Sitting of 30 November 1988

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

    Chemical Weapons
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his Iraqi counterpart on the use of chemical weapons against its Kurdish population.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): We have repeatedly condemned Iraq for its use of chemical weapons. I made that absolutely clear to the Iraqi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 21 September, as did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the highest level in Baghdad earlier this month. We noted with concern last week's television documentary containing further reports of Iraqi CW use in August. It underlines the importance of the international conference to be held in Paris in January to reaffirm the authority of the 1925 Geneva protocol banning CW use.
    Mr. Atkinson: As it is now clear that Iraq has perpetrated the most appalling atrocities on its Kurdish population by using poisonous gas, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that to seek better relations with Iraq at this time is to send a mixed message, namely, that Iraq can get away with genocide in violation of the Geneva protocol to which it is a party? Will my right hon. and learned Friend raise the matter with our European colleagues at the forthcoming Rhodes conference?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have certainly been appalled by the suffering inflicted as a result of the large-scale displacement of Kurds from their homes in Iraq. We have proclaimed the evidence of CW use as compelling but not conclusive. It is clear that Iraq has a case to answer, and we have been in the forefront of pressing that case in respect of those barbaric weapons. We want a total ban—that is the importance of the Paris conference.
    As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there is no way that the Iraqis could have misunderstood the firmness of our position on chemical weapons. As I said, it was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he was in Iraq a short time ago.
    In such a situation, one can do one of two things. One can isolate Iraq and make its unacceptable behaviour more likely, or one can try to establish and maintain a working relationship, to make clear our very strong views on that
    688
    aspect of Iraq's behaviour. This matter is one of constant concern. Last week I told the House that it will be permanently on the international agenda, so it may be discussed in one form or another at the Rhodes summit.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Why does the Foreign Secretary not follow the lead of the United States Congress, which, when it reconvenes in January, will impose economic sanctions against Iraq? Why will the British Government not do the same? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not see any inconsistency between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office condemning violations of human rights in Iraq, and the Department of Trade and Industry stitching up massive trade agreements with that country without once mentioning the subject of human rights?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the last part of her question the hon. Lady misses the central point of my main answer. During the course of my right hon. Friend's visit to Baghdad he took the opportunity to emphasise how strongly we feel about the use of chemical weapons and the importance that we attach to the matter. The hon. Lady is wrong to believe that the United States Congress has passed sanctions legislation. It has not done so. The American Administration are opposed to sanctions, and we believe that that is entirely consistent. It is not likely that any effective consequence will follow from the unilateral imposition of economic sanctions in this case. It would not prevent the use of chemical weapons by Iraq. We shall continue pressing the case as vigorously and energetically as we have done already, being in the forefront of those pressing it, we shall continue in that fashion.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, apart from a stop to this hideous practice, what the Kurdish people need most is humanitarian aid from the world community? Will he make a commitment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that that will be forthcoming as a matter of urgency?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The exodus that has taken place has created a major humanitarian problem. We have already contributed some £250,000 for humanitarian assistance, and we have told the Turkish authorities that we are prepared to consider applications for an extension of that in the ordinary way.
    Mr. Robertson: The Foreign Secretary says that evidence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons is "compelling but not conclusive"—a grand new phrase to hide the Government's increasingly fudging position. Did he see the programme on Channel 4 last Wednesday night, which brought forward conclusive proof both of the slaughter of the Kurds in northern Iraq and of the use of deadly poisons in those attacks?
    Surely there is something indecent in the sight of the Foreign Office condemning the use of chemical weapons, followed by that of a Cabinet Minister going to Baghdad touting for trade and business and doubling trade credits to Iraq, without any linked condition that Iraq desist from the vile slaughter of so many people in the northern provinces.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely understand the deep concern of the House at the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, but I deny absolutely any impression that the United Kingdom has not been in the van of those

    689
    pressing this case. In fact, we have been simultaneously denounced by many people in the Arab world for being so far in the forefront of the attack. We have sustained our position. It was we who took the matter up in the United Nations and pressed for an authoritative independent investigation, and we should still like such an investigationas c to take place, but we have received insufficient support from our colleagues in the United Nations. We were ready to welcome Iraq's undertaking not to use chemical weapons either inside or outside the country, given as a result of our representations, and we shall continue to press the case. But it would be wholly foolish, when the rest of the world is continuing to maintain trading relations with a large and important country, for us single-handed and unilaterally to make such a protest.
    The House must understand that we are maintaining contact with Iraq and pressing the case against chemical weapons. We are looking at any evidence that is forthcoming, and we are acting more energetically and effectively than any other country.

    United Nations
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects were discussed at recent meetings between Her Majesty's ambassador at the United Nations and the new President of the General Assembly.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No such meeting has yet taken place. However, Dr. Caputo, in his capacity as Chairman of the United Nations General Assembly, has asked to see our permanent representative to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell. The invitation has been accepted, but no date has yet been fixed.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are we warming to the Argentines?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have been pressing on the Argentines initiative after initiative for movements towards the re-establishment of more normal relations. As I have said many times, the table of my opposite number is groaning with the weight of fresh proposals. For example, as long ago as 1982 we removed all financial and trading discrimination, but the Argentines' response has been disappointing. They are continuing to discriminate against British goods and firms despite all that we have tried to do to press them in the opposite direction.
    We are still trying—as I told the House that we were in 1986—to see whether it is possible to establish a multilateral framework for the management of fisheries disputes. We have been looking constantly for a way of normalising relations, but sadly there has been an insufficient response.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to the President of the General Assembly and to the United States Administration the dismay of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are well disposed towards the United Nations at the refusal of a visa to Mr. Yasser Arafat? The Palestine National Council in Algiers went a long way towards accepting the existence of the state of Israel and United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, and this decision is likely to make the task of the moderates in the PLO more difficult.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend has made an important point very clearly and effectively. We took the opportunity during yesterday's debate to make entirely clear our view that Mr. Arafat should have been allowed to address the General Assembly, and that that was the legal obligation of the United States under the headquarters agreement. We should have liked to hear him confirm there the very point made by my right hon. Friend—that the PLO supports an international conference on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and rejects terrorism.
    The additional point that is vexing Opposition Members is this. We want a positive response from the United States on this matter. We pressed the substance of the resolution in our own statement and we supported the statement that was made by the Twelve to achieve it, but we did not think that we were likely to bring about a change in the United States attitude by supporting a resolution couched in intemperate language. We have made our position absolutely clear. There is a mutuality of obligation in the United Nations. The host country owes an obligation to the Establishment, and the Establishment owes a duty to the United States. I invite the House to acknowledge that we have pressed this case and that we shall continue to do so as vigorously as is required.
    Mr. Steel: Surely the Secretary of State accepts that intemperate action is worse in foreign affairs than intemperate language. That is what we have seen by the United States in its refusal of the visa. Those of us who have had contact with the PLO over the years have urged the recognition of United Nation resolutions such as No. 242. Now that that recognition is forthcoming, it is lamentable that the visa has been refused. The British ambassador should be given more robust instructions than simply to abstain from voting.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have made absolutely clear the extent to which we regret the refusal of the visa, and so did our spokesman in New York yesterday in concert with the representatives of the other member states. Mr. Arafat should have been allowed to address the General Assembly, but the question is how we can best move forward in the future. I am prepared to assure the House that the United Kingdom's credit with our friends in the Arab world and in the United States is substantial enough and strong enough for it to be understood when we say that Mr. Arafat should have been heard, and we say it in language that is more likely to produce a positive response from the United States.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is it not patently obvious that if Mr. Arafat and the PLO were serious about peace with Israel they would explicitly recognise the existence of the state of Israel, rather than just hint at it, that they would explicitly renounce violence—which they do not even hint at—and that they would not explicitly demand that the capital of the Palestinian state should be Jerusalem?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend is right to remind the House of the familiar conditions for the debate to go forward, but it is also right to acknowledge, as we have, that the statements that have emerged from the Palestine National Council meeting in Algiers are important moves in a positive direction and should be acknowledged as such. It is for that reason that we left the United Nations in no doubt, and now leave the House in

    691
    no doubt, that we think that Mr. Arafat should have been heard. It would have been an opportunity for him to make clear to the United Nations the PLO's explicit acceptance of my hon. and learned Friend's points. We want progress to be made in that direction and we should like action to be taken by both sides. We think that yesterday the United Nations reached the right judgment on the substance but that the language used was not best calculated to produce the change of heart in the United States that we want. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) interrupts. We proposed a series of alternative wordings that we think would have been more likely to allow the United States to reach the right conclusion. However, the House should be in no doubt that the case to be made by Mr. Arafat on behalf of the PLO ought to have been heard, because the concessions and the movements that have been made in Algiers are important.
    Mr. Kaufman: What a wriggling, snivelling response we have had from the Foreign Secretary. How can he offer any justification for the pusillanimous abstention by Britain yesterday in the Legal Committee when 129 nations voted in favour of a modest, sensible resolution which simply asked the United States to reconsider what it had done? Would it not have been a good idea to give Mr. Arafat the opportunity to state before the General Assembly what was implicit and clear in the Algiers declaration—that the PLO recognises resolutions 242 and 338—and also what Mr. Faisal Awaida of the PLO said explicitly in London yesterday—that the PLO is ready to recognise the state of Israel? Is it not an abuse by the United States of its position as host to the United Nations that it should decide on domestic grounds who should be allowed to address the General Assembly of the United Nations? If indeed a past association with terrorism is a disqualification from being allowed into the United States, how did Mr. Shamir—an acknowledged former terrorist—ever get in?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must come back to the point that I have made repeatedly this afternoon. What the representative of Her Majesty's Government said in the United Nations yesterday is precisely as follows:
    "I wish to make clear that in the view of the British Government Mr. Yasser Arafat, chairman of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, should have been allowed to come to the United Nations headquarters in New York. This is the legal obligation of the United States. My delegation endorses the opinion given on this matter by the United Nations legal council"—[Hon. Members: But—]"but just as we believe that the United States should show respect for the United Nations, so we believe that the United Nations should show respect for the United States. This mutual respect should have been reflected in the language of the resolution."
    If the House wants to get effective action by the United States, which is not just an important ally but a most important actor in the Arab-Israel dispute, it makes sense for us to set about the matter in a fashion likely to produce that result.

    Caribbean
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited states in the Caribbean region.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): My right hon. and learned Friend was last in the Caribbean in January 1987, when he visited Barbados for discussions with the then Prime Minister and members of his Government. I will be attending the Miami conference later this week and also visiting Jamaica, Anguilla and Montserrat.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: What progress, if any, has been made in co-ordinating efforts to combat the appalling problem of drug trafficking in the region? Will my hon. Friend make representations on that subject during his forthcoming visit?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. There is a significant problem both of domestic drug growing and of trafficking, the latter being from South America through to the United States and Europe. With the United States, we initiated a joint survey of the problem. We have made a number of recommendations to Caribbean Governments. They have been followed through with a meeting in Barbados. I shall have discussions with Prime Ministers and others in the next few days about increasing co-operation even further.
    There has been one setback, in that it appears that hurricane Gilbert managed to destroy almost all agricultural crops in Jamaica except the ganja crop.
    Mrs. Mahon: During his visit, will the Minister consider visiting the Atlantic city of Bluefields, which has been completely destroyed by hurricane Joe? The world service recently reported that there was a major ecological disaster there. Will the Minister consider giving Bluefields aid, through the agency of the garrison at Belize, on the same scale as that provided for Jamaica?
    Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Lady is aware, the Government have made well over £250,000 available to Nicaragua to assist with emergency relief. A great deal of that money has gone to the Bluefields area.

    Chile
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to assist a smooth transition to democracy in Chile.
    Mr. Eggar: Both we and our partners in the Twelve fully support the transition to democracy in Chile. We will continue to encourage an orderly and peaceful restoration of democracy in that country.
    Mr. Macdonald: I welcome the Minister's expression of support—however subdued—for the plebiscite in Chile. He must be aware that Amnesty International has reported several trangressions of human rights in Chile since the plebiscite. That makes it clear that all Governments must give their full support to the progress of democracy in Chile. What practical steps is the Minister taking, independently of the EEC, to achieve such progress?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we welcomed the result of the plebiscite in unequivocal terms, and we welcome the measures that have been taken to return to democracy in Chile. We welcome in particular the responsible attitude taken by the democratic

    693
    Opposition during the run-up to the plebiscite and subsequent to it. The hon. Gentleman referred to human rights in Chile. We have urged privately and publicly for the Chilean Government to respect human rights. I did so most recently when I met the Chilean Foreign Minister in Quito in August. Our ambassador in Chile does so as well and I welcome in particular the Chilean Government's decision to ratify important international agreements, which they did on 15 September.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister accept that the excellent plebiscite result was just a first step towards democracy? Will he confirm that when he met Ricardo Lagos, the leader of the Partido por la Democracia yesterday, he was urged that the British Government should join other European Governments, particularly at the Rhodes summit, to support further the process of the restoration of democracy and to prepare actively for co-operation with the new democratic Government in Chile? Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and say what practical steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take over the next 12 months to support the new democracy in Chile, because it is vitally important that Britain is seen as the friend of the new democracy in Chile and not as an ally of the old, discredited dictatorship?
    Mr. Eggar: It must be up to the Chileans to decide how they wish to return to democracy. That was the message that Mr. Lagos gave to me yesterday and which other democratic opposition leaders have given. We shall continue, as we have in the past, to do everything that we can to assist the return to democracy in Chile, but the primary responsibility must continue to lie with the Chilean people.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not noteworthy that the plebiscite was conducted fairly and that the Chilean Government intend to implement in full the provisions of the 1980 constitution, leading to elections for the national assembly and the presidency in December this year and for the transfer of power in March next year? Is the situation in Chile not markedly different from that in Peru, where there is widespread guerrilla warfare and chaos, in Brazil and Argentina, where there is hyper-inflation, and in Columbia, where the drug barons rule?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. Every undertaking in the 1980 constitution has been carried out to the letter by the Chilean Government and it is right that the House should recognise that.

    Palestine National Council
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Palestine National Council's recent declaration in Algiers.
    Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been his response to the recent Palestine National Council declaration.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We do not believe that the declaration of a Palestinian state helps to carry matters forward. But the other decisions taken by the Palestine
    694
    National Council represent a positive and potentially important step towards a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is gratitude and good will from the middle east for Her Majesty's Government's balanced and positive attitude on the question—unlike that of some others that I could mention—and will he pledge that the Government will continue to pursue this matter on its merits, irrespective of external threats and blackmail, and of internal political lobbying?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend accurately sums up the position of Her Majesty's Government. We certainly seek to maintain a balanced, energetic and effective approach. We shall continue to press the case for progress on the peace process at every possible opportunity.
    Mr. Marlow: While supporting totally my right hon. and learned Friend in his answer to Qn 2, at this important time when results are important and rhetoric is not, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend will help to bring about those results by seeking to encourage still further the courageous initiative by the moderate Palestinians in the face of extreme Israeli provocation by seeking out an early meeting with Palestinian representatives at the highest level?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure the House will wish to record the important conclusion of my hon. Friend on results and rhetoric—that is certainly our preference. He knows that we engage in regular dialogue at official levels with the PLO. It is important for the PLO to continue to clarify its position if further and wider contact is to be possible. That is one reason why we would have welcomed an opportunity for Mr. Arafat to be able to address the United Nations General Assembly.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the purpose of our policy in the middle east must be to encourage the promotion of peace, and that, if there is to be peace, the involvement of both sides is required? Does he further agree that if Her Majesty's Government are regarded as being entirely on one side their prospects of being of assistance in the peace process are gravely reduced? Whatever Government may result from Israel's recent turbulent election, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that neither major party there is prepared to deal with the PLO unless and until it renounces terrorism now?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, progress in the central Arab-Israeli problem depends on the response from both sides. That is why unhelpful unilateral actions by either side do not carry the matter forward. That relates to a number of actions that have been taken unilaterally by the Israeli Government. If action is to be taken by both sides, I urge the Israeli Government to echo the view of the entire House and respond positively to the steps taken by the Palestine National Council. We now look to Israel to make a parallel commitment to the peace process to match the forward movement made by the PNC in Algiers.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Surely the Foreign Secretary cannot ignore the fact that the conditions for Britain moving forward in our relationship with the PLO were laid down by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she said

    695
    that the PLO would have to renounce terrorism and accept resolutions 242 and 338. The Palestinians have now done that and, we understand, have done so democratically, with the minority who lost the vote accepting it publicly and completely—with no abstentions. In an earlier reply the Foreign Secretary said that the Arab world well understands our position, but our position will not be well understood if we now start to move the goal posts. The Foreign Secretary must do something now to respond to the initiative taken by the Palestinians in Algiers.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position is entirely clear. For a long time we and many other people have been pressing the PLO to forward movement on the points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We have secured an explicit rejection of terrorism—that is important. We have secured acceptance of resolutions 242 and 338 as the basis for an international conference—that is important. However, there is not yet an explicit recognition of Israel, nor is there yet a renunciation of violence in Israel and the occupied territories. We want to see those ambiguities cleared up if further progress is to be made. In response to the progress that has already been made, and which I have described as positive, we are entitled to look—and we do look—to the Government of Israel for a matching and positive response.
    Mr. Cormack: If the representative of the PLO has continued difficulties in presenting his case to the United Nations, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is a most admirable building across the river that would provide excellent headquarters for the General Assembly, if only for a temporary session?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The suggestion has not so far been made by anybody else, but it is certainly right that Mr. Arafat should have the opportunity to be heard. The suggestion has been canvassed of a General Assembly meeting perhaps in Geneva, and depending on the resolution there for discussion we shall determine our position. As I say, Mr. Arafat should be given the opportunity to be heard on behalf of the PLO, if only to resolve the remaining ambiguities in PLO policy.
    Mr. Sillars: Am I right in saying that the Secretary of State said earlier that the dialogue will continue with the PLO at official level? Given the implications of the acceptance in the Algerian declaration, why does the Secretary of State not personally meet Yasser Arafat now?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The qualifications that are relevant in that have been clear for a long time. They include recognition of Israel's right to a secure existence and a renunciation of violence in Israel, in the occupied territories. As I have said, significant progress was made in the discussions in Algiers, but ambiguities remain, so the same considerations have to be taken into account.
    Mr. Speaker: No. 6.
    Mr. Faulds: Really. This is disgraceful. Two major questions.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is disgraceful behaviour.

