is difficult and sometimes impossible.
I conclude that, given the size and difficulty of the financial operation, it must take time and be done in stages. Privatisation will be piece-meal—I believe that it must be—leading either to some entities being privatised and, over a long period of time, others not being; or to their being partly privatised and partly held by government. In my judgment neither situation is a particularly happy one.
I regret that the structure which has been adopted by the Government is not that which they have adopted in Scotland. There, the distributing companies, of which there are two, will own the generating capacity. They do so now and that is being perpetuated. The nuclear stations will be jointly owned by the two companies. I believe that if the 12 distributors were to own the CEGB as a whole, some of the problems which I see—and which some other noble Lords see—would be reduced. They would be independent companies. There would be rivalry—it is not really competition—leading, one hopes, to reduced prices. Each of them would own a share in the CEGB which would remain unbroken. That would go some way towards solving the problems of research and development. It would overcome the problem of certainty and assurance of power and it might simplify the financial operation. If that were to be done, it would then be possible to privatise in the manner that was used to privatise the steel industry in the 1950s and early 1960s. It was one company after another, using the experience of the first to assist in the second and so on.
I conclude on those comments. I have no doubt there are good reasons, which I do not see, why some such structure cannot be adopted. It will be interesting to hear the views of the Minister.
12.34 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I fully endorse the objections to the proposal to privatise electricity as they were put forward by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, with his usual eloquence and clarity. I shall not therefore labour the point by trying to say the same thing less well.
We are reminded of a particular objection through the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Hood. In it he stressed the nuclear element with which we must deal. The importance of the nuclear industry is an additional reason why I am not happy for electricity to go out of public control and into the private sector.
I have no doctrinaire views about public and private ownership. It is now broadly agreed that the old fashioned Morrisonian-type of nationalised industries have not been an unqualified success. I certainly support the pursuit of different forms of public accountability and worker participation. Having had earlier contact with the National Freight Corporation, I now believe that to be an outstanding success of workers having responsibility in the shareholding of their workplace.

603
Equally I must condemn the doctrinaire view of the present Government in that they must privatise everything in sight. In the same way, I understand that the bureaucrats in Brussels believe that they must harmonise everything in sight. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, confessed to some youthful errors of judgment. I remember making speeches years ago saying that the one thing I was certain would never be privatised was the sewers. They are currently on the agenda. Having regard to the enormous increases in water charges one can well see that it could be a profitable operation.
I believe the following to be an important principle. Having regard to the nature of public utilities, and for reasons of efficiency, surely no one will suggest that there should be two lots of electricity wires or two lots of gas pipes all over the country. Therefore public utilities should be public and not private monopolies. That is all that has happened in the case of British Telecom. It is doing its best to keep out the substantial competition which I hope will come from Mercury. The only difference one sees is the much higher salaries paid to top managers and directors in British Telecom, British Gas and the other industries that have already been privatised. I understand that the large industrial consumers of gas are already concerned about the high prices they are having to pay. I do not believe that the complex machinery that is devised to protect the consumer is in any sense a substitute for accountability, through Ministers, to Parliament. When the legislation comes before the House we shall need to scrutinise with great care the proposals that are put forward to safeguard the electricity interests.
There is a thread which runs through the privatisation document, and to some extent the speech made this morning by the noble Viscount. It is that somehow the interest of consumers and shareholders is the same. It is only the same in the limited sense that presumably most shareholders will also be consumers of electricity. However, basically their interests are opposed. The higher the profit margins the higher the cost to consumers and the greater the dividends to shareholders. The suggestion that this is a way to safeguard the interests of the consumers is totally false.
One section of the privatisation proposals caused me particular concern and interest. It is paragraph 19 which deals with government intervention. It does not make clear the fact that there is no need for the Government to be unhelpful to the industry. That is purely the choice of the Government. There is no reference in the document to the enormous precept or levy made on the industry each year by the Treasury. I understand that the estimated figure for the current year is £1,046 million. That is over £1 billion from electricity consumers to the Treasury. In the next year, 1989–90, I understand that figure could be as much as £1,131 million. All this is at a time when the Treasury is so full of cash that it is rumoured that it is fitting draught-proof doors to make sure that none of it is blown away.
The electricity industry has suffered from interference by governments particularly in that it
604
has been obliged or encouraged, unlike any other industry, to recoup its total capital expenditure out of revenue and the charges levied on the consumers of electricity. The consequence is that the industry is virtually debt free. On inquiry I understand that the present debts of the industry are £1,597 million as at March of this year and that it is proposed that it will be totally debt free by the end of the next financial year—1989–90, one year before the proposed privatisation is due to take place.
Therefore, the enormous assets of both generation and distribution, which really belong to the consumers who have been paying for them over the years, will be sold off at an enormous profit for the benefit of the Treasury. We should also ponder the consequences of this enormous levy which is placed on the industry and, in addition, the writing-off of capital. For example, I understand that in 1983–84, £550 million of debts were paid off, in 1985–86, £492 million, in 1986–87, £1,334 million and in the last year, £1,277 million. Therefore it will be totally free of debt.
The consequences are reflected in the higher prices, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred, which hit the poorer sections of the community particularly hard, and that is reinforced in some cases by the very harsh practices in cutting off supplies. In addition, it imposes a very large charge on industry which cripples its competitive capability both at home and abroad. It is certainly an inflationary factor. It surprises me, because I accept the very sincere and genuine belief of the Prime Minister in trying to prevent inflation, that she sits by and allows over £1 billion to be taken away from electricity consumers both in terms of the individual and industry, and that can only have a very bad inflationary effect. That probably does as much to damage our industry as the increased value of the pound. I hope that that could be looked at again.
Of course my preference would be for the industry to be left as it is. On the other hand, if the doctrinaire rules so determine that it has to be privatised I should have preferred it to be, like the gas industry, privatised as one entity and greater powers given to the Electricity Council comparable to those exercised by the Gas Board. However, as I have been very critical of the Government, if it has to be privatised I commend the right honourable Cecil Parkinson, the Secretary of State, for resisting blandishments and heavy lobbying by the CEGB. As we have seen from the document, he has given priority to the interests of consumers rather than those in the generating industry while retaining distribution intact and breaking the generation monopoly. In that respect I realise that I differ—and that is a rare occurrence—from my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, but I fully endorse his appeal that even at this late stage the Government should think again about these proposals.
12.45 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, I must first declare my interest in the subject of this debate as chairman of one company which supplies power equipment and as director of another. I also have a strong sentimental interest since my grandfather was the