    Angola
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agreement reached in Geneva on a timetable for Cuban troops' withdrawal from Angola.
    Mrs. Chalker: We have lent our full support to the United States-led negotiations. We warmly welcome the recent agreement on a timetable for Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola. We urge the parties to move forward to implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this agreement and the reprieve of the Sharpeville Six show that talking forcefully to the South African Government is rather more effective than sanctions or boycotts? Could she tell the House the Government's view about the possibility of a pre-independence conference about Namibia?
    Mrs. Chalker: We have always advocated that dialogue and negotiations will produce the best outcomes. The tenacious advocacy of Dr. Chester Crocker and his leadership of the quadripartite talks have brought us to this successful position in respect of the Angola agreement between South Africa, Angola and Cuba. We warmly welcome the news that the Sharpeville Six have been reprieved. Hon. Members will know that we have made repeated representations on behalf of the Six, including the Prime Minister's own appeal. On the question of the future of Namibia, it is right that we should proceed on the United Nations plan, which has been agreed by all, and which will be impartially monitored by the United Nations. There is nothing to be gained and much might be lost if we were now to reopen the principles of the Security Council resolution 435. We welcome the recent direct contacts between SWAPO and leading Namibians.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hughes, on a point of order.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I could hardly hear the Minister's answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to ask a question?
    Mr. Hughes: Yes.
    While I think we all welcome some progress in the discussions in southern Africa about Namibia, and while we welcome in addition to the Sharpeville Six reprieve the release of Harry Gwala and Zephia Mothopeng, may I ask the Minister of State whether she realises that South Africa is already prevaricating on the agreement that it purports to have reached? It is demanding that it should be part of the monitoring operation on Cuban withdrawal. It is suggesting a much later timetable and introducing fresh discussions by saying that UNITA must by involved in some discussions with the Angolan Government before Namibia is free. That has nothing to do with resolution 435 on Namibia. Will the Minister ensure that the utmost pressure, including sanctions, is maintained until South Africa can show that it can keep its word?
    Mrs. Chalker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's head is all right following the earlier incident.
    On the more serious matter, we believe that the agreement will pave the way for an early implementation

    697
    of the UN plan for Namibian independence. We also believe that the South Africans will act in good faith, but we shall judge them by their deeds. They have compelling reasons—economic, military and political—to sign the settlement that they have reached, and I believe that the terms will be acceptable. As to the creation of internal peace in Angola, there cannot be a lasting peace unless people come together. I do not believe that it is for Britain or other outside countries to prescribe how that internal peace should be brought about. I know that many African Heads of Government are seeking to help, and we sincerely hope that they will be successful in bringing about peace in Angola between all the parties.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is it not surprising that, in these welcome results from the Geneva talks, no mention was made of Jonas Savimbi and UNITA, which is an important force in Angola? Will my right hon. Friend accept that, unless there is reconciliation between UNITA and the MPLA, there will be no lasting peace and stability in Southern Africa? If reconciliation can be achieved in that country, elections in Namibia can be free and fair, and following elections there, further progress and accommodation can be achieved in the Republic of South Africa.
    Mrs. Chalker: Of course I believe that all parties must come together, and as one African leader said to me earlier this month, it would be difficult to negotiate with a body without a head. Therefore, it seems sensible that the process of creating international peace will require all parties to come together.
    Mr. Anderson: Naturally, like the Minister, we warmly welcome the signs of movement in southern Africa, but should not the South African moves be seen in the context of the South Africans' economic difficulties? Is not their current diplomatic offensive essentially to buy time and divert opinion from their internal problems? Therefore, will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the Foreign Office will try to restrain the Prime Minister from visiting South Africa and giving a royal blessing on that country until there are real signs of movement on apartheid?
    Mrs. Chalker: We are absolutely at one in wishing to see the agreements over Angola and Namibia concluded successfully and peacefully, and the progression towards achieving internal peace in Angola. As I said to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), there are compelling reasons, which should not be underestimated because they happen to be economic and political. We must judge the South African Government by their deeds. As to the speculation about the travels of my right hon. Friend, they remain that—just speculation.

    Council of Ministers
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next attend a meeting of the European Community Council of Ministers; and what subjects he expects to discuss.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The next Foreign Affairs Council will be held on 19 and 20 December. Subjects currently on the agenda are GATT, New Zealand butter and sheepmeat, hormones, Community and EFTA relations and steel tariffs.
    Mrs. Ewing: Given that today is St. Andrew's day, if not every Andrew's day, can the Foreign Secretary tell us on how many occasions he has been accompanied to the Council of Ministers by the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not had the pleasure of that experience. At meetings of the Council, representatives of the United Kingdom speak for the United Kingdom as a whole and the policies of Her Majesty's Government make sure that the interests of every part of the kingdom are taken into account.
    Mr. Soames: In the course of those busy meetings, will my right hon. and learned Friend see whether he can raise with our partners in the EEC the pressing difficulties relating to European air traffic control? Is he aware of the tremendous inconvenience to which enormous numbers of people were put last summer? Will he do his best to try to put the matter at the top of the agenda?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend and I share the privilege of being neighbours of Gatwick airport, I share his concern about the point that he has raised. There was an effective meeting of Euro control last week at which those issues were advanced. We shall continue to press the case that he has put forward.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: When the Foreign Secretary speaks to his fellow Ministers, will he underline the perhaps naive view of people in Northern Ireland that Governments are there to protect law-abiding people and to punish evildoers? Will he therefore support his right hon. Friend's comment that high-sounding declarations are not sufficient when dealing with terrorists, unless they are backed by deeds?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly emphasise the point made by the hon. Gentleman. It is of the utmost importance that, when correct legal procedures are followed, extradition requests are prepared in consultation with another Government and no grounds are given for believing that they are incomplete or insufficient, the necessary will should be forthcoming to ensure that people who should be brought to trial do face trial.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity on St. Andrew's day, which also happens to be the 114th anniversary of the birth of Winston Churchill, to remind the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that, if her dream of secession of North Britain from Great Britain is achieved, she will also have achieved the secession of North Britain from Europe and that it will require to get over the veto of Great Britain to get back in there?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No one could put the point as effectively as my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is concern among many hon. Members about the failure to extradite Mr. Ryan? When he raises the matter with the Belgian and Irish Governments, will he also bear in mind that this does at least present us now with the opportunity to press for European Community-wide legislation to combat terrorism? Does he agree that, in accord with the concept of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, it would be far

    699
    better to underpin our joint determination to fight terrorism if that legislation were jointly enacted by the House and the Dail?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand the force of the general case made by the hon. Gentleman, but no part of the law has so far been more carefully preserved for national enactment and consideration than the criminal codes. There are wide variations between the countries of the Community in respect of criminal law, so it is all the more important for us to secure effective, sustained and workable co-operation in arrangements for extradition and matters of that kind. It is important that both partners to the Anglo-Irish Agreement should recognise that we have a joint, sustained and important interest in achieving effective action in the courts against terrorism.
    Sir John Stokes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Council of Ministers if it could forcefully instruct the Commission against interfering in petty and stupid details? Is he aware, for instance, that English sterling silver, which is unequalled throughout the world, has recently had its hallmark stopped by some faceless EEC bureaucrat and an EEC number substituted?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is our constant purpose to diminish the number of regulations applying throughout Europe. It is for that reason that we recognise the case, in certain examples, for having a single common European standard rather than 12 diverse different ones. I shall consider the point raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Mullin: Is not the main obstacle in persuading other European Governments to help us with effective extradition the widespread belief' that an Irish person charged with a terrorist offence cannot hope to receive a fair trial in this country? Is that not boosted by the conviction of the six innocent people for the Birmingham pub bombing and the 11 innocent people held in connection with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings? If we wish to occupy the moral high ground and to work out effective extradition procedures, would it not be best to face the fact that, in those cases, we have made a terrible mistake?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It cannot be stated too clearly and too often that all sides and all nations that are concerned with the intensely difficult struggle against well-organised terrorism have an equally important interest in the effectiveness of action to bring terrorists to trial, and in the justice of the trial proceedings when they take place. There is no doubt about that. One of the purposes of the exchanges that we have throughout Europe and through the Anglo-Irish Agreement is to promote progress on both those fronts. The patterns for scrutiny of decisions of the courts in this country, subject as they are, in due course, to the European Commission on Human Rights, will stand comparison with those anywhere in the world. If we are seeking to enhance confidence in the British system of justice, the hon. Gentleman should think twice before advancing some of the allegations that he has put forward this afternoon.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in matters concerning the European Community, as in other matters of foreign policy, he enjoys a degree of admiration and support that extends well beyond Conservative Benches? Does he agree that
    700
    there is no need to set up another body to give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the sort of foreign policy advice that Sir Horace Wilson gave to Neville Chamberlain?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I do not think that any such body is in contemplation.
    Ms. Short: The Foreign Secretary will know that there has been speculation that the EEC might take an initiative to back a two-stage solution in the middle east. What is the Government's view about that? There is a real chance now of peace between the Palestinians and Israel, but his remarks earlier this afternoon were incredibly biased. The degree of terror that Israel is using in the Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza should be denounced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, just as he has denounced the acts in which Palestinian individuals have engaged. There is a chance for peace. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a lead? Will Europe take a lead?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady should recall that last week in Brussels, at the end of a long discussion on the subject by the Foreign Ministers of the Community, not only yesterday in New York, we all recorded our unanimous view that what has happened in Algiers represents a positive step forward, to which there should be an Israeli response. We recorded our continuing concern, which we have expressed many times, at the implications of the violence that is committed by the Israeli Government and Israeli forces in the occupied territories. We deplore violence of whatever sort that is committed by either side. We look for a positive response from both sides to get a conference working through which it will be possible to arrive at a solution.

    United States of America
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the United States of America; and what matters were discussed.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I last visited the United States to attend the United Nations General Assembly in September. A range of issues were discussed with those I saw there.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is enormously important, at the start of a new presidency, that relations between western Europe and the United States should be as warm as possible? If it is true that there is a 1:3 imbalance between the conventional forces of the Warsaw pact and those of NATO, should not the contributions of the Americans to NATO be recognised? Should not that prove something of a spur to western European countries to make greater contributions themselves?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that, in the context of our continued maintenance of the Atlantic Alliance for our effective defence, burden-sharing is the most important item on the agenda. I have no doubt that the new President of the United States will address himself to the American aspect of that. It is important that the European partners should be ready to play their full part to sustain the strength of the Alliance.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Foreign Secretary share my relief at the fact that the deeply embarrassing client relationship between the Prime Minister and President Reagan is coming to an end? Does he share my hope that under the new President—I hope that he will use his influence to ensure this—we shall start again to pursue an independent foreign policy of our own and cease to be a satellite state of the United States?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman lives in a land of illusion. One of the most important features of British foreign policy in the past decade has been the growing influence of Her Majesty's Government under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the United States as well as in the European Community. I hope very much that that effective relationship will continue with the new President.

    Persian Gulf
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the prospects for peace in the Persian Gulf area.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We welcome the continuation of the ceasefire and of talks between Iran and Iraq under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, who enjoys our full support. Our objective remains a just and comprehensive settlement through full implementation of Security Council resolution 598.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that in spite of the major difficulties that we have had with both the countries involved it is important that Britain should try to maintain a balanced relationship with Iraq and Iran?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. Neither country conducts its affairs in ways that would meet with the approval of this House, but both are important regional powers and we cannot ignore their existence or their importance in their regions.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister investigate the claim that Iran has started a new wave of killings of political prisoners in Kerman prison and others? It is reported that 50 leading members of the Tudeh party and a total of 5,000 political prisoners have been killed recently. Will he investigate that matter urgently?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have seen the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There are serious human rights problems in Iran still. We have our own problems as Mr. Cooper and Mr. Nichola are prisoners there who should be released or brought to trial. They should be released.

    South Africa
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit South Africa.
    Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to do so.
    Mr. Bellingham: When the Minister visits South Africa, she will have a chance to enter our embassy in either Cape Town or Pretoria. When she visits it, she will be able to come and go in peace, in stark contrast to South Africa
    702
    House, where diplomats and visitors are verbally abused, jostled and harassed by hooligans with loudhailers. Surely it is time to remove the picket. Will she have urgent discussions with the Home Secretary about that?
    Mrs. Chalker: I regret all demonstrations that disrupt law and order on our streets. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue of demonstrators outside embassies is a matter for the Metropolitan police and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I will bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Flannery: When the Minister goes to South Africa again, will she raise the issue of the number of black people who are jostled and harassed in South Africa by the Botha Government and by the incoming Tory Government in South Africa? Will she mention the number of people still being hanged every morning in South Africa? Will she raise all the issues which a whole number of people on the Government Benches who travel to South Africa, paid for by the South African Government, never raise at all and clearly agree with?
    Mrs. Chalker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to realise that I will take every opportunity provided to me to raise those cases which we believe, and have consistently believed, should be raised with the South African Government. In fact, I did that during a private weekend visit when I spent most of that weekend in the three townships of Soweto, Mamelodi and Alexandra, when I saw the conditions for myself. I also saw the help that the British Government are giving to black people in South Africa in health, education, housing and training. Where cases involve internal matters in South Africa, we can raise those with Ministers, but we cannot direct them in what to do. The people have elected that Government, even though it is a minority white Government.

    Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress of, and the present position on, the Vienna review conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Provisional agreement has been reached on a large number of issues at the Vienna CSCE meeting, including useful new commitments in human rights. We hope that it can be concluded soon, but we continue to believe that the right result is more important than an early result.
    Mr. Chapman: In welcoming the further progress that has been made, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that there are still some basic human rights issues outstanding and that until the Warsaw pact countries unambiguously accept some of those basic human rights, not least the freedoms of religion, travel and visiting, no meaningful purpose can be served by starting the conventional stability talks? Does he agree that there is an opportunity to make that point precisely within the next fortnight during the very welcome visit by President Gorbachev to this country?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is quite right. My right hon. Friend will be making those points when President Gorbachev visits Britain. There has been

    703
    progress in the Soviet Union, but there is still much more to be made. As my hon. Friend knows, in other Warsaw pact countries, such as Romania, no progress is being made—as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have written to me to emphasise—and there have been important steps backwards in human rights.
    Mr. Lamond: Are the Government maintaining their determination not to agree to a third meeting of the committee on human relations, which is proposed to be held in Moscow? Are we maintaining resistance to that on the grounds that, although in eastern Europe they are extending human rights quite a lot, and certainly will have done so by 1991, we in Britain are moving in the opposite direction?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is free to experiment in Romania if he considers that is preferable. We have the greatest scepticism about the Moscow human rights conference. Many groups of people concerned with human rights on both sides of the Iron Curtain have written to us to urge caution. On the other hand, as Mr. Sakharov said, if it is accompanied by the right conditions it might well be an opportunity for further progress. We shall look at the conditions on offer, and we shall make up our minds then. Until the last minute before that conference takes place, if things go backwards we shall reserve the right to withdraw from it.

Scottish Transport Group
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Scottish Transport Group.
In my statements to the House on 27 January and 24 May, I said that I had decided to privatise the Scottish Bus Group and to do so in about 10 units. I also said that I would give further careful consideration to the implications for the future of Caledonian MacBrayne. As the House will know, it was announced in the Queen's Speech that legislation to privatise the Scottish Bus Group and make arrangements for the future of Caledonian MacBrayne would be introduced this Session. The Transport (Scotland) Bill is being laid before the House today.
I will deal first with Caledonian MacBrayne, which provides a wide range of shipping services on the west coast of Scotland. Many of these services provide a lifeline to the islands they serve. It is essential that these services should be maintained together with the greatly improved standards which we have built up since we came to office, with new ships and new piers. With this background very much in mind, we have looked carefully at a range of options in considering the future of Caledonian MacBrayne. Certain quite distinctive types of service are provided and different solutions might well be appropriate in the interests of both customers and taxpayers.
First, there are the services provided within the relatively sheltered waters of the Clyde; secondly, the services provided by major ships on the more difficult waters of the west coast; and thirdly, the short crossings to individual islands provided by smaller vessels. In the upper Clyde there is a clear anomaly in the case of the Gourock-Dunoon route, where Caledonian MacBrayne is running a subsidised service on a similar route to a commercial operation provided by Western Ferries. This route should be able to operate satisfactorily on the basis of private funding, as could CalMac's Wemyss Bay-Rothesay route which is provided by the same group of vessels. However, we fully recognise that for the remaining services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne, significant subsidies will for the most part continue to be needed in order to maintain the present level of service. Our examination of the present structure and methods of operation of CalMac, however, has led me to conclude that there is considerable scope for getting better value for the money which we—and the passengers—spend on these services.
In the light of the early dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group, of our examination of the options, and taking account of the many views expressed to us, I have decided that the best arrangement for Caledonian MacBrayne is that it should become a company owned in the first instance by the Secretary of State. A new board for the company will be appointed and will contain some people with commercial expertise, including some with first-hand knowledge of the islands served and their needs. I believe it is right for the headquarters of the new company to be nearer the centre of the area which it serves, and consider that Oban would be likely to prove the most suitable place from which to operate.
706
I will ask the new board to explore the possibility of transferring to the private sector the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss Bay-Rothesay routes. For the remaining services, I will ask it to examine existing practices carefully in order to find more efficient and cost-effective ways of delivering the present standard of service. No options for the longer term will be excluded, subject to the overriding proviso that they must ensure at least the present quality of service to the islands.
As far as the Scottish Bus Group is concerned, I have, with my financial advisers, Quayle Munro, given further consideration to the pattern of privatisation. I have decided that the Scottish Bus Group should be offered for sale as 11 units. Nine of those units are existing subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group. They are the seven existing geographical operating subsidiaries—Lowland, Eastern, Strathtay, Highland, Fife, Northern and Midland, the coaching firm Scottish Citylink, and the engineering subsidiary, SBG Engineering.
The other two units for privatisation will be created by the combination of two pairs of existing geographical subsidiaries, Western and Clydeside, which will be privatised as one unit, as will Central and Kelvin. That pattern of privatisation is designed to create viable companies and the basis for sustained and balanced competition within the Scottish bus market to the benefit of bus travellers. The combination of subsidiaries round Glasgow takes account of the competitive situation in that city.
I am keen that this privatisation should increase employee participation. I know that there is already considerable interest among employees in taking part in the privatisation. I welcome that. It will be encouraged by the provision of financial assistance to management-employee teams wanting to bid for their companies and offering the prospect of locally based management with real employee participation.
The arrangements that I am announcing today for both CalMac and the Scottish Bus Group will provide the basis for maintaining and improving services to the Scottish public, for creating vigorous new Scottish companies, with which local communities will identify, and for getting better value for money where public subsidy will still be required.
Mr. Donald Dewar: The statement on Caledonian MacBrayne represents a major retreat by the Secretary of State and a tacit recognition by even this prejudiced Government that privatisation is not a universal remedy, and certainly not the best way to provide essential public services. The decision is a tribute to the coherent case argued by the communities that depend on those services and by my hon. Friends who have taken a particular interest in the matter.
I welcome the retreat but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, many questions remain unanswered. We have been told that the bulk of Caledonian MacBrayne's operations will be transferred, in the first instance, to a company owned by the Secretary of State. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman end the uncertainty and recognise the logic of his decision by ruling out the possibility of further asset stripping? Will he give an assurance that the board of the new company will be genuinely representative of the areas it serves and will not be burdened with a remit to sell out as and when possible?