605
chairman of the committee that was originally responsible for introducing the grid. Of course that was long ago in the days when governments which were confronted with complex industrial problems like this still used to seek and take the advice of leading industrialists and engineers.
My first reaction to the White Paper was that it was the wrong colour. It might possibly have served as a Green Paper from which, through consultation, sensible and considered proposals could have emerged. However, as a White Paper presumably intended to set out clearly the Government's legislative intentions for an industry of absolute importance to everyone in the country and one where very complex issues are involved, it is thin and inadequate.
I do not agree that these proposals have taken the many good features of the existing electricity industry and then built sensibly and objectively on them to give us a better, more cost-efficient and privately owned industry with a structure in whose future effectiveness we could have had a strong level of certainty and confidence. Instead, the starting point looks to me more like a simplistic and almost ideological commitment to competition.
I strongly believe in competition even to the point that I look at my own industrial competitors, who are mainly foreign, as enemies in a war, for they are to be defeated. However, there are industries where simple concepts of competition are not necessarily either natural or essential and are certainly most difficult to apply. Indeed, it is possible, and it looks as if the White Paper has managed to achieve this by an insistence on artificial competition, to cause defects and confusion which outweigh the natural benefits of competition.
Therefore, the result here has been, in structural engineering terms, much intellectual stress and strain to fit a distorted brand of competition into a rickety structure and has ended up full of omissions and contradictions. However, on a Friday, where I feel that brevity should rightly command some premium, I shall not weary your Lordships with any blow-by-blow analysis of the White Paper but try to highlight a few of these deficiencies.
Let us begin with the operation of the grid. I find it very difficult to understand the apparent contradiction between Section 26, which seems to imply that the grid will be run on a day-to-day basis along the lines of today's system of call-up on merit order, and Section 41, which implies long-term contractual arrangements. It is unclear and should not be so because it is a very fundamental issue.
Let us next take security of supply now that the obligation to supply is to be removed from the generator. I cannot find anything about how the availability of stand-by capacity which at present is simply arranged centrally is to be handled in future. This is also important and I do not believe it is good enough just to leave it out.
Let us take coal. Although the performance of that industry has been fairly awful for a long time, it now seems that from a combination of investment, better management and a more realistic approach from the workforce we could be looking at pretty competitive
606
UK coal prices in a few years. However, if we now allow a rapid free-for-all in importing coal—and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has specifically said he will not protect domestic coal—I worry that our domestic mining industry will not have the time to get its act together before losing a good part of its market to imports. In that case, good new mining developments might not take place and we could be stuck nationally with a heavy drain on our balance of payments. Yet again, nowhere in the White Paper are the balance of payments implications mentioned.
I am also worried about both the permanence and the reality of the supposed cheap supply of foreign coal for power plants. Of course the price is low today in terms of sterling, but our currency is strong, freight rates are low and the British electricity industry is not in the market as a massive purchaser. Indeed, I am told that even today there is some uncertainty in the Far East among utilities which had thought that they had long-term firm commitments at very low prices for Australian coal. The fact is that the coal and electricity industries are surely so closely tied together that any policy statement on the one which omits to cover the other is of necessity seriously deficient.
Turning to another subject, the CEGB currently spends a great deal on research and development. In the equipment industry we benefit from that and we can, for example, carry out development work otherwise quite beyond our own resources. It is not a one-way street. In return the CEGB enjoys better equipment. In any case, in national terms its funding is repaid many times over by export sales. The White Paper says nothing about future arrangements, and that omission is wrong.
As regards nuclear power, I greatly welcome the commitment on strategic energy grounds that a given percentage of power will in future come from that source. However, I find much greater difficulty in the implication, if I have understood correctly, that power imported from France will count as part of such nuclear supply. I greatly dislike the balance of payments consequences of that.
In discussing nuclear power, there should be a clear policy also set out for the future of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels and even the National Nuclear Corporation. Just to take British Nuclear Fuels, here we have a major organisation which not long ago stated that its investment plans were to spend an average of over £1 million per day over the next 10 years. I recently visited Sellafield, and I commend all noble Lords who have not yet visited it to do so and to see for themselves just what this immense commitment involves. It is astonishing that the White Paper does not properly cover that part of the industry either.
I will say nothing much about gas as we have had a Question about it already today. However, I too deprecate the burning of a premium fuel which is a finite resource on a large scale for power generation. Such a policy is prodigal.
There is not much detail given on the actual mechanics of privatisation of the generating companies. I simply ask: if we are to sell them off cheaply so that the public can have their now

607
accustomed nice little profit on the shares, has it been considered how that might affect the newcomer into the generating industry who would presumably have to compete with an undervalued and established competition in a capital intensive industry? I would not dare to suggest of course that the recent rather arbitrary increase in electricity prices may happily have diminshed this apparent difficulty.
As for Scotland, as a Scot I much regret that we are not today also discussing the proposals for its electricity industry. I only remark that they look somewhat worse than those for England and Wales. They are likely to produce a solution which is more costly than the present arrangements for the North and one that is thoroughly artificial. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I also regret that an excellent opportunity is missed in the White Paper of setting down tough and effective conditions on air pollution control in the future, particularly for new entrants into the generating industry.
I leave to the end my greatest concern about the White Paper; that is, the confusion and uncertainty that it may cause for the power station construction programme. The least the industry deserves, both the generating side and the equipment suppliers, is an unequivocal statement that there will not be delays. The White Paper does not give these assurances but I very much hope that we can hear them today.
12.56 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I take part in the debate this morning, albeit briefly, to discuss not the White Paper on the electricity supply industry of England and Wales, but to make some mention of the situation which is beginning to develop in Scotland. I make no apology for doing so because I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, will agree, if I remind him, that we had an informal discussion on an earlier energy debate in the House when it was thought that there might be a possibility to discuss the Scottish situation. However, events of a somewhat more serious nature have developed in the House over the past few weeks; therefore, I take a measure of licence this morning and I hope I do not weary the House if, in being reasonably brief, I speak about the Scottish scene.
Of course, I am opposed to the privatisation proposals because I consider them a bizarre example of extreme political partisanship which is hardly justified by the economic events which have occurred in the electricity supply industry over the past two generations. Indeed, one could reasonably claim that unit costs in the electricity supply industry throughout Great Britain stand up to the closest comparison with other forms of energy. Having said that, I am also a political realist and I recognise that the Government have a measure of authority to introduce their proposals. To that extent, the proposal by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board are to be privatised as separate entities is one that I tend to welcome. Judging from what the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, said a moment ago, he would perhaps not
608
be with me on that; but I tend to feel that that is the correct decision. It certainly mirrors an earlier decision by the then Secretary of State for Scotland who rejected the McKenzie proposals in 1961 for very much the same reasons as the present Secretary of State has indicted as being his reasons for rejecting a merged board; that is, that the social clause under which the hydro-board has continued to operate since its inception is a very important factor in the life of the economy of North Scotland. The hydro-board covers about 25 per cent. of Britain's land mass and it caters for approximately 2 per cent. of Britain's consumers. However, its social clause demands that it takes cable—which it can now do, of course—to the islands and that it burns expensive diesel in the islands. Incidentally, there are 50 inhabited islands which the hydro-board serves. It has taken electricity to 99.99 per cent. of all of the possible consumers who could have been linked up. However, it has been an expensive business and it has only been made possible of achievement because of the common tariff which exists. In other words, the consumers in the mainland areas of the hydro-board area have subsidised the electricity costs in the more remote areas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said earlier in his quite outstanding speech, the bringing of electricity to these remote communities has enabled community life to be sustained and to be improved. As regards the hydro-board area, it has clearly helped the generation of such new industry as can be reasonably developed in these more remote areas.
Regarding the South of Scotland Electricity Board, it is a huge enterprise with a huge base of nuclear power. It is going into the private sector in a very competitive position because of write-offs. Torness will be on stream, and the board will sell much of its electricity south of the Border at very competitive prices. In those circumstances, I do not worry very much about it in the longer term; but I have to express some consideration for the future well-being of the hydro-board. At present the board has almost all of the hydro-generation plant within its area. The South of Scotland Electricity Board has one or two very small plants.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said that some modest rearrangement of generation plant may be necessary so that the boards may have a robust and commercial instinct. I give at the very least this warning and I hope that the noble Viscount will let those concerned know that some of us are also worried. They hydro-board must be allowed to retain its hydro-plant. If it cannot do that, it cannot produce the low-cost electricity which it needs so that the more remote communities and the island communities may continue to enjoy the benefit of a common tariff.
A private company entering this field will be very tempted to raise tariffs at the expensive end, and there is very little doubt about that. That is something which, in my view, must be very seriously guarded against. That is the main point I wish to make. I should have declared an interest earlier in that at one time, and for a period of years, I was chairman of the hydro-board. I think my remarks should be placed in the public domain because I have a real concern for the longer term.
1.4 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, after the devastating speech by my noble friend Lord Weir, I wonder whether there is very much else to be said. Nonetheless, I shall do what I can. I begin by congratulating the Government on the wonderful ingenuity with which they have navigated between the Scylla of natural monopoly and the Charybdis of limitless fragmentation. This is a very white White Paper—indeed it has too many blanks. If I were to liken it to anything else it would be to the curate's egg, which was "good in parts".
The good parts can be spotted fairly easily. Big industrial consumers should have a better chance of good, bulk contracts; small local private enterprise generators are likely to have better access to the market. This should all work out better for on-shore gas and oil and eventually even for coal producers. It should certainly be better for small, combined heat and power schemes and possibly for the development of biomass and wind as supply sources.
To me the first worrisome part is that the upset can only delay achievement of the admitted need for 13 new gigawatts of capacity by the end of the century. It is quite true that a sentence of death concentrates the mind and it has obviously concentrated the mind of the CEGB to the extent that it is hurrying up with an extra gigawatt in Anglesey, and a third extra gigawatt at Sizewell and we have learned of a private enterprise consortium which is preparing to take over and develop a power station at Barking as well as attracting Eléctricite de France to propose a further cross-Channel link at their own cost. All this is mainly to serve the overpopulated, but under-supplied South-East.
Elsewhere, low-cost nuclear power must, in my view, still pre-empt the base-load supply and therefore devalue those small fossil-fuel stations which are most likely to be attractive to private enterprise because of the shorter pay-back. One wonders whether there is really much chance of private enterprise funding the far-off pay-back schemes—whether nuclear or tidal—without the support of the CEGB or something similar. Incidentally, unless the so-called big "G"—one of the two successors to CEGB—takes it on, does this not mean "goodbye" to the Severn Barrage which may have a potential of up to seven gigawatts—certainly more than one and nearer two—albeit at three times the capital cost of the Channel Tunnel?
The Energy Economist published by the Financial Times made the point in March that,
"Electricity is perhaps the single most important asset of a modern industrial economy. If it goes wrong, chaos can follow."
Therefore, the most critical issue is security of supply and after that cheapness of supply. The crux of this scheme is the divorce of generation from distribution and that is the end which is supposed to justify the means. Such vertical disintegration has been rejected in the United States and has never been attempted anywhere else. It represents a large gamble the physical success of which turns on load management when electricity is something that cannot be stored.
Since real costs vary from minute to minute, and since consumers cannot be kept waiting, there has
610
been developed a highly sophisticated merit order system based on ascending marginal operating costs as measured by central ownership and conducted by the grid. The alternative now offered is really a spot market amid a network of contracts for capacity and supply which is supposed to reflect the lowest net effective cost.
Just picture the kind of contract which is to replace central ownership. "We," that is the grid—or the owners of the grid—"agree to take the output from your power station for the next 30 years, unless the grid controller decides that something else would be cheaper". Obviously, such contracts will not be acceptable. As a layman, I believe that either there will be a costly surplus of capacity, or a pooling among generators which must be the very opposite of competition and amount to collusion.
I notice an element of sheer ideology—nothing better—in the Secretary of State's reply to what I thought was a most powerful submission made to him by the Electrical Power Engineers Association. I personally believe that effective load management is only possible where both the power source and distribution are under single control.
So what about the grid? We are told that it will be run by the same people as before. But who will take the decisions? It is to be owned by the 12 area boards which are now the distributing authorities. How will their different regional interests be reconciled? For example, the East Midlands and the South-East have quite different load problems from those of the South-West.
Who is the primus? Is the primus merely primus inter pares? Or, will the managing board vote in terms of a shareholding that reflects each area's needs and the scale of such needs? How will the grid be accountable to the nation at large for security of supply, let alone for cheapness? I quote again from the Energy Economist:
"With electricity—as those trapped in New York office lifts in the black out can testify—a shortage of reserve capacity can be a nightmare timed by the minute, not by the week. To place in the hands of the market all notions of statutory reserve capacity and to give distributors all the obligations, is to run the risk either of extreme conservatism and wide uneconomic reserve margins, or extreme recklessness and black outs".
The Santa Claus in the whole situation is the regulator. His job is to square the circle. He must obtain low prices for the consumer; but he must also encourage investment. He must obtain more nuclear provision, with its slow pay-back on investment; he must get it without the counter-competitive collusion of cross-subsidisation by smaller gas or oil stations offering a faster pay-back. He must ensure security of supply without non-competitive collusion. He will need the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon and the skills of Houdini.
Where will fundamental research and development wind up? Who will look after ETSU, the Energy Technology Support Unit, at Harwell? Further, who will ensure (or even restore) ETSU's objective, instead of being the mere plaything (as many suppose) of the Atomic Energy Authority?
There are critically important research questions for electricity supply in the years ahead as regards tidal power; wave-power reseach; biomass; energy

611
crop farming for set-aside agricultural land, as the common agricultural policy contracts. All this, to say nothing of the fast reactor and of fusion—although, to some extent, those are an international undertaking at present, must be underwritten somewhere somehow.
In my view, the White Paper recalls a child's description of a tennis net: a lot of holes tied together. That is because the document was rushed out after weeks of agonising with the main object of defeating Lord Marshall's campaign for the CEGB. That is why there are so many gaps in this document.
Therefore, I say, spare a sigh and shed a quiet tear for the luckless Front Bencher on this side of the House who draws the bad lot of having to pilot the Bill through this Chamber without at least being a full member of the Department of Energy's ministerial team, however much we love him personally.
1.18 p.m.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, I put my name down to speak in the debate for one purpose only and that was to draw attention to the lack of any mention in the White Paper of the protection of research and development. However, I am delighted to note that the issue has already been touched upon by many previous speakers, including my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in his excellent speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, in his opening reply referred to paragraph 5 of the White Paper which pays tribute to the industry's greatest asset; namely, the people who work in it. A large proportion of the most highly qualified people in that group are in fact working on research and development. To my mind it is most important to ensure that the future of their work is known and assured.
The industry is a high-tech industry and considerable resources are therefore necessary and essential to maintain an adequate research and development programme to protect the public interest—the public interest in maintaining a secure and competitive supply. Previous speakers have emphasised the importance of competitive power to the industries of our country.
We have large, important, experienced and dedicated teams of qualified personnel working in the research and development field in laboratories around the country. The CEGB has three such laboratories; the AEA has seven. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Weir referred to the work taking place in one of them. Moreover, there are other laboratories in the country devoted to the support of the industry, including those of the manufacturing industry itself.
The work of such teams covers important spheres of safety, reliability and protection of the environment which are all of great importance to the general public. They also cover those areas necessary for the adequate preparation and introduction of new techologies into a fast-moving industry. They ensure that equipment is prepared in adequate time to be introduced into the system to provide a secure service
612
and efficient supply. Such functions are especially important in the nuclear field. I am glad that a nuclear programme is part of the Government's plans for the industry. My noble friend Lord Davidson referred to the continuation of the nuclear programme and the resources behind it. However, many of those resources are in fact research and development resources and it is not at all clear how they will be protected or how they will be paid for.
This matter is also important to the manufacturing industries of this country which have a very important export market in the supply of power equipment to the world. They will not be able to compete in the world market unless there is an adequate research and development programme for plant, and that will come only if there is a progressive approach to the matter by the supply industry itself. Your Lordships will appreciate that one cannot sell power equipment to the world markets unless one can demonstrate that it is working and is proven on one's home system. Therefore this area is extremely important to our manufacturing industries and to our export trade.
We all listened a week or so ago to my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he emphasised the importance of 1992 to our position in Europe. We were all impressed with that and we wish him well in his campaign around the country to make everybody else aware of it. However, we must have an adequate research and development programme in the industry after privatisation to ensure that our equipment is competitive with that which will be available in the rest of Europe in 1992. This is a matter of vital importance to us.
One cannot turn research and development on, off and then on again. One has to maintain continuity. I fear that there will be a hiccup during the time we debate this new set-up and while we are waiting to know who will be in charge of what in our research and development programme. I draw your Lordships' attention, and in particular the attention of my noble friend Lord Davidson, to the fact that there is considerable uncertainty among the people working in the laboratories to which I have referred. They do not know what the future of their work will be. They do not know for whom they will be working. Nor do they know how or even if their programmes are to be funded in the future. This could lead to disastrous circumstances. These are good people. They can go elsewhere and can be attracted into other jobs. Once these teams are broken up they cannot be put together in a short time.
Someone has to make it clear to these people who will decide their programme what is required and what is not required and who will pay for it. Obviously the programmes that come within the ambit of normal commercial considerations—programmes on which one can see a return in five years or so—should be paid for by the privatised companies. However, this industry does not work on a short-term basis; it works on a long-term basis. There are 10-year programmes to introduce major new equipment. There are programmes for 20 or 25 years for a new nuclear power system. How will these programmes be decided? Who will pay for them?