707
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement struggled painfully to reconcile reality with his ideology. He knows that he cannot deliver what he wanted, so we are left with interference to very little purpose. Is he satisfied that the arrangements for Caledonian MacBrayne will allow the present level of European assistance to continue?
The Secretary of State referred to the new board exploring the possibility of the transfer of the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss Bay-Rothesay service. Does that mean that the company, having examined the options, can refuse? Will the board have the independence of action that will allow such a refusal?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is no need to fragment Caledonian MacBrayne services in that way? Does he recall the last time that the Government tried to hand the Gourock-Dunoon route to the private sector in the form of Western Ferries? He should, because he was the Minister in charge of that disaster. In the light of that experience, will he guarantee that public opinion will be consulted on this occasion?
Many interests will regret that the Scottish Bus Group is to be split in the way described. However, I welcome the emphasis on employee participation. I hope that the financial support to which the Minister referred will be realistic. Does he recall that, of the 72 component companies of the National Bus Group in England, only two went to employee participation buy-outs? That underlines the need for financial help to be more than cosmetic—more than mere window dressing—if it is to be a success.
What protection will there be against predators from south of the border or, indeed, of the home-grown variety, of which Stagecoach is the most feared? Our interests will be to ensure that the conditions of service and the pensions of employees are secured and that the level of service for the travelling public is protected, especially in rural areas and during off-peak hours. The whole exercise is a political manoeuvre which has no public support. The Secretary of State should recognise that the realities that forced the Caledonian MacBrayne retreat apply, too, to the Scottish Bus Group as a whole. A further retreat would be very much in the public interest.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman never ceases to entertain the House. In response to my comments on Caledonian MacBrayne, he began by describing the statement as a triumph for the Opposition—and then proceeded to criticise every detail in it. He must make up his mind how he interprets the statement.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the simple fact is that, when I spoke about Caledonian MacBrayne some months ago, I made it clear that the Government had no preconception as to whether the privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne would be a realistic option. I challenge the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends to quote any statement, phrase or suggestion to the contrary. What I said was that the Government's overriding priority since 1979 has been to maintain—indeed improve—the quality of service to the islands. We have allowed the resources needed to improve that service to be provided. Where there are services, such as Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss Bay-Rothesay, where a subsidy is not needed, then it is inappropriate for subsidy to continue.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the Caledonian MacBrayne company, having investigated the matter,
708
would be free to conclude that it did not wish to privatise those routes. It would be a curious line of argument that said that it would be appropriate to continue with one route being subsidised by the taxpayer in order to compete with another company which requires no subsidy and can make a profit on that basis. That is the basis upon which these proposals are put forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether European assistance will continue to be available to Caledonian MacBrayne. I understand that there is no reason why it should not be.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Scottish Bus Group, I welcome his rather late-in-the-day endorsement of employee buy-outs of public sector companies. It is not an issue with which he has been identified in the past. I was especially interested when he concluded his sterling comments by saying that the whole issue of the privatisation of bus services was "a political manoeuvre with no public support". If the hon. Gentleman believes that, will he explain why Grampian regional council—with the support of the Labour group on that council—is at present proposing to the Scottish Office that it should be allowed to privatise its bus service? I am informed that that has the support of all political parties on Grampian regional council.
Why is it that the Labour party in the Grampian region believes that the privatisation of its bus service is in the public interest, but the Labour party in the House believes that the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group is somehow a completely different matter? I advise the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to visit their Labour colleagues on Grampian regional council. They may not come away any wiser, but they will come away better informed.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I join my right hon. and learned Friend in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on at least a small step towards Damascus. I welcome, too, what he has said about the assistance to be offered to employee management buy-outs. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the details of the assistance that may be available?
I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend a more detailed question about the proposals for Western and Clydeside. My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I have made previous representations on behalf of a number of people in the industry, who considered that it would be better for those two companies to be privatised separately. Will he assure the House that those representations were taken seriously? Does he agree that it is important that the privatised companies should be able to compete fairly and effectively with Strathclyde Buses? Does he agree that the most effective way of ensuring that would be to privatise Strathclyde Buses?
Mr. Rifkind: I hope that Strathclyde regional council will follow the good precedent set by Grampian regional council, and do what is in the public interest.
We gave serious consideration to the flotation of Clydeside as an individual company, but the advice that we received suggested that the best prospect for the economic viability of Clydeside would be to combine it with Western. That is something that appeared to be in the interests both of those who work in Clydeside and those who use the bus services in that locality.

709
I am glad of my hon. Friend's welcome for employee participation. We shall be happy not only to give advice and assistance to those employees or those in management wishing to acquire their company, but, in line with similar previous privatisations, we hope that there will be some preference for a management or employee buy-out when this matter is finally dealt with after the passage of the necessary legislation.
Mrs. Ray Michie: It is appropriate that, on St. Andrew's day, I am able to welcome most of the Secretary of State's statement on Caledonian MacBrayne.
The fact that the Government have listened to representations made, have seen the light and have decided to back off on the privatisations is welcome. Will the Secretary of State also accept my thanks for arranging, at short notice, for his colleague the Minister of State to meet a delegation of islanders to hear their views. I am delighted that he was prepared to listen.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also accept that I fully endorse his idea that the management and headquarters should be moved to Oban?
Mr. George Foulkes: Why did the hon. Lady not think of that?
Mrs. Michie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I suggested it several times. I am delighted that the Secretary of State agrees that the headquarters should be moved to the centre of its operations.
Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, if anything is done in the future about Caledonian MacBrayne, any proposals will be referred first to the House? We must have primary legislation. [Interruption.] I just want to ensure that the Secretary of State will guarantee the future of Caledonian MacBrayne.
As for the Dunoon and Rothesay routes, will the Secretary of State promise that the board will listen carefully to the representations of the local people, remembering the anger and frustration expressed the last time the Government tried to interfere?
Briefly, if the Scottish Bus Group is to be privatised, we are glad that the Government are considering a staff-management buy-out. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to guarantee the service—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.
Mrs. Michie: —the service in the rural areas.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's welcome for the statement. It is important that, just as we often want the centre of corporate activities moved to the north of England, Scotland or Wales, so too, within Scotland, it is desirable, where appropriate, for companies' headquarters to be moved to the communities they serve. Hence the decision to move the headquarters to Oban.
We shall encourage a management and employee buy-out of the Scottish Bus Group, but we cannot guarantee that that will be the end result, because that will depend on the proposals eventually put before us for the flotation of the individual companies.
There is an anomaly that needs to be resolved regarding Gourock-Dunoon. It should be unnecessary to use taxpayers' money to subsidise a service to compete with
710
another service that does not require a subsidy. Therefore, it would be proper and sensible to explore a way in which we can continue to ensure a proper service for those who use the route without the unnecessary subsidies of recent years.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: To cure the dementia of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), after he has spoken to the Socialist members of the Grampian region council perhaps he should, on his way south, call on those who run Strathtay Buses. Some 60 per cent. of that work force, to demonstrate that there is no public demand or interest, are presently putting £7,500 a week into a bank account to fund a management and employee buy-out. Will he ensure that their enthusiasm not only for running a successful bus group but for ridding themselves of the shackles of Socialism and union domination for ever is rewarded?
Mr. Rifkind: Not only do the employees of the Strathtay company think that way, but bus drivers in Bannockburn—that well-known centre of Scottish Conservatism—have appealed to the Government to allow employee participation in the acquisition of companies. In a survey of Scottish Bus Group employees in April, no fewer than 72 per cent. stated that, given the opportunity to invest in the company for which they work, they would like to do so. That is a splendid situation and one that flies in the face of Opposition attempts to deny them that opportunity.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The so-called desirable shifting of Caledonian MacBrayne's headquarters may not be considered so desirable by those of my constituents working in Gourock. The Secretary of State may laugh at this moment, but it is a deeply worrying concept for many of those constituents and I should like him to show some seriousness. What is to happen to those people? Will some of them be made redundant? If the headquarters moves to Oban, will employees receive financial assistance towards the cost of transferring to Oban or some such place?
Given that the company will be owned by the Secretary of State, can we safely assume that any replacement orders for vessels will be placed with Scottish yards?
Mr. Rifkind: I have said that Oban seems to be the likely and sensible place for Caledonian MacBrayne's headquarters, and that seemed to have the general approval of the House as a whole. I have no doubt that the company will be responsive in a sensible and sensitive way to the questions that the hon. Gentleman has legitimately raised about the interests of those currently working for the company. I certainly hope that arrangements will be made to meet his points.
As to his final question, whether the company is formally owned by the Secretary of State or is part of the Scottish Transport Group, as it has been for the past few years, will not in itself influence the decision on where contracts for the construction of new ships will be awarded. Those matters will continue to be determined on the same basis as in the past.
Mr. Ernie Ross: As to real employee participation on the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, the Secretary of State must know that attempts by his opposite number in England were a singular failure and that employee participation did not come into existence

711
when privatisation took place there. The only way of achieving it in Scotland will be by imposing such financial conditions as will allow employee participation.
The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) mentioned that Strathtay is well advanced in the matter of employee participation proposals. He must also know that a whole host of predators made a very fast buck from English privatisation and have already clearly stated that they will come into the Scottish market. How does the Secretary of State intend ensuring that there will be genuine employee participation by Scottish employees of the Scottish Bus Group?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that experience south of the border was that, while there was great success with management buy-outs of individual companies, the number in which employees were fully involved was far fewer. We hope to see a different pattern, with a much larger proportion of employee as well as management interest in the acquisition of Scottish companies. I cannot predict the outcome today, because a guarantee cannot be given to any one potential purchaser that they will be bound to succeed irrespective of the price offered. The companies are public assets, and Opposition Members would be the first to complain if they were disposed of for less than their true value. We must be sure that the ultimate purchasers of the bus companies pay a price commensurate with the value of the assets.
That having been said, of course we wish to give preference—as I have said—to management and employee proposals. The precise way in which that will operate has still to be concluded, but it is certainly our objective, and one with which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would concur.
Mr. Bill Walker: This has been a memorable St. Andrew's day. Scottish Members have been entertained to lunch by a Scottish brewery, and my right hon. and learned Friend has made a welcome statement.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, because it is our intention to ensure maximum employee participation and hence to encourage ownership in Scotland, in the event of unsatisfactory proposals that cannot be reconciled, Scottish companies with employee share participation schemes will also be considered as possible owners of the new independent operations?
Mr. Rifkind: No one wishing to bid for these companies will be prohibited from doing so. We have said that we hope for successful bids from companies with management and employee schemes, and that we hope to be able to give them preference in considering applications. We cannot, however, give any guarantee to that effect, because we must be sure that we can account for the disposal of public assets in a way acceptable to the normal standards of the House.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: The House will recall that the right hon. and learned Gentleman refrained from answering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about preserving the public interest in rural areas. Will he tell us what proposals he will put to the House for ensuring that those in rural areas will not suffer as a consequence of
712
privatisation? Or will they be left out of the Government's considerations, as usually happens when they decide to privatise?
Mr. Rifkind: As I told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Labour party in Aberdeen does not seem to believe that privatisation will damage the interests of consumers. Many private sector bus companies operate very successfully in rural areas. The idea that a bus company will stop serving its rural populaces simply because it moves from the state to the private sector does not relate to the experience of the public as a whole.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a United Kingdom Parliament.
Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could point out to Opposition Members that I am the secretary of the Back Bench Conservative transport committee.
When considering the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the comments of Opposition Members on privatisation of the National Bus Company some years ago, and the success of deregulation of bus services in Scotland, which has provided more independent operators there since 1986? When Opposition Members talk about predators coming to take over Scottish bus companies, should they not bear in mind the fact that the most successful takeovers of bus companies in this country have been by the Stagecoach group of Perth, which has taken over many companies in the south of England?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is quite correct to say that Opposition Members apply double standards. They seem to believe that it is right in principle for Scottish companies to be able to expand south of the border, but we hear squeals of righteous indignation whenever the reverse applies.
As Opposition Members realise, we are part of a united kingdom and a single economy. Attempts to produce barriers of the kind that one or two of the more emotion al of them seem occasionally to suggest would be against the interests of the people of Scotland as a whole.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Ewing.
Mr. Harry Ewing: When the Secretary of State mentioned the possibility—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Carry on.
Mr. Ewing: Did I mistake what you said, Mr. Speaker? I thought you said, "Mr. Ewing." I should have known, with my record of being called, that that was a mistake.
When the Secretary of State refers to moving the headquarters of any organisation to the centre of activity, he ought to tell the House where it is now proposed to move the headquarters of the Scottish Conservative party. I am advised by the husband of a director of Grampian regional transport that, although the Grampian regional council is bitterly opposed to privatisation, it has entered into negotiations with its employees. Could I squeeze from the Secretary of State an absolute guarantee that he will not interfere in the negotiations? If Grampian regional council considers that it has no option, because of the Government's dogmatic approach, but to go ahead with

713
privatisation, I hope that the Secretary of State will not sell the company to a private company instead of to the employees. Finally, could the Secretary of State tell me when he last travelled on a bus?
Mr. Rifkind: I understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment about the position of his party in the Grampian area. Grampian regional council is not legally obliged to privatise—
Mr. Ewing: Not yet.
Mr. Rifkind: The fact is that Grampian regional council, with the support of all political parties, made proposals to privatise its bus company. In doing so, it has responded to the clear wishes of the management and employees of that company. If the hon. Gentleman does not like it, he should at least not misrepresent what is happening.
If a local authority wishes to privatise its public transport company, the statutory position is that it has to apply to the Scottish Office—
Mr. Ewing: No.
Mr. Rifkind: That is what Parliament requires and has insisted upon. We must ensure, as with the disposal of any public asset, that that is done in an appropriate way. If Grampian regional council wishes to privatise its bus company, I have no power to insist that it should sell it to other than those that it chooses. However, I can ensure that the terms under which it seeks to privatise the company are consistent with proper financial responsibility.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realise that it is St. Andrew's day, not necessarily St. Harry's day. I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), on the basis of my conversations with representatives of Grampian region, that a pragmatic decision has been taken and that Grampian is attempting to safeguard the livelihoods of those who are employed in the bus group.
What do the Government mean by "financial assistance"? Has the Secretary of State written a clear sum for next year into his budget? If he has, it would show how willing the Government are to support initiatives that will guarantee jobs for those employees. Is the Secretary of State able to assure me that the road equivalent tariff has not been ruled out for ever for the islands and that it will continue to be considered as a vital element in providing effective transport for the island communities?
Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the Grampian region's pragmatism is infectious and that Strathclyde, Lothian and Tayside will reach similarly pragmatic conclusions. The employees in the bus companies of those regions also seek a similar initiative from the local authorities. I assure the hon. Lady that resources will be provided for those who wish to contemplate employee or management buy-outs.
Mrs. Ewing: How much?
Mr. Rifkind: We shall discuss with those who put forward proposals what their requirements are in order to ensure that they have proper access to advice and
714
assistance. If the hon. Lady consulted Mr. Donald Stewart, who was the Member of Parliament for the Western Isles, he would no doubt tell her what he told me about the road equivalent tariff: that he fully appreciated that it might be undesirable for the islands. It might lead to a reduction in fares on some routes but it would lead to an increase in fares on others. I assume that that is not a policy that the hon. Lady is encouraging me to adopt.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Many hon. Members on this side of the House very much regret the thrust of this privatisation measure and the destruction of a co-ordinating mechanism in Scotland. It will harm the interests of the rural communities and tourism. I do not welcome the Secretary of State's decision on Caledonian MacBrayne; he is confusing ships and routes, particularly in relation to the Clyde ferry service. What guarantee can he provide about safety of operations? What guarantee is there that ships of the proper design will be ordered? The real fear is that privatisation will mean that the part which remains in the public domain will be run down, to the detriment of the people who live in the Western Isles and in the other island communities.
Mr. Rifkind: The rules governing safety apply with equal force, irrespective of whether a vessel is in the private or the public sector. Island communities in other parts of Scotland are well served by the private sector. One thinks of P and 0 in Orkney and Shetland and of many other island communities where bulk carriers to those islands are provided by the private sector. The hon. Gentleman cannot sensibly reach the conclusion that there is a need for a state-owned company.
However, I acknowledge that, such is the nature of the economy of the Hebridean islands and the size of the population, it will continue to be necessary in the foreseeable future for a significant level of taxpayers' funds to be used to ensure that the islanders have a service, which for them is a lifeline of contact with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Secretary of State used snide and mean words about considerable scope for increased value for money and for increased cost-efficiency, but did not praise the savings that have already been achieved by Caledonian MacBrayne. The Secretary of State is having to eat humble pie, but he ought to praise the work of the crews, the employees and the management of Caledonian MacBrayne for the services that they have provided. The Secretary of State's words were based on a half-baked report by the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers group. Will he undertake to publish the report so that the public and hon. Members can examine it and ask questions about it? Furthermore, how much did the PIEDA group report cost the Exchequer? If the Secretary of State had been looking for cost-efficiency, he would have abandoned this farcical exercise.
Mr. Rifkind: I am very conscious of the fact that in many respects Caledonian MacBrayne has provided a good service to the islands. However, I have received from islanders many comments which suggest that they believe that there is considerable scope for improvement. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not hesitated to make clear to Caledonian MacBrayne various ways in which its service could be improved. The hon. Gentleman parrots, "They