613
There is considerable concern that at the moment the movement is in the wrong direction. The organisations are already looking to privatisation, are already seeing how they can put their finances in the best possible shape to attract the best possible market for their shares. That means cutting down on costs, and so long-term problems of research and development are being put on one side. However, one cannot pick them up again later. This is already happening. It is a little stream at the moment. One can see it: "We are not going to do this; we are not going to do that", and so on. This will become a flood unless somebody says, "Yes you are, it is going to be done this way". I draw special attention to the seriousness of this matter.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to give early attention to this problem. It is too important to leave until all the other matters and details are sorted out. They must allay these fears quickly and at an early date because they are there and they are serious. I hope that my noble friend Lord Davidson will be able to indicate to the House today that something will be done in this field. I hope he will say, first, that the Government are aware of the problem, and, secondly, that he will give us some idea as to how they see the problems being resolved at an early date to prevent a serious deterioration arising in this vital area for the long-term future progress of this industry.
1.25 p.m.
Lord Winterbottom: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this subject, although it is not quite the obvious one. In the month of March I was approached by a group of individuals from the Far East who had substantial funds which they wished to invest in this country. Fortunately, I did not have to use my brain for very long because the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Energy, Mr. Michael Spicer, made the first indication of the Government's immediate intention to privatise the electricity industry. This preceded the White Paper, or the semi Green Paper, by a week or two. This prompted me to suggest to the gentlemen who came to see me that they should study the possibility of investing some of their funds in the privatisation of the electricity industry.
I was encouraged to do this by two of the key points in Mr. Spicer's speech. He made a firm statement that foreign funds would be welcomed in the expansion of the British electricity industry. He extended a special invitation to the United States—the speech was made in Florida—to come and help us to extend our industry. He also stressed that other interests would not be excluded. This I brought to the notice of the gentlemen who consulted me.
Another point in his statement pleased me. He stressed the importance of renewable resources, including the Severn barrage, which one noble Lord has already mentioned. At that point he made a mistake when he seemed to assume that the larger generating plant should be mainly nuclear. I may be wrong because I have no direct experience, but he seemed to assume that it would be easy to produce a number of stations. He seemed to think that they
614
would spring out of the ground. One remembers that the Sizewell B inquiry took six years, and the Minister has promised that the usual public inquiries will take place for every nuclear power station.
An important consideration is the timing of this operation. Mr. Spicer stressed that it would not be difficult to place the shares of the 14 new companies on the world market. He said that the problem was 20 times larger than the flotation of British Airways. This strikes me as a very heavy programme indeed. We are certainly promised one year's legislation starting in November and continuing until late summer next year. So the single question I should like to put to the Minister is: how does he foresee the machinery of flotation? It will be vaster, 20 times as large as the flotation of British Airways and will put strains surely on some parts of the economic machinery.
I shall not touch on any politics in this matter because we shall have all next year to do that. But the points about the general timetable for carrying this into effect would, I believe, be of interest.
1.30 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Davidson has initiated this extremely interesting debate. I have been considering energy questions for some 25 years, ever since I became Parliamentary Secretary for Science in 1963. Then I was mostly concerned with nuclear power, the Atomic Energy Authority, government research establishments and the co-operative industrial research associations, some of which were much concerned with various kinds of energy research.
Then from 1964 to 1970, during the government of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and when Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn was the Minister for Technology, and his department then included energy, I was a shadow energy spokesman on the Benches opposite. I continued to be concerned, as Minister of State in 1970, as chairman of the committee of inquiry into research associations and for six years as Conservative energy spokesman in the European Parliament, followed by another six years on the energy sub-committee of the European Communities Committee.
I have gone down coal-mines, flown out to oil and gas rigs in the North Sea and visited many power stations. At the request of Lady Bessborough—I hope that noble Lords will not think this is irrelevant, but my noble friend Lord Davidson has allowed me to mention this in parenthesis— in co-operation with the admirable firm of Tarmac Properties, Lady Bessborough and I are both active supporters of the restoration of the house in Craven Street where Benjamin Franklin conducted his first experiments in harnessing electricity. That was a most notable and interesting early example of private enterprise in the generation of electricity. My noble friend Lord Hood knows all about this. He made a most interesting speech which no doubt my noble friend Lord Davidson will be answering.
At all events, throughout the last quarter of a century I have often reflected on how and to what extent electricity might be privatised. I should like to

615
say at the outset that having read the White Paper I feel that the Government's proposals are just about right. I can tell my noble friend Lord Davidson that unlike some of my noble friends I support him just about 100 per cent.
I find it interesting to note that in the United States and Japan ownership is mainly private. In Belgium generation is almost entirely private and distribution mainly private. In Germany it is mixed public and private and in Spain it is mostly private. I have not heard many complaints from consumers in those countries, apart from very rare power cuts such as the one in New York State mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in his delightful remarks. After all, we had our power cuts after the hurricane.
I agree in particular that privatisation involves truer public ownership and that in general privatisation as so far introduced in this country in other sectors, with well over one-third of the former state sector having been already privatised, is now recognised worldwide as one of the hallmarks of this Government. It is being emulated in other countries.
I agree with the six key principles enunciated by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy in February and also with what he said in March, that competition in generation would provide the best protection for the consumer. It would put pressure on that part of the industry responsible for three-quarters of the cost of electricity. At present, as we know, the CEGB supplies some 95 per cent. of electricity transmitted by it, the other 5 per cent. coming from Scotland, from France across the Channel and from a few generators which provide electricity as a by-product of their main business, such as the Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels.
I recognise very well the weakness of the present system, with the CEGB controlling the national grid, as well as being virtually its monopoly supplier. I have never thought that this could be right. There has been very little scope for other generating concerns to break into the market.
I agree also that although the grid will continue to be owned and run by a separate company which itself will be owned jointly by the area distribution companies, it will operate on a contractual basis with both generating and distributing companies. Clearly, as long as electricity's marketplace is controlled by a company with a strong, let alone the strongest, generating interest, it is inevitable that free and fair competition will be hampered. I agree that after privatisation the 12 distribution companies will be the grid's major customers and that they will have a strong interest in ensuring that as much competition in generation as possible is allowed to develop.
I agree too with the government proposal to split up the CEGB into two competing generating companies and that both should be sold to the public. I think that it is reasonable to predict that the new system will also encourage new private generators, the Benjamin Franklins of our day in research. I well remember the days when we had our own private generators in the country and they worked quite adequately. I agree also that if alternative power
616
schemes such as the Severn barrage and hot rocks become viable, private sector interests which have developed these sources will find it easier to introduce them into the market under the new system.
I am interested to see and to hear from my noble friend that the 12 distribution companies will be among the largest private sector companies in their region and that they will thus—and I think this is very important—have a strong local identity and a real incentive to strike the best deal for their customers. I am also glad to read the proposals on share ownership and that the employees in the industry will be offered incentives to acquire a genuine stake in its future. I agree that there is every reason to assume that electricity workers will be just as enthusiastic as their counterparts in British Telecom and British Gas. Over 99 per cent. of British Gas employees took up shares in the privatised company and 96 per cent. in British Telecom. This was despite considerable opposition from the trade unions.
I am happy that the new structure will provide more diverse career opportunities. I am also convinced that nuclear safety will not be affected in that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate will remain independent and continue to monitor safety. It is gratifying too to know that all the area board chairmen and the Electricity Council have welcomed the Government's plans and that there is support also from consumer organisations. For all these reasons I fully support the Government's proposals and have not been convinced by those who oppose them. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Davidson has given me this opportunity of supporting him warmly.
1.39 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, at this stage of a debate it is very difficult to say anything which has not already been said before. However, I shall certainly try. I have been impressed so far by the speeches that I have heard, certainly with the very eloquent speech of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. He put the whole matter in perspective and told the House that the Government were operating not on the basis of making the industry more efficient but simply because the Conservative Party was very doctrinaire and needed to do this; it needed to privatise to get money to bribe the electorate at the next general election.
But of course the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, by quoting the replies given to the Select Committee on Energy in another place also showed quite clearly that the Government were making things up as they went along and that they had no clear view of what the industry was going to be like. Later there followed the demolition job, if I can put it that way, by the noble Viscount, Lord Weir. That was followed again by a devastating critique by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, it seemed, and still seems, to me that the Government have very few friends. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, must have been very relieved when the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, got to his feet to give the only indication of unqualified support yet to the White Paper.
However, before I go any further perhaps I should declare that I have an interest. I enjoy a very small pension from the CEGB as I worked at one time for