715
need more resources." Is he aware that Caledonian MacBrayne has been the recipient of more resources under this Conservative Government than it received under any previous Labour Administration? I am referring not to EC funding but to the support given by the Scottish Office. Caledonian MacBrayne received £3·7 million to support its services in 1979. Today, it receives £6·5 million to support its services. Because of that extra help it has been able to increase its services to island communities quite significantly. During the past five years, the number of passengers carried has increased on virtually all routes, as has the number of commercial vehicles and cars.
We are conscious, however, of several ways in which the service can be improved. For example, Caledonian MacBrayne cannot interchange its crews between routes serving the Hebridean islands and those on the Clyde as they belong to different trade unions and have different restrictive practices. If the hon. Gentleman believes that such restrictive practices are in the interests of the company, I do not believe that his constituents agree with him.
Mr. Roger King: Although I welcome the privatisation of Scottish Buses, will my right hon. and learned Friend pay particular attention to employee participation and the operational requirements of existing companies and their English counterparts? I have in mind Scottish Citylink and its closely integrated operational relationship with the Birmingham-based National Express Group.
Mr. Rifkind: There are many such links, and it is important that, to ensure the best quality of service for consumers, such an integrated approach is encouraged through co-operation between the companies involved.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the pension rights of current and past employees of the Scottish Transport Group will not be adversely affected by privatisation?
Mr. Rifkind: I anticipate that any acquisition of a company would involve the continuation of existing rights. There may be areas on which there are later negotiations if any changes are proposed, but it is the normal practice, on acquisition of a company, to inherit pension obligations towards those who work for it.
Mr. William McKelvey: The Secretary of State accuses us of employing double standards towards the flogging off of Scottish assets, but is he not in danger of being similarly accused when he gleefully sells off public housing, giving generous discounts to tenants who have occupied homes? It cannot be beyond his wit to devise a scheme under which workers, many of whom have given a lifetime's service to Scottish industry, get generous discounts and an opportunity to buy into the industries in which they work.
Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman as a convert to the principle of encouraging share ownership among employees and privatisation leading to greater ownership by those who work in companies. The hon. Gentleman has until now been an unqualified opponent of all privatisation. He seems now to be saying that he is in favour of privatisation if it can lead to management-employee buy-outs. He is working in the right direction, and we happily acknowledge that.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I hope that the Secretary of State has noted that two potential recruits for the Scottish Select Committee have sprung up to take part this afternoon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), who asked how often he has travelled on a bus. How often has he struggled on to a bus with a collapsible pushchair, a toddler and an infant? [HON. MEMBERS: "Like Forsyth?"] Indeed. How often have any of his Front Bench colleagues done that?
What will be the consequences of privatisation for the safety and comfort of women and children passengers? Even when a family does have a car, the women and children of the household often have to use public transport because the husband uses the car for work. Did the safety and convenience of women and children passengers feature in the Secretary of State's discussions with Quayle Munro? If so, to what effect?
Mr. Rifkind: I have probably travelled on a bus as often as the Leader of the Opposition in the past six months. Although the other matters which the hon. Lady raised are important, I do not believe that the design of buses and their convenience for passengers with carry cots and other similar objects is likely to be affected significantly by ownership.
Mr. John Redwood: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on managing to establish cross-party support for privatisation in the form that he has outlined—employee buy-outs and participation—but will he say something about how his plans will affect the growth of competition in the industry, which is vital to improve services for the customer?
Mr. Rifkind: Under existing arrangements, the Scottish Bus Group, which owns all the companies that we are to privatise, if not a monopoly, is in a very dominant position. The replacement of that group by no fewer than 10 or 11 separate companies, each of which will compete with existing private sector companies and public transport companies, including the soon to be privatised PTC in Grampian, will undoubtedly give a substantial boost to real choice and real competition, very much to the benefit of the travelling public.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is English."]
Mr. McKelvey: He is a Campbell.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can we have an assurance that the highway hoodlum, Mr. Souter of Stagecoach, will not be allowed to buy any part of the Scottish Bus Group? Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that Mr. Souter dumped nearly 50 buses in the bus station in Keswick, having bought Cumberland Motor Services earlier this year? In effect, he blockaded the town to tourists and cost shopkeepers in my constituency millions of pounds because of his foolish actions, which he took only because the planning authorities refused to give him a planning permission? Is that the kind of man who will be allowed to run the Scottish bus industry in the future?
Mr. Rifkind: If Stagecoach makes proposals for the acquisition of any of these companies, they will be considered in the same way as proposals from any other applicant.
Mr. John McAllion: What evidence does the Secretary of State have for his statement a few moments ago that employees of the Tayside public transport company support privatisation of that company? There is no such support among workers in the Strathtay company. There is simply a recognition that they would prefer a management-employee buy-out to a takeover by a cash-rich predator from the south. Will the Secretary of State help those workers by giving them an assurance that, if their management-employee bid is realistic and commensurate with the value of the public assets involved, he will accept it and not sell out to a higher bidder elsewhere?
Mr. Rifkind: I have already explained the basis on which bids will be considered. I have said that, subject to these general criteria, we want to give preference to employee and management buy-outs. I cannot at the moment anticipate what the difference might be between proposals from the management and employees and from other applicants. We will apply exactly the same criteria as the regional council of which the hon. Gentleman was once a member.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this announcement. Does he agree that, by breaking down the 3,000 buses into 11 units, he has avoided the predatory pricing which could have arisen? The likely outcome of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals is an increase in services to rural areas, not a decrease. What plans does he have for privatisation of depots?
Mr. Rifkind: Depots are part of the individual companies and will be privatised as part of the larger privatisation. There were some suggestions from certain quarters about whether it would be desirable to privatise individual depots. We have to bear in mind the likely viability of a depot. It is probably in the interests of employees and all who use these services for us to use the companies to which I have referred as the units on which privatisation is based.
Mr. Bob McTaggart: The Secretary of State has said more than once that it is unacceptable for subsidised routes to be the same as unsubsidised ones. It is often the case, however—especially with the Scottish Bus Group—that subsidised routes are partly the same as unsubsidised ones. That fact has been reported to the traffic commissioners, who have found in favour of the private sector. Can we have an assurance that the same strict criteria will not apply to Caledonian MacBrayne or to any subsidised ferry routes to the islands, bearing in mind the severity of what could happen as a result?
Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman knows, with regard to ferries, at Gourock-Dunoon there are two routes that are identical, for all practical purposes. The terminals are a few hundred yards apart on both sides of the route, and that is the point that I was making. I was saying not that there would be a law to prevent that, but that as a matter of policy it seemed an unnecessary use of public money to provide a subsidy so that such a situation could continue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bus services. I share his view that it is not desirable in principle for a subsidy to be used to enable a company to compete
718
effectively with another that is not subsidised. We shall have to find a way in which such abuses—if they are abuses—can be resolved properly.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State accept that his statement, insofar as it concerns the Borders region, will be warmly welcomed, for two reasons? First, Lowland Scottish will be offered for sale as a free-standing entity. Secondly, his comments about the provisions for employee participation will be welcomed. That reflects the broadly based representations that were made by the trade unions, the local authorities and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). Will the Secretary of State now return to the question of the financial assistance that will be available to management-employee teams? He would help them to prepare their bid better if he gave more explanation about the financial assistance involved.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for that welcome for the terms of my statement. In reply to the second part of the question, we envisage that we may be able to give—although we cannot quantify it—financial assistance to employees and managers who are contemplating a bid. That financial assistance will enable them to obtain professional advice on how to put together a proposal, what is required to make a credible proposal and what the parameters should be, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged through lack of experience in the necessary mechanics for competing with companies or others who may wish to put in a bid.
The second form of assistance will apply to the time when the bids are being considered from the various applicants. We have said, although we cannot yet quantify it, that we shall give preference to management-employee buy-outs. The scale of that preference has yet to be determined.
Mr. John Marshall: When is the first unit of the Scottish Bus Group likely to be privatised? I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his emphasis on employee participation in the privatisation of the group. Does he accept that many regard that emphasis as the acceptable side of devolution in Scotland? As a former convener of Aberdeen municipal transport committee, I congratulate the Socialists of Aberdeen on securing the objective that I failed to achieve—privatisation of that service.
Mr. Rifkind: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's generous compliment to his one-time political opponents. I am sure that he never expected to live to see the day when the Socialists of Aberdeen would join those of other parties in support of privatising the local bus service.
I cannot give a specific timing for these disposals, but the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which provides for the flotation, is to be tabled today and, subject to Parliament's approval, we hope that the necessary legislation will be enacted during the current Session.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State recall his weasel words about rural routes at the time of deregulation? Is he aware that many communities in my constituency have lost services, particularly at the weekends and at off-peak times? It is no use for him to rabbit on about route mileage when all the buses are running on the same urban routes,

719
with different operators. We want to talk about rural routes. Can the Secretary of State give any guarantee that services will not be decimated under privatisation as they were at the time of deregulation?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are two relevant points here. First, route mileage by bus services in Scotland has gone up since deregulation.
Mr. Foulkes: I said that.
Mr. Rifkind: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to become apoplectic. The route mileage has gone up, not down. If the hon. Gentleman becomes upset when I agree with him, God knows what he will be like when I disagree with him.
As he knows, Strathclyde regional council is perfectly able to provide public funds to support the continuation of routes that individual companies do not want to provide. The regional council is the appropriate authority to decide whether there is a social need for a bus service on a particular route.
Mr. Brian Wilson: As far as Caledonian MacBrayne is concerned, will the Secretary of State accept my welcome for 80 per cent. of his statement, which represents retreat? Perhaps in this context we can magnanimously and temporarily forgive him the 20 per cent. that is an ideological figleaf. Will he confirm that his rather patronising remarks about value for money do not suggest a further cut in the CalMac subsidy? Will he accept that a move to Oban should be a matter for debate rather than diktat?
Will the Secretary of State accept that, if the status quo is not an option for buses, an employee buy-out is the best means of common ownership, which will maintain jobs, standards and services? Will he assist that option with substance, rather than mere hope? Will he note our apprehension about predatory bids and will he note that there are plenty of Scottish cowboys, some of them on board stagecoaches?
Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box for his maiden appearance. I am glad that he has used the occasion to welcome the Government's statement—or at least 80 per cent. of it. I hope that that is a useful precedent that he will follow in the weeks and months to come.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the level of subsidy for Caledonian MacBrayne. Naturally, we shall ensure that the subsidy is at the level required to ensure a lifeline to the islands and that the good quality of service that there has been—particularly in the past nine years—is maintained.
As for employee buy-outs, the hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say on the matter and I am glad that he too seems to be joining those who, under certain conditions, are delighted to welcome privatisation.

Prime Minister's Statement
4.26 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister abused Question Time to make a statement on the extradition of Father Patrick Ryan. She said:
"The failure to secure Ryan's arrest is a matter of very grave concern to the Government. It is no use Governments adopting great declarations and commitments about fighting terrorism if they then lack the resolve to put them into practice."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 574.]
That is quite right. We wish that the Prime Minister would follow the example of her own words. The basis of the Prime Minister's claim is that the warrant was sent to Dublin, with additional documentation, on Friday night. We now know from the Crown Prosecution Service that that was not the case. The Prime Minister has misled the House.
The Prime Minister also failed to mention the dilatoriness of the Government in dealing with the Ryan case. Ryan was arrested on 30 June, but the Government failed to serve warrants until 5 September. On 25 November a decision was taken. [Interruption.] It is a point of order. The Government obviously do not like being taken to task when the Prime Minister misleads the House.
On 25 November the decision was taken that the Government would put forward demands to the Irish Government, and the Irish Government were expected to do in five minutes what the Belgian Government did not do in five months and for which the British Government were responsible because of the delay in issuing the warrants.
Mr. Speaker: With great respect, I cannot answer questions of that kind.
Mr. McNamara: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to a point of order. The matters that I am describing are the background to it. Has the Prime Minister asked you for an opportunity to come to the House to apologise for deliberately misleading it on the issue of the warrants and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot allege that any hon. Member or right hon. Member has deliberately misled the House. He must withdraw that allegation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Withdraw the allegation, please—[interruption.] Order. We had this unhappy business yesterday. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation, please.
Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by Conservative Members I was immediately going to withdraw that remark if you had said so, because I respect you and the Chair, which Conservative Members do not always seem to do.
I was going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, when we could expect the Prime Minister to apologise to the House and what arrangements would be made—this is relevant to what happened yesterday—to have the situation recorded properly in the Official Report.
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman has raised with me is news to me. I am sure that what he has said will be noted on the Government Front Bench, but it is not a matter of order for me.
Mr. John Morris: Following the precedent set in the case of Patrick McVee, when I gave the Attorney-General my support, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for leave to make a statement on the case of Patrick Ryan? Is not the Attorney-General's proper role to advise the Government and the House, rather than to brief the press through his minions? Would it not be more dignified for proper statements to be made to the House by responsible Ministers, rather than for the Prime Minister to abuse Question Time, so that we can have confirmation of what the Attorney-General said on 14 June—whether it still exists or not—namely, that there was a close and personal relationship between himself and his opposite number in the Republic?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that. Again, it is a matter for the Attorney-General.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall take all points of order, on this matter together, because we have a busy day. I call Mr. Benn.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I wish to raise arises out of the exchange yesterday, but is totally different in character. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), whom I put on notice that I would raise this matter, said:
"one of the most wanted terrorists has been let free".
In his question in relation to that case he then said:
"many…still believe that the Irish Republic is a safe haven for some terrorists".
In response—I shall not quote it all—the Prime Minister said:
"I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, although the Government of the Republic of Ireland make fine-sounding speeches".—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c.574–75.]
That question and the assent given to it by the Prime Minister raise two points of order. First, legal proceedings have been taken by the Attorney-General in the case of Father Ryan. As he is abroad, the legal proceedings initiated here have been taken up in Belgium and the Republic. It has been a long practice of the House, which you have rigidly enforced in respect of "Spycatcher", where there was a case in Australia, and in the case of the miners' strike, where miners were coming before the courts, that it was not in order for Members of the House of Commons to confirm or to comment on cases that were sub judice, because the process of bringing the case before the court had begun . I hope—
Mr. Speaker: This case is not yet sub judice.
Mr. Benn: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to resolve today the case that I am putting to you, but legal proceedings have begun, and in this context they are legal proceedings with a view to bringing somebody before a court. If somebody was wanted by the police in this country and was named in the House as if he had already been convicted, I feel certain that you would interpret that as sub judice.
722
Secondly, it is clearly a misuse of privilege to use the protection of the House of Commons to make such an allegation. Father Ryan is wanted on a serious charge. It could hardly be more serious. It is in accordance with the practice of the British courts that anyone charged is presumed innocent until convicted. Therefore, when a senior Member of the House says, and it is confirmed by the Prime Minister, that that person is a terrorist, it is impossible from that moment on for that man to have a fair trial. The BBC broadcast those remarks and every newspaper has highlighted them.
The reason why I draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker—I make no criticism of your conduct of business yesterday—is that the sub judice rule and the self-limitation on privilege are to prevent the House of Commons from becoming a lynch mob. In my submission, yesterday it became a lynch mob, headed by the Prime Minister, whose remarks are bound to prejudice any jury or judge if Father Ryan is brought to this country.
Finally, the reason why this is important is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said at Question Time, as a result of the Guildford, Woolwich and Birmingham bombings, many people abroad—this was confirmed by what the Prime Minister said yesterday—do not believe that Irish prisoners get justice in British courts.
Mr. Speaker: I advise the right hon. Gentleman that this case is not yet sub judice and I advise the House that every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says. As I have said before, we have freedom of speech here, but it should be used with great caution. What the right hon. Gentleman has said about any man being innocent until proved guilty is absolutely correct.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I should call the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates).
Mr. Michael Mates: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for the courtesy of telling me that he was going to raise this matter. I used the phrase yesterday solely in the context of my outrage at the fact that that person was not being brought here to face trial. It was not intended to be an intimation of guilt. Strictly, I should have said, "Ryan is the man the security forces most want in connection with serious terrorist offences." I am happy to make that plain.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that yesterday the Prime Minister abused the proceedings of the House in the most disgraceful way imaginable. Essentially, she made a statement during Question Time. I believe that her motive was to grab the headlines from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who slaughtered the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government's economic policy. In her abuse of our proceedings the Prime Minister raised the question of the extradition of Father Ryan in the most politically insensitive way imaginable, because that is a matter for the Attorney-General. The Prime Minister also prevented hon. Members from properly questioning the Government on the mess that they have got into on the question of warrants.

723
My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is to inquire whether, if the Attorney-General asks to make a statement at 7 o'clock this evening, you will look at that sympathetically.
Mr. Speaker: Of course I will.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As we have a heavy day ahead of us, I ask hon. Gentlemen whether these are points of order that I can deal with, because so far, apart from that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), they are not really points of order for which I have responsibility.
Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The various points of order have raised what seems to us a potential abuse of Question Time by the Prime Minister, who incorporated into an answer what was, in effect, a statement. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) launched an attack on two Governments—these are serious matters—and the Prime Minister replied in kind. There was no opportunity for Opposition Members to question her, as would be the case if a statement was made.
There is an alternative for you to consider, Mr. Speaker, because Standing Order No. 17 states:
"No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except … questions which have not appeared on the paper, but which are in Mr. Speaker's opinion of an urgent character, and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business."
That Standing Order relates to private notice questions, but fits precisely the circumstances that you could use, Mr. Speaker, if, in your opinion, the Prime Minister or any other Minister abused his or her position. Ministers are in a powerful position, because the media report the comments of the Prime Minister carefully and closely. You know, Mr. Speaker, that if the Prime Minister is determined to draw the spotlight away from the economic disaster of the Chancellor and on to something else, she can do that.
As the Executive is accountable to the House, and you, as Mr. Speaker, are the Chairman of the House, it seems to me that by using that Standing Order you could state that because a matter is of an "urgent character" and relates
"to matters of public importance"
as was clearly the case on this occasion, you could take questions about it after 3.30 pm. Your willingness to be prepared to look at this would be a useful reminder to the Government not to abuse this place as they so badly and blatantly did yesterday.
I realise that the Standing Order gives you that right, but, according to "Erskine May", precedents require you generally to receive an application for a private notice question before 12 o'clock. That is not part of our Standing Orders. It is simply a convention which, if you wished, you could change. I suggest that you reflect on my suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and make a statement—as is customary for the Speaker—so that Mr. Speaker is given a little more elbow room and a little more ability to make a decision when, in his judgment, the Government are seriously abusing this place. We should all be opposed to that.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The trouble with open questions at Prime Minister's Question Time is that nobody in the House,
724
least of all the Speaker, knows the question that will be asked or the answer that will be given. I cannot divine that sort of thing. It is true that this matter was in the minds of many hon. Members yesterday. I shall certainly reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. So that we can put into context today's protests by Opposition Members, can you confirm that if, yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition had thought that this was an important subject and had stood up on Question No. 4, you would have called him?
Mr. Speaker: By tradition, when the Leader of the Opposition stands up he is called.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the Press Association tapes were quoting Government sources as admitting that the warrants issued in respect of Father Ryan were defective. It seems extraordinary that in Dublin the Attorney-General is giving advice very freely indeed. The Attorney-General seems to be briefing the British media very freely. The Prime Minister is criticising the Belgians and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it seems that the guilty party is the bungling British Attorney-General, who cannot at this late stage get these warrants right. It is extraordinary that he is not even in the Chamber to listen to these points of order.
Could you arrange for the Attorney-General to report and account to the House on why he has been unable to issue correct warrants in respect of Father Ryan? That clearly lies at the heart of this matter. It is the Attorney-General's responsibility to account for the office that he holds, and he also has a responsibility to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have not had the advantage of seeing the tapes, but I pick up the hon. Gentleman's general proposition. If it is true—I do not know whether it is—that the press has been briefed, in my judgment the House should also be briefed.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: May I proffer a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, which you may care to think about overnight on the matter of warrants and the sub judice rule? If the man has been accused and charged in this country, of course, the sub judice rule applies. A warrant is issued when a person is not within the jurisdiction of the court. If, after that, at any time he comes into the jurisdiction of the court he becomes the subject matter of the charge to which the warrant relates. Would it not be sensible, when you review these matters—I do not require an answer today, but perhaps a statement could be made [Interruption.] I apologise for the bad manners of Conservative Members. When you, Mr. Speaker, and those who advise you have had time to consider my suggestion, perhaps a statement could be made, or the rules slightly changed so that they cover either the moment when the man is charged or when a warrant is issued against him in this country.
Mr. Speaker: A change in the sub judice rule would be a matter for the House, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks through what he and other hon. Members have been saying, he may feel that the House would wish further to debate the whole matter. At the moment the matter is not sub judice.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point is based on what you said a few moments ago. We appreciate your comment that if the press has been briefed the House should be briefed and, as you would expect, we go along with that. The Leader of the House is in the Chamber and the support that you will get from the Government will perhaps be demonstrated by the way in which they respond to the clear injunction from you that there should be a statement. May I, through you, ask the Leader of the House if he will talk to his colleagues to ensure that we have a statement at 7 o'clock?
Mr. Speaker: Let us leave that matter, because I have a statement to make.
Several Hon. Members rose—