617
that organisation. But I must emphasise that the pension is very small. Nevertheless that leads me into my first point, which is that I noticed that the Secretary of State told the House of Commons that he had written to all the 131,000 employees of the industry. I do not object to that of course, but I remind the Government and the noble Viscount that there are many thousands of people who are retired who helped to build up the industry to the successful enterprise that it is at the present time.
As a pensioner of the electricity supply industry I take grave exception to the fact that the Government have not seen fit to write to me and to my fellow pensioners telling us what privatisation means to us and whether our pensions and our pension rights will be safeguarded. I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, who has just returned to his place, will tell his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the pensioners in the industry are entitled to consideration as well and that we look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State in the same way as he has got in touch with the existing staff of the industry.
In his opening remarks the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, said that one of the reasons for privatisation was to enable the electricity supply industry to act commercially and without state interference. We all say amen to that, but the electricity supply industry has had more interference from the present Government—from a Tory Government—since 1979 than it ever had before. As my noble friend Lord Mulley pointed out, the Government have milked the industry by about £4,000 million and they have forced it to push up prices to a level at which they need not be.
But it is not necessary to privatise an industry in order to allow it to act commercially and without interference. All that has to happen is for the Government to stop interfering. There is a model in the case of Scandinavia, which runs its nationalised Industries in just such a way without any interference From the Government but nevertheless ensuring that the public retain control of strategic industries. If there is a strategic industry above all other strategic industries, it is the electricity supply industry. Therefore it should remain in the public sector and under public control.
As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and others have pointed out, the electricity supply industry has been a very successful organisation over a very long period of time. To take us back to the period before it was nationalised in 1949 is not a backward step; it is a backward leap. If the noble Viscount will merely read the history of the industry before it was nationalised he will see that a fragmented industry failed to meet the needs of the country over a long period of time. It is only since the industry has been nationalised that there has been universal pricing and indeed the ability of all people in this country to enjoy an electricity supply at all.
We must know whether uniform pricing is to be maintained. I do not see how under private ownership it can be, but it is a necessary component and a necessary assurance that we need, and we need that today. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give that assurance.
618
We also need to know just exactly how security of supply is to be maintained. That point has been made by a number of noble Lords and it is vital. Over the past decades the electricity supply industry, because it is an integrated industry, has been able to build and operate power stations on an integrated basis, seeing to it that their maintenance programmes are scheduled correctly so that winter peaks can be met. It is essential that we know how this fragmented privately owned industry is to meet that security of supply; that the housewife, when she presses a switch, can be assured that the light will come on and that the cooker will work; and that when the industrial worker presses his switch he will be assured that his machine will turn in order to produce. We need that assurance because it is vital to this country and to the interests of the country.
We have been told that privatisation will lead through competition to lower prices. However, as has already been pointed out, the Government are forcing prices up by 15 per cent. in order that the industry can be made more attractive to private speculators who, when they own the industry, will demand greater profits than the 12 per cent. that has been made on an historic cost basis. They will therefore attempt to force prices up even further. We need better assurances as to how prices will be controlled, not only those charged to domestic consumers but also industrial consumers who are getting a very bad deal at the present time from the gas industry.
I should like to make one final comment. Throughout the electricity supply industry over the last 35 years negotiating and advisory machinery has been built-up which is second to none. All employees, both in the generation and the distribution sides of the industry, have been able to negotiate terms and conditions of service. And they have also been able, together with management, to have a say in how the industry is run as a whole. As I read it, we are assured in the White Paper that the present arrangements will not be interfered with. I do not see how, in a fragmented and privatised industry, we can continue to have the national negotiating and advisory machinery which has served the industry so well over a long period of time. I hope that the noble Viscount will either be able to give me the assurances I need on that point when he winds up or that he will write to me at a later date.
In conclusion, the White Paper is unnecessary. It is ill-thought-out. It will not serve the nation well. There is still time for second thoughts, especially bearing in mind what has been said today. The Government should understand that the electricity industry is a great strategic industry. From their own and the consumers' point of view, they ought to keep it under public control.
1.52 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on having arrived at a position where they are able to start the process of privatisation of electricity, the largest act of privatisation ever undertaken so far as I am aware. It could be said to mark the apogee, to date at least, in the retreat from that now discredited ideology,

619
nationalisation. The dogma of nationalisation had already been abandoned in practice if not in principle by the last two Labour Governments. The present Conservative Government put the policy from neutral into reverse and they have presided over the return of ever greater swathes of industry to the private sector. In doing so, they have both caught the spirit of the age and, in turn, given the world inspiration.
I do not know where the Labour Party stands today on nationalisation. I assume that it is hard pushed to find its feet, caught up in the rush of the mighty movement. In fact, I think that for any noble Lord on this side of the House to ask any noble Lord on the opposite side if he believed in nationalisation would be considered as tasteless and inappropriate as it was for the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, to ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London during the Committee stage of the Education Reform Bill whether he believed in the Virgin birth.
It is ironic that members of the party opposite, such doughty if erstwhile champions of state monopolies, should criticise the Government for failing to introduce 100 per cent. competition into the industry and leaving elements of monopoly within it. The Government have recognised that regional electricity distribution is a natural monopoly and they propose to introduce competition only into generation. Since nearly 80 per cent. of the cost of electricity production is accounted for by generation, plainly the scope for reduction in final cost to be brought about through competition in generation is considerable.
The point surely is that there is simply no way of telling whether costs are as low as they could be while electricity generation remains a monopoly. After eight years of drawing down surplus capacity and with much obsolete and obsolescent plant, the electricity industry stands on the edge of an exciting and expansive future. The Government estimate that an investment of some £45 billion will be required in the next 12 years. That is surely a wonderful prospect for the order-starved power equipment industry and will provide many jobs through the regions and in Scotland.
It will also provide a great incentive for new, entrants into the industry. One should never underestimate the extraordinary vitality of capitalism. Like an irrepressible garden plant, it needs to be given the right conditions, to be contained within the proper regulatory limits, to be spared too many visits from the gardener and his staff and to be allowed to take hold. Who knows? I should not be surprised if even some noble Lords were tempted out of Westminster's placid pools into the bracing stream which is just starting to bubble out of the ground.
I support entirely the emphasis which the Government have placed on the need to secure variety in a fuel supply in the interests both of costs and security of supply. As we all know, the British coal industry used its monopoly position in the past to hold the nation to ransom. That position was artificially strengthened by agreed prohibitions on
620
imported coal. Even today, there are handling facilities only for 15 million tonnes of imported coal which is some 15 per cent. of national consumption.
However, the British coal industry has already emerged from its darkest night, as my noble friend Lord Weir recognised. The Government have invested no less than £6 billion since 1979 and productivity is up by 50 per cent. in the last four years. With its geographical advantage, it looks set for a thriving future. That future should not be based on the abuse of a monopoly position at the expense of the customer.
I believe that the Government are right to lay an obligation on the distributing companies to use a minimum of non-fossil fuel generated electricity. Incidentally, that obligation is for a fixed proportion and not a rising proportion. It is irresponsible to future generations to rely on non-renewable fuels for electricity generation. Since in practice we are years away from producing adequate quantities of wind- or wave-generated electricity, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hanworth, that means nuclear power.
Some critics have sought to focus on the distinction between the guarantee given for nuclear fuel use and the absence of any guarantee for British coal. The second half of that proposition was much emphasised by my noble friend Lord Weir. However, the situation in the two industries is quite different. The British coal industry, with 75 per cent. of the electricity fuel market, is still emerging from a monopoly position. Nuclear fuel, with 18 per cent. of the market, is an industry which is struggling to establish itself and contending against great political forces. In the case of coal, the Government have made already the great capital investment which is necessary.
In the case of nuclear fuels, a great deal remains to be undertaken. The guarantee of a minimum demand has quite reasonably been considered necessary to protect future investment. Nevertheless, my noble friend Lord Weir is worried that the position of coal may be rapidly undermined by imports. Certainly we are far from that position at the present time. I am quite sure that the Government cannot intend that in view of the investments they have made. Moreover the Government have given assurances that that is not their intention. In any case there is plenty of time; it is not something that would happen hurriedly. However, I agree that it is something which we shall have to look out for over a longer period of time.
In sum, I believe that this measure is a meritorious one, despite what its critics say. The critics for the most part seemed to me to be either sceptics, those who had a feeling of being kept in ignorance about important details or who were suspicious of what they see as the ideological motivation behind the White Paper, a motivation with which they do not sympathise; that is to say, they were not outright opponents.
I believe that the measure is in the interests of employees, who will retain their existing rights but in addition acquire the right to a stake in their industry. It is of great and obvious advantage to the national