Proceedings of the House
Mr. Speaker: I have been reflecting upon yesterday's debate on the Queen's Speech. It has been represented to me by several right hon. and hon. Members that there was an attempt to disrupt the opening speeches by co-ordinated interruptions. I hope that that was not the case and that it will never be the case. I entirely accept that there should be cut and thrust in debate in the House and, on occasions, interventions, but not organised interruptions, which are a very different matter. Furthermore, I hope that personal allegations against hon. Members will not be raised again in the way that they were raised yesterday.
The House, in its wisdom, long ago laid down a proper procedure for pursuing complaints about these matters. In relation to what was alleged yesterday, and in order to clear up the matter without any equivocation, perhaps it would be right for me to read to the House once again what was said yesterday, because the letter read out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was not addressed to me. It was a letter to him, not to me.
The hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) drew attention to what he thought had been a "fiddling of the record". He asked me to confirm
"that the record had in fact been changed"
and that I had apologised. The hon. Gentleman said:
"The assurance that I now seek from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is"
whether it was or not. I said:
"I subsequently looked into the matter and I had an assurance from the Editor of Hansard that no alteration was made at the specific request of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). It was a mistake in the Hansard reporting."
I went on to confirm:
"The mistake was not the mistake of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 583.]
I hope that that puts the matter into its proper perspective.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am glad to have an opportunity of accepting unreservedly your guidance and ruling about the manner in which personal allegations should be made in the House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in any way impertinent to ask you, as you have understandably dealt very toughly and quickly with some of us on other matters, why yesterday, knowing the background, and with all the information that was available to you, you did not call to order the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary? Some of us feel that if we had tried to do what the Home Secretary's PPS did we would have been shut up, with short shrift, and rightly, by you, Mr. Speaker. Why did that not happen yesterday?
Mr. Speaker: I am glad to have an opportunity to explain that. The matter that the hon. Gentleman raised took place a month ago. Good though my memory is, I did not immediately recollect it or appreciate what he was saying until later, when he made the allegation. I then recollected what had happened and I made the comments that are clearly on the record in Hansard.
Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank you for the clarification and the statement that you have made to the House, following, as

727
you have said, representations made to you? Would it not have been better if the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) had made a proper statement to the House and cleared up this matter? Many of us feel that his conduct yesterday was outrageous. His standing has gone down in the minds of many people because of the way in which he conducted himself. While he refuses completely to withdraw his allegation, we can only hold him in contempt.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance. because this is a serious matter. I hope that it is not being suggested that it is not possible, in a very important debate, for hon. Members on both sides of the House politely to ask an Opposition or Government spokesmen to give way—[Interruption.] May I make my point?—so that they can make an intervention. We all accept that organised barracking is wrong, and I was not aware that there had been such a thing by those on the Government Benches. [Interruption.] I am as entitled as anybody else to make my point.
This morning I read in Hansard the debates on the Queen's Speech for the past 20 years, and on every one of those occasions Opposition Front Bench spokesmen were prepared to give way on a number of occasions and discuss what they would do if they were in government. Yesterday the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) gave way on only two occasions and refused to give way to two of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have made a statement on this matter in order to clear it up. I do not think that we want to take it any further, except to say that we have a long tradition in the House that we resolve our disagreements by argument, not by any form of disruption, and I hope that that will always be the case.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: No, I shall not hear any more points of order on this matter.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If it is a different point of order, I will hear it.
Mr. Ewing: It is not a different point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] No, I will not sit down, and I will not take lectures on morality from hon. Members who conduct themselves in the way that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) has done. The reputation and integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) have been besmirched, and I say to you quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that you have a responsibility to protect that reputation. I do not care about myself, but I care a great deal about the way in which the affairs of the House are conducted. I have a great love for the House of Commons, and I care a great deal about the image of the House in the country, and what happened yesterday at the behest of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South has done immeasurable damage to the standing of the House of Commons.
I am worried about two matters. First, my understanding—I apologise in advance if this is not true—is that the letter from the Editor of Hansard to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East was copied and
728
sent to you. If that is true, it gives me the clear impression that you were not made aware of the contents of that letter and therefore you were caught in the position that you were yesterday, so there has been some breakdown.
The second point is that in successive news bulletins by the BBC yesterday information was given that the speech to be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East was to be disrupted. That information was given out by the Government. My hon. Friends have said that the apology from the hon. Member for Suffolk, South is insufficient. We are asking too much from the hon. Gentleman. Having seen his conduct yesterday, I do not believe that he has the ability or the standing to apologise properly. I am quite content to leave him in the gutter, where he belongs.
Mr. Speaker: I have one final word to say on this matter, in answer to what the hon. Gentleman has swid. I received a copy of that letter about a month ago. It was addressed to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and not to me. I hope the House will accept that it is not my practice—nor, I hope, the practice of other hon. Members—to disclose letters addressed to other hon. Members.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The month is the point.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House is grateful to you for outlining the rules on this matter, and I am sure also that the House will take those rules to heart. In view of the significance of the letter from the Editor of Hansard to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), and the fact that you now have a copy of that letter and that it is rather central to the remarks made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), would it not be helpful to the House if that letter were placed in the official record, and perhaps you could make arrangements to do that?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to read the letter out. It was not addressed to me.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter that reflects on the integrity of the Chair. Hansard of yesterday shows that you asked the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) to withdraw his allegation against my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). The hon. Member for Suffolk, South said:
"I gladly withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, if we have an assurance that no… Opposition Member will seek to tamper with today's record."
You, Mr. Speaker, said:
"Order. No qualification please. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the allegation absolutely."
The hon. Member for Suffolk, South said:
"I withdraw the specific allegation that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East falsified the record."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 584.]
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that that was a sheer defiance of your ruling. It is part of our rules that we do not cast aspersions on individuals, nor on hon. Members in general.
The public in general, not only in this country, but internationally, look to Hansard for an accurate record of our proceedings, and look to Hansard to understand our

729
constitution and to understand the honour of Members. The fact that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South refused to withdraw such an unfounded and unwarranted allegation is a matter of great honour. He would do himself a great deal of credit, and it would reflect credit on the House of Commons, if you gave him one last opportunity to withdraw the allegation and apologise for this disgraceful calumny.
Mr. Yeo rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I accepted the hon. Gentleman's withdrawal yesterday. Is he seeking to say something more?
Mr. Yeo: I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that yesterday I said:
"I withdraw the specific allegation that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East falsified the record."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 584.]
Today I have confirmed that I accept your ruling about the manner in which personal allegations should be made. A great deal of trouble would have been saved had the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East copied to me the letter that he received from the Editor of the Official Report.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we should have any re-run of this matter.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be better if the House were reminded of what has happened on this matter over a long period. In the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) opened and concluded so brilliantly, to the disturbance of Conservative Members, he was asked, in an intervention, about certain matters. He replied that there was no such commitment, or that there were no such commitments. The difference was immaterial, as hon. Members will see if they look at the record. The hon. Member, as I am obliged to call him by the traditions of the House, for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) two days later asserted, without any justification, or without approaching my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East—
Mr. Yeo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dobson: —had gone to the Official Report and requested a change in the words, and he said that he did not blame the Editor of the Official Report or the Reporters, who might not be entirely appreciative of the significance of the change. So he apparently knew what my hon. Friend had done, and knew that the Hansard reporters were not responsible. That was what he said. You—I regret to say this, Mr. Speaker—apparently without checking with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East, gave the impression that he had in some way been party to what had happened.
730
Following that, very properly, the Editor of Hansard wrote and apologised to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East for what had happened and took the entire responsibility for what had gone wrong on his shoulders and said that it was one of the Hansard staff who had got it wrong. If anyone had to set the record straight, clearly it was not my hon. Friend.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South raised this matter again and wholly falsely asserted that my hon. Friend had brought pressure to bear to falsify the record. Then he said that he had been fiddling the record and only after pressure from Opposition Members did you, Mr. Speaker, get him to make his partial withdrawal. We think that it is quite unsatisfactory for the House to be left in that position and that an apology from the hon. Gentleman would be proper.
Reverting to the beginning of your statement, Mr. Speaker, when you said that you did not like barracking and organised interruptions, you may recall that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) raised a point of order about this letter. About half a minute later, when you were otherwise engaged, the Tory Chief Whip urged him to try to have another go at you and raise the point of order again. He is the source of all this trouble. The Tory Chief Whip is the person who organises this, and we could do with an apology from both of them.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that I consider that to be a most disgraceful intervention by the hon. Gentleman. This is an important matter and I fully support the way in which you have sought to deal with this disagreeable incident. I fully support what you have done.
It seems to me that the letter from the Editor of Hansard to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) set out the facts. I therefore wonder whether you might consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) said and see to it that the letter is published in the Official Report. That would then put an end to the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The letter was not addressed to me.
Mr. Jeff Rooker rose—
Mr. Speaker: We must now move on. The hon. Gentleman puts in jeopardy his hon. Friends who wish to speak in the next debate.
Mr. Rooker: This is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker, which is intended to be helpful. We have already spent a considerable amount of time on an important issue. As no hon. Member has made a personal statement, everyone else is fully entitled to raise the issue day after day. With respect, I put it to Conservative Front-Bench Members that they should suggest that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) makes a personal statement. That could not be questioned. When that is done, that will be the end of the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard that.

Ballot for Notices of Motions for Friday 16 December
The Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Watts

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

Mr. Nicholas Bennett.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should have a redraw. [Interruption.]
Mr. Nicholas Baker: I think that you may have misread the names, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it was Nicholas Baker?
Mr. Speaker: It looks like Nicholas Bennett to me. I think that we should have a redraw for the final name. It is Mr. Kenneth Hind.
Later—
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you would redraw the ballot, but all you did was redraw the third name. You left in the name of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who had put in two names and had virtually cheated by doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I withdraw the phrase "virtually cheated".
If an hon. Member votes twice, his vote is cancelled. Whether by accident or not, the hon. Gentleman had two names in the ballot and, according to that ballot, he still has second place. That cannot be right. As you said that the ballot should be redrawn, the whole ballot should be redrawn.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I have just had a word with the Clerks and discovered that, inadvertently, it was the same book that was in the Lobby. I was not aware of that and therefore apologise. I certainly had no intention of cheating and, if the House thinks that I should not have second place, I should be happy for you to draw the names again.
Mr. Speaker: I shall draw one more.
Mr. Cohen rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The final name is Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

BILLS PRESENTED

  ELECTRICITY BILL
  Mr. Secretary Parkinson, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. Tony Newton, Mr. Peter Morrison and Mr. Michael Spicer, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment and functions of a Director General of Electricity Supply and of consumers' committees for the electricity supply industry; to make new provision with respect to the supply of electricity through electric lines and the generation and transmission of electricity for such supply; to abolish the Electricity Consumers' Council and the Consultative Councils established under the Electricity Act 1947; to provide for the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the Electricity Boards and the Electricity Council in companies nominated by the Secretary of State and the subsequent dissolution of those Boards and that
  732
  Council; to provide for the giving of financial assistance in connection with the storage and reprocessing of nuclear fuel, the treatment, storage and disposal of radioactive waste and the decommissioning of nuclear installations; to amend the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 4].

  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL
  Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Rifkind and Mr. John Patten, presented a Bill to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 by provisions protecting more limited classes of official information: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 9].
  TRANSPORT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Ian Lang and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, presented a Bill to make provision for the transfer to the private sector of the operations of the Scottish Transport Group, other than its shipping operations; for the transfer of its shipping operations to the Secretary of State; to provide for the dissolution of the Group; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 10].
  EMPLOYMENT BILL
  Mr. Secretary Fowler, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Tony Newton and Mr. John Cope, presented a Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in pursuance of the Directive of the Council of the European Communities, dated 9th February 1976, (No. 76/207/EEC) on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions; to repeal or amend prohibitions or requirements relating to the employment of young persons and other categories of employees; to make other amendments of the law relating to employment; to repeal section 1(1) (a) of the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922; to dissolve the Training Commission; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 8].

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Safety at Work Regulations) (Non-UK Ships) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) (No. 3) Scheme 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2066) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 3) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2055) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. John. M. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day

  Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.7 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) to the Opposition Front Bench. I congratulate him on his appointment. I know that he has a strong personal interest in North sea oil and gas activities, and the House will be more than aware that he has a strong constituency interest. Indeed, over the past 25 years, Aberdeen has played a vital part in the development of our North sea oil activities, which has not always been an easy task.
  The Bill is short, and it has two specific purposes. Its first purpose is to end royalties for new fields in the southern basin of the North sea as well as onshore. That will implement the commitment that was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement. The Bill's second purpose is to implement the agreement that the United Kingdom Government reached with the Republic of Ireland on the determination of the continental shelf.
  Perhaps it would be sensible to put the Bill in the context of the North sea generally before I explain it in detail. It is fair to say that, when I came into office with my right hon. and hon. Friends 18 months ago, the situation in the North sea was a little bleak, and had been so for a while. That had been caused by a massive and entirely unpredicted fall in the price of oil. I am happy to say that the picture now is much better. I can paint an upbeat and optimistic picture, but it is not as upbeat and optimistic as I would like.
  The House will recall what happened on the evening of 6 July. That was the night of the Piper Alpha disaster. When I went to Aberdeen in the early hours of 7 July, I was met by a stunned city and stunned citizens. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House and the entire industry remain deeply upset by a disaster of such major proportions. Since then, the aim of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and myself has been to ensure that everything is done to prevent such an accident in future. My right hon. Friend has said many times, as have I, that all the information available should be made public. As for the future, if there are lessons to be learned, they should be learned properly. Hence, immediately after 6 July, the technical investigation was set up by my right hon. Friend, to be carried out by the safety directorate of my Department. Its task was to produce an early report on what had happened. The House will know that the interim report was published on 29 September.
  Within a week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that there would be a public inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Cullen, with wide terms of reference. That inquiry will start on 19 January 1989 in Aberdeen. Before then, the technical investigation team will produce a further report, which will be made available
  734
  to Lord Cullen. At the same time, the work of the safety directorate continues. The House will know that the information which has been obtained has already led to the directorate asking that the industry should consider better ways to improve the pipeline isolation systems. At the time of the publication of the interim report, we asked the industry to examine six further areas in the light of what we had learnt.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I wish to say publicly that I appreciate the work that has been done by the Minister of State and the Secretary of State in setting up the technical inquiry and the Cullen inquiry. The Cullen inquiry has begun in a way that shows that it will be an open and public hearing.
  I ask the Minister to comment on the great unhappiness felt by those involved in the oil industry throughout the United Kingdom, and not in Aberdeen alone, about the way in which the debris from the Piper Alpha platform has been dealt with following the disaster. Many bodies are still missing. It is believed that there are technical lessons to be learned on the sea bed. Has the Minister reviewed his position on collapsing the platform on the sea bed?
  Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for his remarks about our conduct since the disaster early in July. Secondly, if he will bear with me on the abandonment of the Piper Alpha platform and the evidence that is currently below the sea, I shall deal with those matters if, with the leave of the House, I have the opportunity to reply at the end of the debate.
  These are technical matters and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I, along with the entire Department, have examined them extremely carefully. We have consulted outside experts. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that we have consulted other interests, especially the Scottish fishermen. He may be aware that I have had a meeting with the Scottish fishermen. There are important implications, and a decision will not be taken easily. If it is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the House, I shall deal specifically with these matters at the end of the debate.
  The areas covered by the interim report produced by the technical investigation team were permit-to-work systems, automatic initiation of fire-fighting systems, operability of life rafts, evacuation routes, the integrity of emergency systems and venting and explosions. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that safety has always been of paramount importance. That remains the Government's view. It is wrong to say that we are seeking to approach perfection when we examine safety. We do not believe that there is safety perfection, because that would imply that there is nothing more to do. I hope that no hon. Member will take that view.
  As I have said, we shall want to learn everything that we can from the public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that, if Lord Cullen's report identifies improvements that could be made to the safety regime, the recommendations will be considered extremely seriously.
  Piper Alpha must remain in our minds. Even so, it would be wrong not to recognise that the story of the North sea over the past 25 years has been one of tremendous success for the United Kingdom. It has come about thanks to the superb managerial and technical

  735
  achievements of the international oil industry. It is a story of success, however, for everyone who has been involved. Too few of our constituents—I speak of those of us who represent constituencies that are not close to the North sea or that do not have a specific oil interest—understand what has been achieved and appreciate the enormous input of North sea oil activities to the United Kingdom as a whole. Even the optimists of 25 years ago could not have dreamt that we would come so far.
  We have now entered a new phase. The largest discoveries have probably been made, and oil prices continue to fluctuate. Even so, the North sea oil industry continues to be both vigorous and successful. Given the circumstances, I believe that the industry is more vigorous now than it has ever been. I shall recite one or two facts to demonstrate what has been happening this year.
  We in the Department have approved 24 projects so far. That is new investment of about £3·1 billion. It is the largest number of project approvals in any one year. In 1987, 13 projects were approved, amounting to new investment of £1·2 billion. These figures tell us that we are almost £2 billion ahead in terms of new investment. A further 13 projects are currently under discussion.
  At the same time, drilling activity is high. So far this year, 121 exploration and appraisal wells have been started. That is a two-thirds improvement over the equivalent period last year. Four discoveries have been made, and a further five announcements have been made on tests on structures adjacent to existing finds. In addition, 135 development wells have been started, against 100 over the first nine months of 1987. That is only 10 short of the record year of 1985. These figures are a tribute to the initiative and determination of the oil industry—and when I say that, I mean everyone involved in it. It demonstrates their great adaptability and will to introduce new technology. It is those traits which lead me to believe that the North sea oil and gas industry has a continuing and exciting future.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: There is some confusion, at least among Conservative Members, as a result of the Committee deliberations in June on the Finance Bill, as it then was. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the oil allowance of 125,000 tonnes per chargeable period is fiscal neutrality? He will be aware that the producers' argument is that that figure is too low. His comments on these matters will help the development of the debate.
  Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for potentially drawing me out of order. However, he anticipates remarks that I was about to make about the package as a whole—because this is part of a package, as my hon. Friend rightly said.
  The purpose of the Bill is to contribute to the aim that I have outlined—to continue to create the right atmosphere so that further exploration and development can proceed. It has always been the Government's policy to keep the North sea fiscal regime under review and to make changes where that was desirable to ensure that the climate continues to be favourable to such initiatives. The abolition of royalty for new fields in the northern basin in 1983 was an example of that policy.
  The Bill represents a further step in the same direction. There were a number of significant gas prospects in the southern basin of the North sea which were economic
  736
  before tax, but which could have been inhibited by the fiscal regime. The greatest potential obstacle to their development was royalty, because its impact is relatively insensitive to field economics.
  As I have said, the ending of royalty for new fields in the southern basin formed part of a package—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred—of changes in the North sea fiscal regime which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement. Taken as a whole over the lives of the fields concerned, that change is expected to be revenue-neutral.
  It would not be wholly appropriate for me to go into great detail about the discussions in Committee stage on the Finance Bill earlier this year. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and other hon. Friends will have noticed that the original proposal was for an oil tax allowance of just 100,000 tonnes. After we had listened very carefully to the arguments from the oil industry and examined new evidence presented to us, that figure was increased to 125,000 tonnes. As I have said, that is intended to be revenue-neutral, and that is the intention of the new figure of 125,000 tonnes.
  If the industry responds positively to the package, there is a real prospect that most, if not all, of Britain's gas requirements for the 1990s can be found from our own resources. In fact, there is already evidence that the industry is responding. As the House will know, earlier this year Hamilton Brothers announced a decision directly as a result of the Government's intention to abolish royalties in the southern basin to develop the Ravernspurn North field. That development represents an investment of £600 million in 1·25 trillion cu ft of gas reserves which would not otherwise have taken place.
  The Bill will also end royalties for new onshore fields. That will provide a useful encouragement to onshore development. That aspect was also foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget. While talking about onshore exploration, I want to raise another point. I am more than aware that other difficulties must be overcome to promote onshore exploration and development. Of course it is right that local authorities are and should be concerned about what is involved in onshore developments. However, it is also of the greatest importance that local debate should be well informed and should not be misled by the exaggerated fears and anxieties that sometimes arise.
  As those hon. Members who have had the opportunity to visit British Petroleum's Wytch Farm development will know, a well run oilfield onshore can be a perfectly acceptable neighbour as far as environmental impact is concerned. One of our oldest onshore oilfields at Dukes Woods near Eakring, Newark has been recognised as an ideal environment for wild orchids, moths and butterflies which are rare in Nottinghamshire. In 1972, the area was notified as a site of special scientific interest and, through the collaboration of the industry and the Nottingham Trust for Conservation, the well sites have been preserved as a nature trail. I mention that because of the irony that, if the same development were proposed today, it would no doubt be the subject of great concern on environmental grounds.
  The other elements of the package of the North sea fiscal changes which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement have already been approved by the House and implemented through the