621
exchequer, which will have funds available for public expenditure of the kind for which private expenditure is not available and for tax cuts which have as their purpose the stimulation of growth in the economy, on whose continuing prosperity all our livelihoods depend.
So I submit that it is in the interests of the economy. Above all it is in the interests of the customer. That means all those for whom electricity costs are a matter of vital concern. It has met with wide approval. Anyone would think from some speeches in the debate that the measure was entirely friendless save perhaps for my noble friend Lord Bessborough.
It has the strong approval of the chairmen of the 12 area boards. The areas account for two-thirds of the industry. It has been welcomed by the chairman of the electricity council. It has the support of the Electricity Consumers Council. Not surprisingly, it does not have the support of the CEGB, which has lost control of the national grid. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, at least on the other side seemed to appreciate the reason for that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord is of distinguished Scottish descent. How does he think that the 50 inhabited islands off the coast of Scotland would have received electricity had it not been for public enterprise? Does he think that private enterprise would have arranged that?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I thought he gave a charming and persuasive picture of what happened in the pre-war period. But that is a different period of history. I do not contest his claim that at that time the public ownership of electricity may have been necessary, but times have changed and today we live in a different period.
My noble friend Lord Weir's criticisms were principally directed against the White Paper and what he saw as its omissions. I agree with him that it is sketchy. We shall need to know a lot more about the details before we can be satisfied with the Bill as a whole. We shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss that in the future and the legislation will obviously require careful scrutiny. Today I salute a daring and constructive act of government.
2.3 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, energy debates in your Lordships' House are always interesting and enjoyable, and this is certainly no exception. Apart from the main principle I think that there has been a certain amount of meeting of minds. The difficulty in winding up at this stage is exactly the one mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, namely that all the good points that one has prepared have already been made. He said that he would nevertheless try to say something original. I am afraid that there is no possibility that I can say anything new. The best I can do is to undermine—underline some of the points that have already been made.
A noble Lord: A Freudian slip!
Lord Peston: My Lords, Freudian indeed. I have a couple of questions for the noble Viscount. Are we to understand that legislation will be introduced in the next Session? Is that a definite government commitment? Do we have any idea when it will be introduced? I do not ask that just for ourselves because a number of his noble friends, or their friends, can see the new honeypot and are very keen to get their paws into it. From their point of view the sooner it happens the better, although that may be to the detriment of the rest of us.
The noble Viscount mentioned consultation and we all strongly approve of that. Can he say whether the consultation process is continuing and in particular whether the consultation process in connection with the regulation of the industry is still going on? I find the statement in the White Paper about regulation rather complex to the extent that I can understand it at all. It seems to me that if one produces this kind of private monopoly, regulation has to have a central role. One would like to know a great deal more about what the Government have in mind. In particular one would like to know whether the relevant consumer interests—by which I do not mean merely the Electricity Consumer Council but also the Consumer Council generally and the Consumers' Association—have been or will be involved.
On the central issue of privatisation or not privatisation which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I do not expect a meeting of minds. However I think that I ought to say that we on this side do not think it is in any sense right to privatise this industry. I shall set ideology on one side and assure the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that I do not have any worries about ideology. I am not ashamed of nationalisation. I believe that the nationalised industries have made tremendous contributions to the economy of this country. Indeed I think that nationalisation saved our economic system at the time when the very first of the great Labour Governments nationalised those industries. They cleared up the mess of what the noble Lord, Lord Reay, called capitalism, and the extent to which they can be privatised is an indication of their success. I make no apologies for that.
Indeed, if I were in a taunting mood—which I am not this afternoon—I could say on the subject of capitalism that I notice that very few noble Lords really believe in the free market system. There would not be a ring fence aroung nuclear power if they believed in free market economics. The nuclear power industry would simply be told to take its chances in the market place. The problem is that everyone knows that it would not survive in the market place without government protection. I believe that nuclear power is of considerable importance to our country—which is where we agree—and it ought to have that protection.
The essence of that is not free market capitalism; it is the mixed economy, namely, where the national interest is important the Government must intervene. The Government are right to intervene but I am not

623
convinced that they have intervened enough in nuclear power. Therefore, I do not think that we ought to be bandying ideologies about. I think that for all the talk the mixed economy is what we all believe in. We may disagree about which parts we like and which we do not. I believe that the mixed economy solution is the correct one. Nonetheless this industry ought to stay in the public sector and I shall be making one or two technical points on that subject in a moment.
First, I should like to point out that if we were to go along the path chosen by the Government of wishing to privatise, I fail to see why it is necessary to adopt an approach of wholesale privatisation. I do not see why they do not adopt the approach of a mixed economy. As an example, why do the Government not just privatise the area boards? That would be quite a good experiment. It seems to me that at the same time the nuclear sector—certainly that of generation—ought absolutely to remain in the public sector. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. That is not unrelated to the question of research and development, which is another point to which I shall return.
However, the key point in terms of minimising electricity costs or maximising efficiency is the merit order system—the system of optimisation and control. The system that one is trying to optimise must also be under one's control. That is the central technical point.
Several noble Lords have referred to systems in other countries which are not fully publicly owned. However, it is by no means clear that their electricity systems are as efficient as ours. Some evidence of that has already been put forward this afternoon and many people believe that this country has one of the most efficient, reliable and secure electricity systems in the world. That is largely due to the structure of our industry and in particular to the system of optimisation based on the merit order approach. In no circumstances would I care to see that disappear.
As I said, I think that a mistake was made in taking that route. It is a mistake that becomes apparent in the area of research and development, and that is a subject that was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Nelson. Again, I do not think that we need be even remotely ashamed of our contribution in that area. This country is outstanding in the field of research and development. I have said it before, but those of us who have visited electricity supply systems in other countries notice how many of the basic manuals of our electricity industry have become those countries' working manuals. They use our stuff to a quite astonishing degree. I too am worried, as indeed are other noble Lords who have spoken today in this debate, about the future of our research groups.
The point made or implied by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, is that one cannot break up a research team and easily put it together again without any difficulty. A research team exists almost as an organic entity and one must keep it together. When the noble
624
Viscount, Lord Davidson, replies to this debate, I should be glad if he would say a few words about whether the Government have given any thought to that matter and to what the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, hoped that we would have to offer to our scientists and engineers in that area.
Changing tack a little, I should like to say a few words on the environment, which is a topic that was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I mention it partly because it is of general interest but also because it is of particular interest to my noble friend Lady Nicol. It is no disrespect to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn to say that we all regret that the noble Baroness is not taking part in this debate today. We all look forward to her return to our energy debates and certainly when we come to debate the Bill I look forward very much to her leading for these Benches. The environment is a subject that concerns her very much and the White Paper is quite silent on some relevant questions. It says nothing about reducing pollution from power stations or planning controls over the new privatised industry when it takes over, which is a point that has already been mentioned by other noble Lords. Nor does it say anything about control over future developments.
So there is the question of what is to be done about control over the environment. Will it have to be more rigorous when the industry is privatised? There is the whole problem of sulphur clearing with which the CEGB is now engaged. It is a long process that the CEGB has embarked upon. I have been told that the whole process of installing sulphur clearing equipment will amount to a figure of £1 billion. That process does not benefit the consumers of electricity as such. As it happens, it is in the national interest and benefits everyone, including our colleagues overseas. However, is there any incentive for a privatised sector to undertake that kind of work? There are a great many questions of an environmental nature and some about energy conservation on which I believe noble Lords would like to have information from the noble Viscount either in his reply this afternoon or perhaps on another occasion.
Another matter of interest concerns the ownership of the industry's assets, which is a point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Mulley. It is a question that has concerned all of us when we have come to consider privatisation. One must consider who owns the assets and who has paid for them. In very large part they have been paid for by the consumers of the industry.
Lord Mulley: If my noble friend will permit me to intervene, I understand that before privatisation there will be no debt. They will be totally paid for.
Lord Peston: Exactly! Following the point of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, if the industry is sold, the proceeds of these assets will accrue to the Treasury, and then to the taxpayer if they were then used for tax cuts. But the tax cuts are not pro rata according to electricity consumption. Indeed, with the tax cuts that this Government have in mind (which are tax cuts for the very well off and benefit reductions for the very poor) they will be genuinely stealing from a