  737
  Finance (No. 2) Act 1988. As Opposition Members will recall, in Committee on the Finance Bill the then Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), said that he believed that the Government were right in principle to remove the penalty of royalties.
  We must ensure that the momentum to which I have referred is maintained. It is no exaggeration to claim that the United Kingdom is becoming the offshore oil capital of the world. The North sea has created nearly 30,000 offshore jobs, and, according to the most recent reports that I can find, some 75,000 onshore jobs in Scotland alone. That represents a valuable part of our industrial base, which we must do our utmost to sustain.
  Clause 1 will exempt new fields in the southern basin and on shore from royalties as from 1 July this year. Clause 2 is needed only to ensure that the similar exemption already granted for new fields elsewhere in the North sea will apply to licences issued in the 11th round and subsequently.
  The Bill's second purpose, to which I referred earlier, is to enable the United Kingdom to implement the agreement negotiated recently with the Irish Republic on the delimitation of the continental shelf. That is dealt with in clause 3. The agreement resolves an issue which has been outstanding for 25 years. Agreeing boundaries will open up new opportunities for the oil and supply industries if exploration in the areas should prove successful. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that that represents an important step forward. As the House will be aware, copies of the agreement have been available in the Library since 8 November, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary informed the House that he had signed the agreement.
  I want to explain a little more about the agreement. At present, we have powers to designate areas for offshore activity on our continental shelf, but we do not have powers to de-designate, and those are what the Bill is taking. When I was first told that, I must admit that it did not mean very much to me, and I suspect that it does not mean all that much to my hon. Friends or to Opposition Members. Let me try to make it a little clearer. There are areas off the west coast of Scotland which in the past have been claimed by both sides. After considerable negotiation, it has been agreed that the Republic of Ireland should give up some of its claim and so should we. However, we cannot give effect to that, because we do not have the necessary powers. That is the purpose of this small clause: it covers that agreement and that agreement alone. I assure the House that it would not permit the Government to do anything similar elsewhere. As the House will see, the Bill refers specifically to the agreement signed in Dublin on 7 November—no more and no less.
  Some hon. Members may believe that the territory of Northern Ireland is being given up as part of the agreement. I give a categorical assurance that that is not so. The line in the north-west starts at latitude 55·28 north and longitude 6·45 west. That is well to the west of any conceivable boundary between the continental shelf of Northern Ireland and that of the Irish Republic.
  In July this year, I invited applications for further offshore licences in the 11th round. Two hundred and twelve blocks are on offer, which makes it the biggest
  738
  round for many years. One may ask why we have done this when the industry is facing such severe problems due to the low oil price. The answer is simply that there is an underlying buoyancy in the industry's outlook. The licences we are offering now will be the basis for the oil production that we need in the 21st century. No one in the industry doubts that there is a long-term future. That is why there is enthusiasm in the industry for the 11th round. I detect that that enthusiasm is spread among all sections of the industry. Our proposals are geared to interest every type of company—majors and independents alike.
  There are further reasons for expecting the round to be successful. First, we have included in the 11th round some blocks which have never before been licensed in areas which are known to be of widespread interest. Secondly, exploration techniques have shown remarkable advances in the past five to ten years. Oil companies can now home in on small accumulations of oil and gas which previously went unnoticed. Thirdly, I have already referred to the industry's adaptability and willingness to introduce new technologies. That augurs well for the future prosperity of the industry and puts it in a strong position to compete for the licences that we are offering.
  I know that even now companies are working hard on the proposals that they are due to put to us on 7 or 8 February, and I look forward eagerly to receiving their proposals.
  The Bill may appear to be a small one, and, taken alone, it certainly is, but it is part of a large and important segment of Great Britain. Measures such as this will be needed to maintain the right climate for development. Without them, the success of the North sea would never have been possible. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: First, I thank the Minister for his kind opening remarks. I hope only that the attendance in the debate has nothing to do with my debut on the Front Bench—perhaps hon. Members would rather read what I have to say than listen to it.
  I also thank the Minister for his kind remarks about Aberdeen. I represent Aberdeen, South, and the city of Aberdeen, the Grampian region and north-east Scotland have made a very significant contribution to the success which Britain enjoys in its oil industry. Of course, we should not forget that other regions send their workers there. Many of the workers in the oil industry are migrant workers from Glasgow, Dundee—my home town—Tyneside and Teesside. Nor should we forget the contribution of the southern sector by the people in and around east Anglia. It is a national contribution to a national asset. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks.
  The Bill is very specific in its intention, but, as the Minister has already pointed out, it provides us with a welcome opportunity to debate the offshore oil and gas industry. Such opportunities do not occur often. Next year we celebrate the 25th anniversary of operations in the North sea. As the Minister has said, those years have seen a tremendous leap forward in technology and the ability to exploit further and improve on our oil and gas reserves. The oil industry has made an enormous contribution to the wealth of the country, and all those involved in that tremendous achievement are to be congratulated.
  Oil and gas are extremely important to the economy. We produce about 2·5 million barrels of oil and gas a day,

  739
  which is a tremendous boost to our balance of payments. We export 1 million barrels a day and save on imports to the tune of 1·5 million barrels a day. All in all, at current prices that is a benefit to the trade balance of £1 billion per month—a significant achievement on anyone's terms. It is a tragedy for the country that the positive input that we have enjoyed for a number of years is wasted on what Opposition Members regard as failed economic policies which rely more on dogma than economic reality.
  Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Doran: No, I shall not give way on that point.
  We used to get much more benefit from North sea oil and gas. As the Minister said, the price of oil collapsed in 1986. It is interesting to examine the position since then, and what the collapse meant for our economic position.
  According to the Brown Book the—Department's annual statistics on oil and gas development—in 1985 the GNP arising within the oil and gas sector was £15·1 billion. That is a huge amount of money. The provisional figures for 1987, reported in the 1988 edition of the Brown Book, was £8·2 billion—a huge reduction. Tax and royalty revenues have gone down from the 1984–85 figure of just over £12 billion to the 1987–88 provisional figure of £4·7 billion—a significant drop. That is a direct result of the massive drop in the oil price in 1986. Since then, the oil price has fluctuated between just under $10 a barrel and about $20 a barrel. Today, it is just over $14 a barrel. Early hopes that this week's OPEC agreement would result in a substantial increase in the oil price have not been borne out. For understandable reasons, the markets have been cautious on pricing.
  Currently, there are two major preoccupations in the oil industry—price and safety. I shall return to the question of safety. In this country, price has been left purely to market forces. The market is particularly sensitive, and that has hit my area of north-east Scotland. The oil price rises or falls in response to a whole range of factors, the most important of which is the level of production. It is quite clear that there is gross over-production and that there is a glut of oil on the world market.
  Far from the controlled production levels and price stability sought by the OPEC countries, which would be of tremendous benefit to those countries and to our own industry, there is an international free-for-all on the world oil market. That has led directly to a fall in income in the United Kingdom and in other countries and to a severe depression in activity in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf. Only in the past year has there been a real recovery in activity. There has been an improvement in investment, but it is very cautious investment, certainly not at the levels expected in 1984 and 1985.
  Britain and its oil industry have a vested interest in price stability, which would allow planned investment programmes and more planned depletion rates of existing fields and the development of new ones. Yet the Government have chosen to take no part in influencing the oil price. They are prepared to rely on market forces alone, and in doing so they isolate themselves from international discussion. None of us can say what influence the Government would have had had they been prepared to do what the Norwegian Government have done—simply to talk to OPEC and try to reach some agreement on production. None of us can say that that would have added to price stability, given the other international factors, but some
  740
  sense needs to be brought into world oil markets, and the United Kingdom, as a major and influential producer, should be part of that process.
  Of course, the price of oil and gas is not just the cost of getting it out of the ground or the cost per barrel. Overshadowing all North sea activity at the moment is the Piper Alpha tragedy. I thank the Minister for his comments and for his recognition of the severe and shocking effect of that disaster, particularly on the city of Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will probably comment on the disaster later in the debate.
  One hundred and sixty-seven men lost their lives in the Piper Alpha tragedy, which sent shock waves through the whole industry. Safety is now right at the top of the agenda. I never have a meeting with oil companies in which safety is not the major issue under discussion.
  I commend the Secretary of State, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) commended the Minister, on the speed with which the Government reacted to the disaster. I know that, in the early hours of 7 July, the Minister immediately went to Aberdeen to be present at the command centre to lend whatever assistance he and his Department could offer. I commend them for the speed with which the judicial inquiry has been instructed. Hopefully, the inquiry under Lord Cullen will pinpoint the precise causes of the tragedy and make recommendations to prevent future occurrences.
  It is important, however, that the Government do not shy away from making improvements in safety, where they are obviously required, now rather than waiting until Lord Cullen has reported. Parliamentary answers and the replies to the numerous letters that I have written to the Minister and to the Secretary of State suggest that to a certain extent they are hiding behind Lord Cullen and that everything is frozen until he has reported. We need, as emphatically as possible, to make the point that the biggest single contribution to safety in the North sea would be the establishment of a single, independent agency responsible for all safety matters. That was recommended by the Burgoyne committee in 1981, but despite the Secretary of State's public statements the Government have singularly failed to appoint that single agency.
  There is still a multiplicity of agencies responsible for safety in the North sea. The petroleum engineering division, a section of the Department of Energy, is responsible for health and safety aspects, and the pipelines inspectorate is responsible for the integrity of pipelines. It is another section of the Department of Energy, but the two operate separately and distinctly, with quite different areas of responsibility.
  There are approved certifying authorities—private companies are responsible for the integrity of platforms; the Department of Transport is responsible for fire-fighting and safety equipment and for supply boats; and the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for helicopters. Where is the unity in that system? There is none. The Secretary of State was at pains to point out in his numerous interviews immediately following the Piper Alpha disaster that all of the recommendtions of the Burgoyne committee had been implemented, but that is not the case. The multiplicity of agencies is severely hampering the establishment of a proper safety system in the North sea.

  741
  In case hon. Members think that this is an academic argument about bureaucracies, I remind them of what was said in the technical report prepared by Mr. James Petrie of the Department of Energy. I commend him for the content of and the speed with which his report was produced. It confirms that the scale of death and destruction on the Piper Alpha platform was the result of ruptures in high-pressure gas pipelines. Burning gas was released on to the platform like a blowtorch, destroying everythind in its path. The integrity of the pipeline is the responsibility of the pipelines inspectorate, while the integrity of the platform is the responsibility of the certifying authority. No one has assumed responsibility for the interface between the pipeline and the platform, or, for example, considered what would be the effect of a breach of a pipeline.
  That is not a novel thought. The Government are well aware of the problem, because the Burgoyne committee, way back in 1981, said in paragraph 5.64 of its report:
  "One of the 'grey' areas referred to above is the overlap in responsibility between the PED and the certifying authorities in respect of the pipeline riser and other pipeline equipment on the installation. Although forming an essential part of the pipeline system it clearly has a bearing on the integrity of the installation."
  That was in 1981, and we know what happened on the Piper Alpha in 1988. That tragedy was a direct consequence of the failure to deal with that grey area.
  The Department of Energy, through the Minister, has taken one positive step and announced a proces of consultation with the industry on fitting emergency shutdown valves. The failure to install such valves in Piper Alpha led to the scale of death and destruction. Will the Minister tell the House if and when he intends to introduce regulations to make the installation of emergency shutdown valves mandatory on all high-pressure gas and oil pipelines in the North sea? I recognise that there is not the same demand or need on low-pressure pipelines. Can he confirm that those regulations will be retrospective?
  I want to deal with the southern sector and the relevant content in the Bill. As the Minister said, the package is intended to be tax-neutral. The first stage of the package was presented in the Budget and confirmed in the Finance Act earlier this year. Although the intention is to be tax-neutral, the Minister made it clear that some encouragement would be given to new development in the North sea, especially the smaller gasfields that have been identified but, at present, are considered uneconomic to develop.
  That whole process was undertaken in the northern oilfields in 1983, and was vigorously opposed by the Opposition at the time. There are substantial differences between the two areas. The southern basin comprises mainly gasfields, which are cheaper to develop and have lower operating costs. We opposed the 1983 measures for good reasons that I believe still apply today. The first is the principle on which royalties are paid. Oil and gas in the United Kingdom are publicly owned, and have been since 1934. That public ownership is confirmed and emphasised by the payment of royalties.
  Secondly, the Government already have sufficient powers to restrict the payment of royalties in appropriate cases. The powers are contained in existing legislation and are much more sensitive and sophisticated than the
  742
  proposed measure. They enable the Government to take a field-by-field approach, which is much more satisfactory than the system installed in the northern section in 1983 and now proposed for the southern basin. The blunderbuss approach will mean that some operators will benefit, but many will lose. The two biggest losers are likely to be Britoil, in respect of its Amethyst field, and Conoco.
  There is another, more worrying aspect about the Government's general approach, and it was not mentioned by the Minister. British Gas is a monopoly purchaser in the southern basin—it is a monopoly. It can virtually dictate its terms and it negotiates field by field. At the time of the Budget debate, a number of analysts commented on that. The "FT North Sea Letter" of March 1988 stated:
  "On this front, both Capel and Woodmac raise the possibility of BG using the improved economics on some new projects to force the price it offers down further, thus taking the benefit itself. Woodmac calculates that a 1p/therm cut could now be made on Anglia without affecting its rate of return. Capel suggests BG could cut the Ravenspurn North price by 0·9p, Barque/Clipper by 0·5p and Welland by 0·1p to leave sellers with the same pre-Budget economics."
  Even with those advantages over the northern sector, development costs are still very high in the southern sector. No operator will become involved in development costs until he has a contract signed, sealed and delivered by British Gas. The whole pace of development in the southern sector is therefore dictated by British Gas and its willingness to negotiate. Of course, British Gas is now a private company. No company can afford—
  Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is Labour party policy not to remove royalties from the northern and southern sectors? In Committee on the Finance Bill, the Labour party argued for an even lower level of oil production. Are we to understand that Labour party policy is now to increase significantly the taxation burden on the oil industry?
  Mr. Doran: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. Had he taken the trouble to read the report of the Finance Bill Committee, he would know the Labour party's position. At the time of the Finance Bill debates, the Labour party accepted some of the points made by the oil industry. In the original draft of the Bill, the Government had proposed a petroleum relief of 100,000 barrels, the oil industry argued for 160,000 and the Labour party tabled an amendment for 150,000. The Government compromised at 125,000 barrels, which we regarded as unsatisfactory. At that time, we also accepted that it was appropriate to remove the royalties as part of the package. However, we stand on the principle that the royalties are an expression and a confirmation of ownership of oil in the ground, and that is still the legal position. There is no question of supporting any increase in the level of taxation. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  The whole pace of development in the southern sector is dictated by British Gas, which is now, of course, a private company. Will the Minister tell the House what steps, if any, he proposes to take, first of all, to ensure that any fiscal benefits which accrued to the operator because of the measure now before us will be diverted to development and not simply negotiated into the pockets of British Gas? Secondly, is the Minister content to leave the pace of the development of the southern basin to a single monopoly private company, and, if so, in what way would the public interest be protected?