625
large number of people in this country. The value of the assets is not being returned in any fair or proper way. The assets were not returned in a proper and fair way for gas or for British Telecom. Therefore, I believe that the question of assets that my noble friend Lord Mulley raised is an important one. When we consider the Bill in detail we shall inquire into that.
On the point raised by protagonists of privatisation, I am not that impressed with the performance of British Gas to date. I am interested to discover that this is regarded as a brilliant performance. It does not look that brilliant to me. British Telecom made a terrible mess until a public outcry brought them into line. Without such public outcries, they will not stay in line. I am rather surprised that the noble Lords opposite are that keen on the achievements of privatisation. We on this side are content to watch, wait and talk about these matters. However, the issue is by no means simple.
I wish to hurry quickly to a conclusion. I think that I am almost the only noble Lord who has taken part in virtually all the activities of this House in the past five days, and I am beginning to get rather tired. However, I should like to say one last word on competition. At the level of consumption, where competition matters most of all, there simply will not be any extended competition. The White Paper says that even after privatisation the supply activities of the distribution companies and the national grid company will remain in large part natural monopolies. I do not understand the "large part"—the weasel words. They will remain natural monopolies. The only slight area of competition is in the area of generation.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, has said, under the 1983 Act, anyone can now set up a private power station, and can compete. They have full right of access to the national grid. I believe that the noble Viscount threw the line away that that system has not achieved much, and that is why we are going on to this. But I doubt whether this approach will achieve anything on the competitive side. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, if some people wish to try their hands at the smaller end of CHP, and so on, why not? We have no doctrinaire views on that.
However, I do not see this system as the introduction of the principles of Adam Smith into the system because this is inevitably a monopolistic system. We judge that it is difficult to regulate. We do not doubt that. But we believe that the system would be more easily regulated and more easily optimised if it largely stays in the public sector rather than this extraordinary attempt, which has not yet been thought through, to try to regulate what in the end will simply be a private monopoly.
2.17 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Weir declared a strong family connection with the electricity industry. My noble friend Lord Bessborough—in his very supportive speech—mentioned Benjamin Franklin.My connection is not so strong; but perhaps I may tell
626
your Lordships that when my maternal grandfather was chairman of the LCC in 1901 my aunt, then aged eight years old, pressed the switch which turned on the first electric lights on the Embankment along the Thames opposite the Palace of Westminster. I do not think that that has ever been recorded before.
I do not think your Lordships will expect me to answer all the questions that have been put to me. However, I should start by emphasising, in answer to the gentle wigging from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we are debating a White Paper and that the Government are in the middle of the process of drafting a Bill. In my view this debate is part of that process. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take into account seriously what has been said today. I thought that I should make that clear at the outset.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today's debate. We have heard today a wide range of views both on the principles of privatising the electricity industry and on the details of the Government's proposals.
I cannot say that any of the views expressed were unexpected, in particular from the Benches opposite. I have seldom heard so many prophecies of doom and gloom. I am bound to agree with my noble friend Lord Reay in his analysis of the Opposition's attitudes.
Many reasons have been put forward today to explain why the Government have chosen to put the electricity supply industry into private hands. Some are correct and some are not. Let me just remind your Lordships of the six principles that the Government have adopted in framing their proposals for privatisation. First, decisions about the supply of electricity should be driven by the needs of the consumer. Secondly, competition is the best guarantee of the consumer's interest. Thirdly, regulation should be designed to promote competition, oversee prices and protect the customer's interests in areas where natural monopolies will remain.
Fourthly, security and safety of supply must be maintained. Fifthly, customers should be given new rights not just safeguards. Sixthly, all who work in the industry should be offered a direct stake in their future, new career opportunities and the freedom to manage their commercial affairs without interference from government.
Moved into the private sector under these principles, the Government believe that the industry will have plenty of scope to achieve more. Once released from government interference, management will be free to manage while being subject to real commercial pressures.
The industry will also be made accountable to its customers and shareholders, which we expect will include a significant number of its employees. The Government's proposals will create a modern, competitive industry, owned by the public and responsive to the needs of customers and employees. There are real benefits in prospect, not only to the industry but to the economy.

627
How the Government's proposals for privatisation will make electricity supply more competitive and efficient has been discussed at some length today, and quite rightly, as it is the key to the success of the privatised industry. I should now like to turn to some of the specific points which have been raised during the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, made a powerful speech. He expressed doubts that the Government had a clear mandate to privatise. The Government do have a clear mandate to privatise. The 1987 manifesto was unambiguous about that. The success of previous privatisation, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Peston, says, demonstrates public support for this policy.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that it would be wrong for privatisation to result in the management of the distribution companies becoming remote from customers. I believe that the reverse will be the case. Instead of customers having to go through Ministers, who must necessarily be remote from the day-to-day operation of the industry, we shall be creating clear accountability to customers, to shareholders and to employees. The regulator will be given the powers and the resources to ensure that the consumer receives a good service. I am also glad to give the assurance sought on controls over nuclear power stations. There will be absolutely no diminution of safety standards. Our system of safety regulation and control does not depend on ownership. Any businessman knows that especially in large organisations there is always scope for greater efficiency. We are determined both to ensure that the regulatory system encourages a continuing drive to greater efficiency and to see that the consumer benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about the regulator's role in any new businesses which the distribution companies decide to enter. The regulator will ensure that the core business of electricity supply will be ring-fenced for regulatory purposes for the other activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked me many questions. The Secretary of State for Energy made it quite clear that the White Paper sets out the principles under which the industry is to operate. The department and the industry still have a great deal of work to do to turn this into detailed legislation. It would be foolish and irresponsible to give glib answers to important questions now and I am surprised that the noble Lord expected the Government to do so. But I explained earlier that I believe that this debate is part of the procedure of consultation and my right honourable friend will take what has been said into account.
The White Paper makes it quite clear that environmental standards will be maintained. The Government are committed to the reduction of emissions from power stations. Sulphur dioxide emissions have fallen by 40 per cent. since 1970 and 25 per cent. since 1980. In September 1986 the Government endorsed the CEGB's voluntary commitment to retrofit flue gas de-sulphurisation
628
plant to 6,000 megawatts of existing coal-fired capacity by 1997 and to fit low inox burners to 23,000 megawatts of capacity.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked about the structure of the transmission of the grid. The grid will be owned by the distribution companies and they have every incentive to seek diverse sources of supply including supplies from private generators. They will wish to minimise generation costs and to run the grid efficiently and effectively. The grid's operation will be self-contained and the regulator will be able to check on unfair practices. The rules governing the grid will ensure that the use of system charges and terms of access will be transparent.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about security of supplies. Every party involved in electricity supply must have an interest in maintaining supplies. We can expect them to work together, especially in emergencies and there will be penalties for those who fail to supply. There will be contractual arrangements to provide for national control to return its power to direct power stations. National control will also direct action on the distribution system in the event of emergencies.
In his speech the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, quoted figures on the percentage of losses from a 2,000 megawatt station sending power 200 miles. I know that the noble Viscount is well versed in the technical arguments. However, I believe that the figures he quotes represent the worst case. Under normal conditions losses associated with a power transfer over 200 miles would be of the order of 2 per cent.
My noble friend Lord Hood asked about the difference between the proposals for Scotland and those for England and Wales. The differences in the historical development of the two industries are reflected in the proposals for their privatisation. It is a question of horses for courses. In both cases the Government's proposals are radical but evolutionary. It would have been wrong to force Scotland into an English framework or vice versa.
I must also welcome my noble friend's support for a continuing nuclear programme. A healthy nuclear industry is essential to continuing diversity and security of supply. The Government' proposals to carry over the CEGB's nuclear expertise, and so guarantee a minimal level of non-fossil fuel capacity, will ensure that these benefits continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, asked about the protection of customers. I can assure him that the regulatory system will protect customers by controlling prices, by setting standards of service, by setting the right incentives and by making the industry more consumer-responsive.
As regards paying off the industry's debts, there is nothing particularly odd about that. Any business must finance its continued development and operation. If instead of the industry repaying its debts they had to be written off, the cost would fall on the taxpayer.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Weir, we believe that electricity privatisation will create many new