  743
  The second part of the Bill relates to an agreement between ourselves and the Irish Government. It must be put on the record—especially this week, when all the other debates about our relations with the Irish Government have been so difficult and fraught that it is a pleasure to see that we can actually agree on something. Given the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, which today has been shown to be fairly ill-advised and misjudged, is the Minister satisfied that the agreement that was drawn up, presumably by those legal advisers to the Foreign Office, is safely signed, sealed and locked up in a safe of the Foreign Office, and now inviolable?
  5.50 pm
  Mr. John Hannam: The Bill is not highly controversial, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) stated, and it should not place us in an adversarial position. However, it gives us the opportunity to discuss a vital and successful oil and gas industry. As we drive our cars, switch on our gas heaters or even purchase various manufactured items, which are derived from oil-based feedstock and from fossil reserves and resources which must be drawn from those reservoirs many thousands of feet below the surface of the earth, we often forget the hazardous human involvement until there is an occurrence, such as the recent Piper Alpha disaster.
  If we study the fuel split in United Kingdom energy demand, we find that coal produces 13 per cent., electricity 14 per cent., gas 33 per cent. and oil 40 per cent. The domestic sector consumes only 30 per cent. of those resources, and the remainder is consumed by commerce, industry and transport. That is why it is vital to ensure that we get the pricing system right. If we look back at the late 1970s—during the period of the Labour Government—we find that the balance certainly was not right, because the domestic consumer of gas was being heavily subsidised by the industrial user. Recently British Gas has been called to account by Ofgas for leaning too heavily on the industrial consumer. 1 welcome the strong stand being taken by Ofgas and by James McKinnon, and I welcome, too, his determination to effect more control over this huge monopoly supplier.
  It is in the context of our need to encourage further exploration and development of our oil and gas reserves that we should consider the Bill, which removes the royalties system for post-1982 oil and gas fields in the southern basin of the North sea. That abolition follows from the Finance Act 1983, when royalties in the northern and central North sea were abolished for future fields. At that time we were facing a downturn in activity in the offshore sector, so, in addition to the abolition of royalties in the northern and central sectors, the oil allowance from petroleum revenue tax was doubled to 500,000 tonnes. That produced a welcome increase in exploration and development. It was an act of faith on the part of the Government, and the results confirmed what those of us involved in energy matters had been pressing on the Treasury for some time before—that a tax regime cannot just be installed and then left indefinitely in the hope that, despite all the other factors, it will produce the desired result. In fact, we must have constant adjustments—which are especially necessary during a period of world instability in oil prices—if the free-enterprise companies are to be given incentives to make the huge investments which are inherent in exploration and development.
  744
  We must ask ourselves whether this year's reduction in the oil allowance—the question posed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—front 250,000 tonnes per chargeable period to 125,000 tonnes will truly balance out with the abolition of royalties and that we will have what the Treasury said would be a neutrally fiscal solution.
  The original Budget proposal for an allowance of 100,000 tonnes for the southern basin would have had a deterrent effect. I believe that it was too low. The southern basin oil allowance would have been only one fifth of the level applied to new oil fields elsewhere and would have increased, rather than eliminated, the discrimination against the southern gas fields. I was, therefore, pleased when the Government upgraded the allowance to 125,000 tonnes, which I believe was the minimum figure.
  Important oil companies, such as Conoco, have evaluated their positions. They are worried, and convinced, that they will lose about half of their post-1982 and future oil field valuations, because of the loss of the tax allowance. The problem in the oil industry is that every company has a different parameter within which to evaluate such matters, because of the nature of oil fields. However, we shall see the result. I stress how important it is for my right hon. Friend to monitor carefully the effects of any such changes on the level of activity and, if necessary—on behalf of this important industrial sector—to press the Treasury if and when the occasion arises.
  We are fortunate to have these oil and gas reserves. As technology improves, the extent of the recoverable reserves will increase. We can now confidently expect to be self-sufficient in oil well into the 1990s—far beyond our expectations of a decade ago. In fact, since 1979 the estimates of initially recoverable reserves have risen by 13 per cent. The impact of that incredibly successful private enterprise industry on our economy is enormous—2·25 per cent. of our GDP in 1987, which is more than £4 billion in revenue from taxes and royalties, 85,000 jobs a year, and our United Kingdom offshore and onshore oil industry is winning a record 87 per cent. of the £2 billion orders for the North sea. Next year will signal the 25th year of this great endeavour in the North sea. We should congratulate all those who have made it possible.
  At the same time, however, we must recognise the dangers inherent in a tough industrial environment; and, with the tragic Piper Alpha incident still fresh in our minds, it is right that Parliament should take every possible step to ensure that proper protection is given to those working in those hazardous conditions.
  I would not want to prejudge the public inquiry, but I do not believe that the changes that the oil industry has been implementing in recent years have generally borne down on the safety standards on the rigs. It could not possibly be in the interests of a rig operator or an oil company to take short-cuts in safety. The huge losses of production that would result from an accident or a close-down would far outweigh the kind of cost reductions from such short-cuts. Safety and profitability inevitably go hand in hand, with safety always a step in front. That is the declared attitude in the oil industry, which I believe must generally be true. Nevertheless, the Piper Alpha disaster, on one of the oldest rigs in the North sea, requires the closest re-examination of training, safety procedures and equipment used on our rigs. The confidence of the work force and of the public must be fully restored by visible signs of the safest regime possible. I know that my right

  745
  hon. Friend accepts the Government's role in ensuring that the most rigorous statutory system of safety standards is effected.
  Some 12 years ago my wife came back from having her hair done—that oftens happens—and told me that her hairdresser's husband was a scientific journalist who was considering the effects on metal oil rigs of prolonged immersion in sea water. Because I had an interest in energy, she asked me if I would meet him to have a chat. He produced a lot of evidence that he had collated. He was worried about some of the forecasts made to him privately by scientists suggesting that some oil rigs would collapse much earlier than expected. At that time, I tabled some questions to the then Secretary of State for Energy and wrote to and met various oil company chairmen, board members and scientists. At the end of my inquiries I was reasonably satisfied that those worries had been appreciated by all involved.
  However, with the recent disasters on some oil rigs I thought back to that journalist's queries. I would like my right hon. Friend to reassure me that safety is still a priority and that we are unlikely to face the unexpected collapse of rigs because of the chemical effects of sea submersion upon the steel supports.
  I saw a report in The Scotsman recently of comments made by Mr. Allan Millar, the general secretary of the Association of British Professional Divers, who said that he and other divers had expected the Piper Alpha platform to be one of the first to go. I do not think that he was forecasting the collapse and disaster that occurred, but he and other divers knew that the structure was becoming outdated and antiquated. He said that it was held together by clamps which had been installed after cracks appeared on nodes—the part of a rig's leg where various members are joined together. It is obvious that the fears expressed to me a long time ago about the long-term strength of rigs still remain. Therefore, we must consider carefully the strength and viability of the older rigs and ensure that we have a system to effect the necessary checks to prevent disasters.
  We cannot eliminate the risks in North sea oil operations altogether. However, given the proper safety training, full use of new technology, a strict statutory regime, full equipment checks and a responsible approach by the operators, I am confident that the overall downward trend in accidents and injuries will continue. With the welcome agreement on compensation that has now been reached, the tragic Piper Alpha accident may result in a safer industry, which is vital to us all.
  As we are discussing the oil industry, it is worth mentioning the major issue of the decommissioning or dismantling of our installations and pipelines. Since 1967, 150 fixed platforms and 3,000 miles of major sub-sea pipeline have been installed in the North sea, and obviously their abandonment will present a major financial and physical problem in years to come.
  Crucial decisions on tax regulations, environmental protection and forms of dismantling are still to be made. One thing is clear, however: the cost will be enormous. The figure of £3 billion has been bandied about. That is higher than our nuclear decommissioning costs for the same period.
  746
  Some years ago in a similar debate in the House the idea was floated that some rigs could be towed offshore and turned into holiday hotels. I suspect that that idea is no longer even remotely tenable, but no doubt there will be other ingenious ideas for the re-use of the rigs. Perhaps The House Magazine might like to test Members' ingenuity with a competition for ideas. Their future use will be an important aspect of our deliberations. Because of the vast number of rigs and pipelines, and the hazards that they present, we must concentrate our minds on how best and to what extent we require the dismantling of rigs.
  I welcome this small but important measure and hope that the House will give it a fair wind this evening.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It has aleady been said that next year will be the 25th year of North sea activity. I was not in at the beginning, but I have had contacts with the industry for 17 of its 24 years. I have seen it go through price hikes and collapses, peaks of profitability and economic squeezes. I recall the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) visiting my office shortly after he lost the October 1974 election. He was somewhat startled to be told that he had left his concern for and interest in the North sea a few months too late and that, had he paid greater attention to what was going on a little earlier, he might not have lost the election.
  It is true that, at that time, the knowledge and detailed hold of the Government on the North sea was not as it should have been. That must be true, as they even resorted to using me as a source of information when answering parliamentary questions.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: That was unwise.
  Mr. Bruce: That might be so, but I knew more than the Government, although our sum knowledge might not have amounted to much.
  In the 1970s, I always supported the case for a flexible taxation regime that took proper account of price changes, the real rates of return and the variations from field to field. When the North sea was being developed, when the real rush was on, the OPEC cartel became strong and it was rightly argued that the super-normal profits that that cartel would create for those producing oil and gas should accrue to the nation rather than the oil and gas companies. It was right that the regime then established ensured that the super-normal profits were effectively creamed off for the Exchequer. Now that oil prices are relatively depressed and there is a shortage of orders for the fabrication yards in some parts of the north of Scotland, the converse is true.
  The pressure on the margins is acute, although companies have shown considerable ingenuity in cutting costs. It is appropriate, however, to ensure that tax regime changes take account of the significantly changing circumstances so that we do not have a severe front-end deterrent on oil companies, which would depress exploration and development activities. That would have been the case if the recent changes made by the Government, which I fully supported, had not been introduced. The Bill is the last element of those changes.
  My view is not incompatible with that expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran)—that there has been a period of over-production in the North sea. It is a matter of judgment—and only judgment—that oil sold today at £11 or £12 is, by definition, not available

  747
  to be sold or used at a later date when the price in real terms might be higher or lower. Of course, the resource cannot be used twice.
  I have always believed that oil and gas reserves are a strategic asset that belong to the nation and not to the oil companies. The extraction process should be geared to meet national and strategic requirements. To do that, we must ensure that there are optimum levels of development and exploration and that we know what is available. We need to ensure, as has been crudely suggested, that the plumbing is in first. If we are to impose a regulation on production, we must do it when the taps are installed. I support the Government's measures. We need to ensure that the maximum encouragement, exploration and development of associated and marginal fields takes place. I know that the Government do not agree, but if there is to be any restraint on production, it ought to be directed at larger fields, and only after all capital write-offs and uplifts have been secured by the operators so that they receive a full return on their investment.
  We should be encouraging research and development into reducing the costs of oil development and recovery. Those of us closely connected with the industry are impressed by the way in which oil companies and related contracting engineers have found ways of reducing costs by using their imagination and a variety of different techniques and developing technologies.
  In relating commercial factors to safety, one enters a sensitive area, but one must inevitably do so—the Minister was right to address it. Fourteen of my constituents were killed in the Piper Alpha disaster. The inquiry will take place in my constituency, which is also the location of Occidental's North sea operational headquarters—so the disaster had a definite and traumatic impact on people in my area. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South pointed out, looking through the casualty list, one finds just how wide is the distribution of the victims' addresses, showing that the industry is truly national and draws its work force from all over the United Kingdom. It should be fully understood that Piper Alpha was not just a local tragedy.
  There are one or two areas of concern that should properly be explored in the public inquiry. However, the Minister knows that I have made it clear that he has responsibilities aside from the inquiry, and that I shall continue pressing him directly on those other matters. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) alluded to the particular problem of Piper Alpha and other older platforms. It worries me that it was possible to install process modules under a platform's accommodation section, and how that came to happen has not yet been satisfactorily explained. We still need to know how that came about.
  Ministers know that I strongly support the case for an independent safety inspectorate. More power and resources will be needed to carry out inspections and to lay down standards. Those who work offshore, and their dependants, deserve to be satisfied and to have their concerns allayed. I feel sure that hon. Members representing Aberdeen constituencies and others will all have received many letters from those working offshore—many of them written anonymously. Normally, I discount anonymous letters but it is a matter of real concern that such people are unwilling to identify
  748
  themselves. The Minister knows we must reassure them that action is being taken on offshore inspection and control.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South mentioned helicopter safety. It is a separate matter, in the sense that the Minister, when replying, can legitimately argue that it is not his departmental responsibility. However, as the Minister responsible for oil and gas, and as someone who uses helicopters when visiting platforms, he surely accepts that they are an essential component—the lifeline and main transport vehicles for North sea personnel. Statistically, the record of North sea helicopter operations is good, but that is not to deny that there have been one or two major catastrophes or that many more alarming incidents have often been averted only by the pilots' skill and experience. There was one such incident only a couple of weeks ago.
  I accept that the CAA has made several changes over a number of years, but it takes too long to review accidents and to make recommendations, partly because the CAA lacks competence and authority in dealing with helicopter operations. I partly draw that as a parallel with the reason why we need a stronger and more independent offshore inspectorate. Not enough expertise and personnel are available to deal with inspections. Also, there are costs involved in safety, which inevitably creates tension.
  The hon. Member for Exeter rightly said that no operator willingly cuts corners, because the cost of a catastrophe such as Piper Alpha far outweighs any possible saving. That is true, but judgment must still be exercised, particularly at a time when profit margins are tight. Appropriate safety measures are a matter of judgment, and where costs are involved, they are another factor to be considered, according to how seriously one weighs the safety benefit that will accrue. That is why as the Minister will surely acknowledge, we need an offshore safety inspectorate able to make decisions free of commercial pressure.
  In circumstances where one is dealing with a marginal field, and where costs are crucial, corners may not be cut but measures that, on balance, should be taken might not be because they might tip the field over the balance of viability. That is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point that commercial factors cannot be wholly ignored.
  Given that the Government have been flexible and responsive in meeting the industry's commercial needs, it is reasonable to maintain independent pressure on the industry to ensure the highest safety standards.
  Mr. Hunter: On the hon. Gentleman's remark that companies might cut corners, is that speculation or does he know, from his far greater knowledge of North sea exploration than I have, that companies are doing so?
  Mr. Bruce: That is a fair question. Other hon. Members may share my experience that people working offshore believe it to be the case and could quote chapter and verse. The problem is that they are not willing to testify against the companies for which they work, and those who have left risk being accused of having an axe to grind. The answer is that specific cases are quoted, but I am not in a position to judge their validity. However, I am entitled to say that concern exists and that we should take account of it.
  It is that which convinces me that the inspectorate should be independent of the Department of Energy. Both

  749
  the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have on occasion rebutted robustly, and with some chagrin, the implication that their inspectors are in some way compromised. I am sure that they are sincere, but Ministers must understand that they also are part of the commercial calculation, or are perceived to be so. That is because, first, the Government's revenue is affected by costs, profitability, and the ultimate level of taxation; secondly, their balance of trade figures are affected by production levels. I do not quarrel with the Minister's sincerity in commenting on his own Department, but it is a matter not just of justice being seen to be done and of independence being assured, but of the inspectorate being operated in such a way that it cannot be questioned and is recognised as something apart—in which those having any commercial interest are not directly involved.
  The nuclear industry, where levels of concern about safety are much higher, has a shortfall of nuclear inspectors. If, despite pressure being applied, the nuclear industry has been left with a shortfall, is it not arguable that the oil industry has been left with one greater than it needs to be?
  The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Exeter also mentioned the toppling of Piper Alpha. The concern surrounding that disaster arises not least because not all the victims' bodies have been recovered. Here we enter the realm of personal distress, particularly since most bodies have been recovered. For many people, it is a psychological necessity that the body be returned and that there be a proper funeral so that, although tragedy has struck, at least it may be given a proper and final ending. For those who have not been given that opportunity, there is continuing, open-ended distress. The House will recognise that for those individuals the suggestion that the platform's remnants may be destroyed without the remaining bodies being recovered is unacceptable. The Minister said that he would comment on that, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
  I served on the Standing Committee considering the preliminary enabling Bill that dealt with the abandoning of offshore platforms. We had many ingenious and rather light-hearted discussions about the possible options, but a general feeling emerged that the toppling of such installations although relatively cheap—was not an acceptable final solution. First, we need an assurance that any action on Piper Alpha will not establish a precedent for any other field disposal.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: I am sorry to interrupt—I have been trying not to do so—but I can give a categorical assurance that that is so.
  Mr. Bruce: That is a helpful and welcome assurance.
  There is some concern that the offshore industry may be dealt with differently from other industries in which it is in close competition. It is widely reported that the Electricity Bill, which was presented to the House today and will be published tomorrow, will contain a pretty open-ended taxpayers' indemnity of the nuclear industry for the decommissioning of nuclear power stations, the cost of which is estimated at £3 billion. That is comparable with the estimate of the cost of disposal of North sea platforms.
  It would be unfair if oil and gas companies and their customers were forced to absorb their costs with no
  750
  assistance, while the privatised nuclear power operators' costs were contributed in full by the taxpayer. It would also be unfair to fishermen and other seafarers if the cheaper option of toppling platforms were pursued on the ground that the oil and gas industries were not being treated as generously as other industries and could not afford to absorb their costs. Debate on that will continue, but I wish to put down a marker now: many of us are not at all happy about the balance.
  Like others who have spoken, I am happy to support the Bill's relatively limited objectives. It is, as the Minister has said, part of a package, not all of which I agree with but which should ensure the continuation of a viable offshore oil and gas industry. I should, however, like to pick up two of the Minister's comments about onshore exploration.
  I agree that the industry has a good record on environmental restoration, and has been able to harmonise its activities effectively. Nevertheless, at a time of North sea over-production, it is surely inappropriate to press for developments in areas of dense population where there is pressure on amenities. Local authorities, particularly in the south of England, are understandably sensitive to that.
  We have yet to observe the final results, but we hope that the change will be fiscally neutral, which would help the continuing development of gasfields in the North sea. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) commented on the monopoly position of British Gas. I wonder whether the measure will have any effect on that company's wish to import gas from elsewhere. Does the Minister think that it will enable sufficient gas to be provided to meet our requirements for the foreseeable future? Personally, I doubt it.
  This is a modest but sensible step, which tidies up matters. I think that we all agree that the future of the North sea industry is much greater than its past, and that, in spite of its difficulties, the industry will employ many people, using ingenuity and technology, for a long time to come. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to ensure that the industry continues to thrive.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: As the past few years have shown, the theme of North sea oil and gas production and exploration has not set the scene for major confrontation between the two sides of the House; and I do not intend to inject a note of confrontation tonight. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for clarifying his party's concept of the ideal fiscal framework in which the industry should operate. I now understand that the party welcomes the withdrawal of royalties, but seeks a tax allowance of 150,000 tonnes per chargeable period.
  I readily confess that I have come to the debate unprepared, because I thought that we had already had it. Those of us who sat through the 100 or so hours of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill were under the impression that all this was behind us, and I find myself enveloped by a sense of political déjà vu. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who has just left the Chamber for an important engagement, would share both my hope that the debate will be short and my belief that it has already been well covered in Committee.