629
opportunities for the industry and for the people who work in it directly and indirectly. Although we are interested in overseas firms investing in Britain, we expect that the bulk of the investment will come from UK firms. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has made it clear that avoiding any unnecessary interruption to the power station ordering programme is essential. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale will accept that assurance from me. Therefore I can give my noble friend Lord Weir the assurance that he seeks on that matter.
Many noble Lords have asked about research and development and I shall return to the topic in a moment. However, I should like to take this opportunity to commend the excellent record of the industry's R&D effort. I am sure that the privatised industry will wish to build on this. The Government have already received a number of representations from within and outside the industry about the arrangements for R&D in the privatised electricity industry. We are consulting the industry on that matter. There are a number of options for the future structure of the electricity industry's R&D effort, but we are not yet in a position to make a decision. It is our intention that whatever option is chosen for the future arrangement of the industry's R&D the new organisation will continue to be able to undertake contractual work on a commercial basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirk hill, spoke about the planned proposals for Scotland. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not respond directly to the interesting points that he made about the Government's proposals for privatisation of the Scottish electricity industry. I shall of course draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend.
I must agree with my noble friend Lord Lauderdale about the advantages of the Government's proposals for large customers, for private generators, for CHP and for renewables. We are determined to avoid the problems that he foresees. In particular, there must be no interruption on the ordering and construction of the new plant needed to meet the gap in supply foreseen towards the end of this century. The distribution companies will have an obligation to supply. They will therefore be responsible for security of supply. They will have to contract for sufficient supply from a variety of sources or generate it themselves. Discussions with the industry on how these contracts and the grid will work are continuing. I believe it was my noble friend who mentioned the ETRU—the Energy Technology Research Unit. As it is largely funded by the Department of Energy, it will not be affected by the White Paper proposals.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, as I understand it ETRU operates under the Atomic Energy Authority and has a bias in that direction. One would like to know or to be assured at some stage, not necessarily now, that it will continue and become absolutely independent and objective.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps I can write to my noble friend on that matter. I may have to write to everybody if my voice fails! The noble Lord, Lord
630
Winterbottom, asked about the timing and form of distribution for flotation. There are likely to be three separate flotations. Because of the sums involved it is possible that the Government may decide not to sell all the shares in each company at one time. But no final decisions have been taken. The distribution companies will probably be the first to enter the market. Details of the flotation are still being sorted out but it is likely that all 12 will be floated at the same time. We may decide to offer investors the opportunity to buy a single security representing shares in all 12 companies.
Whichever route is chosen for flotation we intend that members of the public and people who work in the industry will have the opportunity to own shares in their own local company. Our aim is to start the flotation as soon as is practicable after the privatisation Bill is enacted. Flotation of the distribution companies could occur in about two years' time. It will then be followed by sales of the two generators. We aim to complete the privatisation within the life of this Parliament.
With regard to overseas investment, we shall be particularly interested in proposals from overseas firms for investment in United Kingdom technology and jobs.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about pension rights. The Government did not write to the industry's employees but the Secretary of State arranged for the industry to distribute copies of the White Paper to them. At paragraph 61 the White Paper states:
"Privatisation will not affect the benefit payable to the members and pensioners of the industry's pension schemes. The industry will continue to have an obligation to finance pension liabilities".
Therefore, the position on pensions is quite clear: they will be fully safeguarded.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does that mean that they will be fully safeguarded in relation to future increases?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord on that point because I do not have an answer. I take safeguard to mean safeguarding with regard to future increases but I shall have to confirm that.
The White Paper makes it clear that the privatisation legislation will not make any changes to the negotiating machinery, which has served the industry well. After privatisation it will be for the new companies and unions to negotiate any changes as is the case at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked two questions. With regard to the timing of the legislation, I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech. But the White Paper makes clear that the Government intend to introduce the legislation at the earliest opportunity to provide powers to restructure and privatise the industry, establish a regulatory system, modernise the law on electricity supply and establish a new system for maintaining and improving the service.
As for the future of consumer councils, the White Paper makes clear that arrangements will be made to

631
ensure that an effective voice for consumers' interests will be maintained. Electricity consumer councils have been consulted about future consumer repesentation. Their views will be taken into account when finalising proposals for consumer representation and they are being fully consulted.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is quite correct to say that so far as distribution to the final consumer is concerned, natural monopoly will effectively remain: we cannot envisage rival companies digging up the streets to offer customers a choice of cable to take electricity into their home or factory. That is why the regulatory system will be designed to provide each distribution company in the industry with incentives to operate more efficiently and to ensure that the benefits of cost-savings are shared with customers. Prices will be regulated by means of a price control formula, and companies will not be allowed to make monopoly profits at the expense of the consumer. A regulatory system is intended to be a good deal less burdensome and intrusive than the regulatory system in the United States and a good deal more effective.
My noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will be pleased to hear that now that decisions on the future structure of the industry have been taken we are looking in depth at the future structure of the industry's centralised services including R&D. We recognise the industry's excellent record and reputation in this field and have every intention that this should continue. While it must be ultimately for the privatised industry to take the decisions on how best to take forward and organise its R&D programme, we intend to provide the framework within which it can fully utilise its existing expertise.
The Government are currently supporting comprehensive research, development and demonstration programmes aimed at exploiting the significant renewable energy resource in the UK. Over £121 million has been invested by the Department of Energy since the inception of the programme and strong support will continue to be provided to ensure their full commercial potential is realised. It is expected that the Department of Energy will spend around £50 million in further work in this important area over the next three years.
Most of the major private sector companies with an interest in the electricity generating renewable technologies—wind, tidal and geothermal hot dry rocks—are already participating in these research programmes along with the generating boards. I expect such collaborative work will continue after privatisation. The intention is to place an obligation on the distribution companies to take a specified minimum proportion of capacity from non-fossil fuel sources. This will further encourage the contribution of renewable sources to electricity supply.
The Government believe that technical constraints on the grid will not prevent the development of competition in generation as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. There are of course technical limits as to what can be done but within this exist real choices for distribution companies or large customers seeking power supplies. When assessing
632
competing bids the customers will take account not only of the cost of developing power to the station fence but also losses in transmitting power to where it is needed.
As regards obtaining capital for new generating stations, distribution companies will place contracts for new capacity with generating companies. On the strength of these contracts the generating companies will be able to borrow funds to finance power station construction. If the distribution companies decide that large power stations will meet their needs more cheaply they will join forces and place contracts jointly and share the output from the station. National planning is not necessarily the answer.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale expressed concern about how the grid will work. The grid company will operate under its own licence and will have its own memorandum and articles of association. The grid company, rather than the distribution companies, will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the grid. In particular, it will ensure that the advantages of a national grid merit order for power stations are monitored. Terms of access to the grid for third party users will be regulated.
I should like to conclude by making one or two general points. As I have already indicated, the Government believe that the consumer will benefit from their privatisation proposals. The consumer is being put first. No fewer than four of the six guiding principles adopted by the Secretary of State are concerned with ensuring that the consumer gets a better deal. Competition combined with effective regulation which protects the consumer but still allows competition to flourish is our intention.
The new system of guaranteed standards will for the first time give consumers the rights which they deserve. They will also give the industry the incentive to become more efficient and more responsive to the needs of its customers, thereby providing the better service that we all want.
I should make it absolutely clear that there is nothing in our proposals which will result in the lowering of safety standards. The industry has an excellent record in this area, and one which we intend should be maintained.
In conclusion, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to such a lively debate. It has been most interesting and worth while particularly because of the breadth of expertise and knowledge that exists in energy matters in your Lordships' House. If I have not been able to answer all the points which noble Lords have raised, I shall of course be glad to respond in writing.
Work on the details of the privatisation is continuing apace. I repeat that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be very interested in the comments made today and I shall ensure that they are conveyed to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before three o'clock.

  EC AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING, 16th/17th MAY
  EC AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING, 16th/17th MAY