  751
  I think that the industry will say of the Bill, "About time too." As long ago as 1983, when royalties were removed from the northern and central fields, the industry said that the same should apply to the southern fields. The withdrawal of royalties from the northern and central fields was accompanied, under the Finance Act 1983, by a doubling of the oil allowance from 250,000 tonnes per chargeable period to 500,000. This Bill reduces the allowance. The Government accepted in 1983 that oil revenue could and should be reduced to further and promote exploration and investment. In my view, the financial and economic climate of 1983 was rather different from that of 1988, although Opposition Members may argue differently: the economy was less robust than it is now. But the Government were prepared to decrease North sea oil revenue, whereas in these healthier days they are making other demands.
  That fount of all wisdom, Conservative central office, has reminded Conservative Members of the political perception for which my right hon. Friend the Minister is so renowned, and has drawn our attention to his departmental press release of 15 March, which stated:
  "It had become clear to the Government, in the light of our discussions with the industry, that the Southern Basin fiscal regime was becoming insensitive to the economic realities of more recent fields and could be an obstacle to the development of worthwhile projects. The incidence of royalty, a non-profit-related levy, was the most serious impediment."
  I entirely accept that basic proposition.
  We should bear in mind the principle, or maxim, that what is good for the United Kingdom offshore industry is good for the United Kingdom, and what is best for that industry is best for the United Kingdom. The objective of our policies must be to prolong the self-sufficiency of the North sea into the late 1990s—and, we hope, beyond—and to increase the estimates of resources that are economically recoverable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) drew attention to some of the basic statistics of the North sea industry: that oil contributes 2·25 per cent. to our gross domestic product and provides the Government with revenue in excess of £4 billion—very approximately the equivalent of 4p on the standard rate of income tax. The number of people who are directly employed in the industry was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, as well as, if I remember correctly, by the hon. Member for Gordon—about 85,000. The oil industry has enormous repercussions on employment throughout the country and provides tremendous spin-offs. A recent manpower studies paper suggested that well over 500,000 jobs depend on the North sea oil and gas industry.
  Last year, 132 offshore explorations and appraisals were started, besides 38 onshore appraisals. About eight wells are producing oil on shore. The second largest of those wells is partly in my constituency. Humbley Grove oil production straddles the parliamentary constituencies of Basingstoke, Winchester and Hampshire, East. We must not under-estimate the importance of the industry. We need to create the fiscal climate within which it will flourish.
  There is one matter about which I begin to quarrel with the Government. The purpose behind the package, part of which was introduced in the Finance Act and part of which we have here, is to establish fiscal neutrality. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is on record as saying:
  752
  "we wanted to set the petroleum revenue tax oil allowance at a level that would leave the overall tax take unchanged over the life of the field affected".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 June 1988; c. 512.]
  Questions need to be asked about fiscal neutrality. First, has it been achieved? Secondly, is it necessary to achieve it? Thirdly—this is my own proposition—would it not be far better not to achieve it? As to whether fiscal neutrality is maintained by the Finance Act and this Bill, the industry is adamant that it is not. It persists in saying that the oil allowance should be 160,000 tonnes per chargeable unit. If that is not the allowance, operations that are marginally viable will no longer be viable. The industry says that the Treasury and the Department of Energy have got it wrong—that it should be 160,000 tonnes, not 125,000 tonnes.
  As to whether fiscal neutrality has been achieved, there may well be a strong argument that it has not been. The next question is whether it is necessary to achieve fiscal neutrality. I am a staunch supporter of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I applaud all that he has achieved. We are told that last year there was a surplus of revenue over expenditure of £3·6 billion and that this year there is likely to be a surplus of revenue over expenditure of between £10 billion and £12 billion. If there is such a surplus of revenue over expenditure, and if North sea oil and gas are so important to us—as they are—we do not need to maintain fiscal neutrality. We can look for a genuine lowering of the tax burden on that vital part of our national economy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) and other hon. Members have acknowledged that the debate has provided an opportunity for wide discussion of North sea matters. I do not propose to repeat what has already been well expressed. Of course the priority is safety. We are totally united about that, and I echo the sentiments that have already been expressed. No hon. Member could take part in the debate without recalling the Piper Alpha incident and wishing to be identified with the sympathy that has been offered to those who suffered injury and to those families who suffered bereavement. I identify myself with those expressions of sympathy.
  I hope that there will be a clear and unequivocal assurance that everything possible will be done in what remains a hazardous enterprise to ensure the maximum level of safety. The hon. Member for Gordon referred to the fact that North sea exploration began 25 years ago. We must acknowledge that achievement. It was pioneering work of the first order. Technological advances of that kind deserve the highest praise. They have been of the utmost benefit to our economy. A debate of this nature is an appropriate occasion to recall those achievements.
  The hon. Member for Gordon and I were involved in the 1987 Standing Committee proceedings on the Petroleum Bill. On that occasion, we had to consider the abandonment of oilfields, which is becoming an even greater reality; the days of abandonment are drawing nearer. There was some objective, non-political controversy in the Standing Committee proceedings. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to take this opportunity to assure us again that he is convinced that the Government have sufficient powers to control the abandonment of platforms and pipelines.
  The abolition of royalties is to be welcomed. It will enable marginal fields to remain economically viable. It is

  753
  absolutely right that tax should be paid on profits rather than on production. I confess to having profound doubts about whether fiscal neutrality has been achieved. Heretic though it may make me, I happen to believe that we need not even seek fiscal neutrality.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I have privately as well as publicly congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench, but I want to take this first opportunity in the House to repeat my warm congratulations to him, especially on his debut, and to wish him much success in the future as an Opposition spokesperson and, I hope, as the years go by, as a Minister.
  I have been involved, mainly as a Front-Bench representative, with two of the three major disasters of recent times: first, the Herald of Free Enterprise at Zeebrugge; secondly, the King's Cross fire disaster; and, thirdly, when I was involved as a constituency MP, the Piper Alpha disaster. In a strange kind of way—I take no comfort from this—we marvel that in all three major accidents more lives were not lost. The Herald of Free Enterprise keeled over 100 yd from shore. Everybody on board that ship could have been lost. Many more people could have been lost in the King's Cross disaster. Those who saw the dramatic photographs in the technical report that was published by the Department or who saw, admittedly from afar, the battered remains of the Piper Alpha platform cannot understand how anybody survived. It is a miracle that more people did not die, but we cannot take any comfort from that.
  With all three incidents, there is a strong feeling that commerce and competition came before safety. With the Herald of Free Enterprise, there is no doubt that the drive of competition and to maximise profit led to quicker turn-rounds and sloppiness with regard to safety.
  As for King's Cross, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind—I think that the Fennell report bears it out—that those who were in charge of London Underground were far more concerned with cash and cutting public subsidy than with safety. Again, sloppiness crept in. The day after the fire, I saw underneath the escalator. I was told that, on that one wooden escalator, there had already been 12 fires which had gone out without causing major loss of life. I incline towards the view that there is a correlation in the North sea between price stability and attention to safety. Everybody denies that. In discussions with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association—other hon. Members have had similar discussions—and when we visited the Tartan Alpha platform, everybody assured us that safety was always paramount. If it were not true in the past, Piper Alpha has concentrated everybody's mind. I have no doubt that the issue has been considered afresh.
  All of us who have been involved have been flooded with letters and inundated by people coming to see us to tell us about breaches of safety legislation and practice. They tell us that they felt that they were being driven to get on with their job because nobody wanted the platform to shut down. It is difficult to know how to judge hearsay evidence. I normally tell people who come to see me and those who give me their names and addresses to make their
  754
  evidence public. I tell them to make it available to the Lord Cullen inquiry. Everybody owes it to the living and to the dead to ensure that no aspect of safety is overlooked.
  I understand that Lord Cullen cannot look into every allegation and every possible aspect of safety in the North sea, nor would we want him to do so. We want a thorough examination, but we want fairly speedy conclusions. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what will happen at the end of the inquiry. What immunities have been given to the participants in the inquiry? To get the evidence at the Zeebrugge inquiry, a blanket immunity from prosecution was given to anybody who took part. Some qualified immunities have been given in regard to the Piper Alpha inquiry. I am not seeking vengeance any more than anyone else, but if clear knowledge of breaches of safety legislation emerges, the people concerned ought to be prosecuted further. I hope that, whatever qualified immunities might have been given, there is no blanket immunity from prosecution.
  None of us wants to prejudge the outcome of the Cullen inquiry. I have already said publicly, and repeated it in the House, that I believe that Lord Cullen has begun his inquiry in a way which leads me to have confidence that we shall get a fair and reasonable result.
  There is controversy about the independence of the safety inspectors. I have some doubt whether an independent safety commission would be as beneficial as is sometimes suggested. There is an incestuous relationship between the industry and the Department. It is neither here nor there whether that relationship is real or apparent; there is a close relationship, and people feel that it has got a bit too cosy and that perhaps the commission should be one step removed.
  I know that some hon. Members feel very strongly about this issue, but my hesitation on the subject arises out of the fact that the commission cannot be entirely independent of the Government. Moreover, I do not believe that the Government's safety record is very good. I would not dare to cast aspersions on the Secretary of State or the Minister of State. I have already said that they have conducted themselves well since the Piper Alpha inquiry started, but some Ministers have departed and some may yet come in whose judgment I would not necessarily trust. We must approach the subject of independence carefully and seek an assurance, yet again, that the safety inspectors have the greatest possible independence.
  I do not know why the oil industry is so hesitant. When the Opposition have demanded more trade union involvement in safety and organisation on the rigs, some people have thought that we are pursuing our natural political and industrial inclination to favour the trade unions. I am a Member sponsored by the Amalgamated Engineering Union. That union recruits members from among those working in the North sea, so people would expect me to say that we want strong trade union organisation, but it is not simply a matter of having trade union organisation because we have a vested interest in it.
  I believe fervently that active trade unionists in any industry are concerned for members and colleagues, irrespective of whether their workmates are members of a trade union. I cannot understand why the oil industry has resisted proper trade union membership. The vast majority of the majors who operate in the North sea have onshore, downstream activities where for many years they have happily accommodated union safety representatives and

  755
  even closed shops. Why can they not allow the same in the North sea? They say that they are perfectly happy to allow organisation. It cannot be contradicted, however, that when a trade union organiser applies to go to a platform his application is welcomed but it just happens that a place on a helicopter cannot be found for another six months.
  It might be asked why organisers do not organise the lads when they come on shore. Having been offshore for a fortnight. men want to get home to their wives and families; they do not want to hang about at trade union meetings. It is entirely understandable that they want to get the first aeroplane south—because this is not a wholly Aberdeen-based industry.
  When there has been some organisation, because half a dozen good trade unionists have got together, it is well documented that when they come up for their next tour of duty they are put on different ships or different platforms. The cohesion which has begun to be built up is therefore broken. Why is the oil industry not prepared to allow proper trade union organisation? I believe that such organisation is important.
  I do not know how many other hon. Members wish to speak, but I apologise to the Minister as I may not be able to be present to hear his reply. It is not entirely satisfactory that he should deal with the debris of the platform in his winding-up speech because we do not know what he will say. That is a minor carp. I know that the Minister of State is hoping that I shall hurry up and finish.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: I am keen to help the hon. Gentleman. However, I wanted first to be 100 per cent. sure that I should in no sense mislead the House. I have now discovered that I should not be misleading the House, so I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what the position is.
  It was only last night that a proposition was put in my box relating to the abandonment of Piper Alpha, which I approved. It is obviously a matter of great importance. The proposition then went to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. This morning, my right hon. Friend also approved that proposition. For the sake of accuracy, it may be helpful for me to spell out precisely what the proposition is.
  Under section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1987, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has approved the abandonment programme for Piper Alpha, submitted by Occidental and its co-venturers. This proposes the use of explosive charges to topple the remains of the installation and to put them on to the sea bed, away from the existing pile of debris, leaving at least 75m of clear water above all remains.
  The approval is not final. The proposed conditions to be attached to my right hon. Friend's approval include requirements for surveys of the toppled remains and surrounding sea bed to establish the position of debris and to monitor for leakage of oil and gas. They also require sediment samples to be obtained and examined for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls and radioactivity. The conditions provide for repetition of these surveys and of sediment sampling at such times as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may subsequently direct. They also provide for debris to be moved, or removed, as my right hon. Friend may direct; for any leakage of oil or gas to be sealed to his satisfaction; and for steps to be taken to deal with any unacceptable levels of pollution.
  756
  All those proposals are subject to approval, and the operating company will have the opportunity to raise objections under the statute. The proposals have not yet been conveyed to anyone other than hon. Members in the House today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, myself and one or two officials. I hope that that has been helpful.
  Mr. Hughes: The Minister has been very helpful. If I made any charge of discourtesy in my speech, I acquit him of it.
  There were two points with which the Minister did not deal. The first point concerns the bodies. I come from a seafaring family of generations back and I know from experience—although none of my family has been lost at sea—how seafaring families find it difficult to come to terms with death if no body is found. After the Zeebrugge and the Piper Alpha disasters, the relatives of those who died found it difficult to come to terms with the deaths. If the Piper Alpha platform is toppled, perhaps there will be a further search for bodies around the platform.
  The other matter about which I am anxious is that the evidence that may be available about corrosion will be difficult to obtain. I said earlier that I did not expect Lord Cullen to go into every aspect of safety in the North sea, but I believe that corrosion is extremely important in relation to safety. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) mentioned corrosion and safety. As the Minister has made a final decision about the platform, I hope that he will assure us that there will be ample opportunity to study corrosion.
  I believe that the oil industry is under an obligation to carry out a proper restitution of the immediate area of its operations in the North sea after abandonment. It should not have been allowed to say that it was starting a great programme, providing wealth for the nation and many jobs and that it would look after the area and then later say that it is too poor to make proper restitution.
  I do not share the view that is held by some of my hon. Friends that these measures should be fiscally neutral. The oil industry generally has done pretty well out of the North sea and it should have provided more for the Government. The only comfort I take is that, although the oil industry did not produce as much for the Government as I should have liked, the Government have totally squandered the North sea revenues that they received. When North sea oil drilling began, the Opposition argued strongly that there should be a specific investment fund and that revenue should go to develop not only Aberdeen—although, of course, it needed development—but the infrastructure for the manufacturing capacity of this country. That was resisted because the Treasury dislikes hypothetical revenues, and that allowed the Government to waste the assets of the North sea. I hope that they will do better with those assets in future. I look forward to seeing the benefits from the North sea accruing to the people of this country—not only to the oil companies and those who have shares in the business.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall try to be as brief as possible.
  The Bill has been warmly welcomed by Labour and Conservative Members and by the oil industry. The new fiscal regime will help to remove obstacles to the development of worthwhile and economically viable

  757
  projects. The Government have recognised that royalty—a non-profit-related levy—was the most serious impediment to development. The abolition of royalty, coupled with tax changes, will give a new incentive for new gas developments and developments onshore. By removing the tax on wells and substituting a tax on profits, we now have a fairer system, which will encourage marginal projects to come forward and which should give a boost to the smaller and more independent oil companies. Despite a good record of new fields being developed and new wells being drilled, we should seek to exact the maximum return from this most valuable national asset.
  I shall now deal with the question of undrilled acreage. The problem of the banking of acreage stems from the first four rounds of licensing. There is still a major incentive to the oil companies to develop that acreage. The licences end in the period 2010–18 and the Bill does not provide for the extension of those licences. The normal lifespan is 20 years, so the licensees may run out of time to complete extraction during the period of tenure of the licence. They are urged to come forward so that they do not fall foul of the time limit.
  The Government believe that there are now good grounds for seeking to secure new impetus in the exploration of undrilled acreage. One obvious point is that the undrilled portion is an important potential addition to the United Kingdom's oil and gas reserves. Recent developments in recovery technology have improved the viability of smaller fields. The Department of Energy is encouraging licensees of undrilled plots to explore them more thoroughly. The Department has made it clear that the oil companies are expected to give details of plans to do just that.
  I am delighted that the Minister made the clear point in a recent announcement that the new applications for the 11th round will be considered in the light of the existing licensees' plans on undrilled acreage. That is most welcome, and I urge my right hon. Friend to press that point whenever possible. Any measure that helps to avoid the banking of acreage is to be welcomed.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the report from stockbrokers Gilbert Eliott who looked at the problem and made certain suggestions. Instead of the full United Kingdom continental shelf coming forward in a series of licensing rounds, the report proposed that the shelf should be divided into four regions and that all the available acreage should be offered once a year, by quarters in rotation. If any block remained undrilled for 10 years, the Department could demand its relinquishment.
  The report claims that the scheme will have several advantages. First, there will be a constant work load for the industry and the Department of Energy, which is surely to be welcomed; secondly, sitting on undrilled acreage will cease; thirdly, regional geological assessments would become possible; fourthly, long-term exploration planning would be easier; fifthly—most important—there would be constant opportunity for new entrants.
  Many new entrants are our own United Kingdom independent producers. They are an important group and their vital contributions have recently been acknowledged by the Minister. However, this year the number of United Kingdom independents has fallen by about a quarter. In
  758
  February we had 40 companies; in August we had only 31. Such companies are facing several problems at present, such as the fact that their cash flows are not good and the oil price is depressed. The OPEC decision of the last few days may be of some encouragement to them.
  Many United Kingdom independents are involved in onshore exploration. It is to be welcomed that the Bill gives a great step forward by having a royalties exemption clause for onshore exploration. However, problems still face those who wish to develop on shore: for example, the reserve sizes are questionable, the planning process is lengthy and there is no petroleum tax relief. I recently heard further evidence to the effect that the cost of drilling a well on shore to a depth of 6,000 ft. would cost about £750,000, whereas an offshore 15,000-ft. well would cost £2·7 million. However, when tax is taken into consideration, the net cost of the onshore well would be £480,000 compared with only £430,000 for the offshore well.
  Managements involved in decision-making face competing demands on their costs. Often, the choice is made in favour of an offshore field, probably abroad, instead of encouraging the development of our United Kingdom potential to its full.
  Finally, I turn to the southern basin—an area of the North sea that is important to my constituency and significant to the economy of East Anglia. The development of additional gas reserves will help preserve the production and infrastructure that is in place, and will keep jobs in my region. With electricity privatisation, there are serious possibilities of gas coming on shore for gas turbine stations. That would be a welcome addition to electricity generation in the area.
  One cannot stress enough the importance of the fiscal changes in the Bill and their importance to investment decisions in the oil industry. However, there appears to be some difference in interpretation between the Government and the oil companies on the importance of internal rates of return on a field at the expense of concerns about the present value and pattern of cash flow.
  I believe that when these matters were dealt with in Committee on the Finance Bill, the oil industry raised the question of the level of tonnes per chargeable period, which the Bill brings down from 250,000 to 125,000. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will monitor that regularly to ensure that it does not militate against development and that the necessary new fields come forward as we hope?
  We have heard from the Minister this evening that we have a buoyant oil and gas industry. All who work in the industry deserve our greatest admiration and gratitude. Theirs is a dangerous occupation and since the Piper Alpha disaster, which has been referred to by many hon. Members, many families must be under considerable mental and emotional pressure as they await the return of their loved ones from tours of duty on the rigs. This House and those families are grateful for the Minister's categorical assurance that the highest safety standards are operated at present, and will be in the future.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Doran: This has been an extremely useful debate, although at some distance removed from the precise purpose of the Bill. However, it has highlighted some of the major problems and issues that are faced in the offshore oil and gas industries.
  The points made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who is not in his place at the moment, seemed to be a plea on behalf of the oil industry, not just for the fiscal neutrality of the Bill, but for a lowering of tax rates. I certainly do not agree with that, and I am sure that none of my hon. Friends would agree either, unless the lowering of tax rates were related specifically to development proposals.
  I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) about the banking of acreage and our need to encourage development. Some of his points bear further scrutiny.
  The major issue that we must deal with is that of safety. Several points have been put to the Minister, who has already responded favourably to one of them. I was pleased to hear his statement on the importance of the abandonment of the Piper Alpha platform. However, I should like him to be specific on one point. When I recently met the Secretary of State for Energy—if my memory serves me correctly I should also have met the Minister of State, but he was called away to Downing street for something which, unfortunately, appears not to have been noteworthy or important—the right hon. Gentleman was at pains to point out that what was intended at this stage was an interim measure in the interests of safety because there was serious concern that the remains of the Piper Alpha platform could topple in the bad winter weather. Despite the fact that supports are being manufactured for the remains of the platform, it is not likely that the platform will survive the winter. Therefore, I am a wee bit unsure about what the Minister said earlier in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I am not sure whether the Minister is now talking about an interim measure, or a more permanent arrangement. I should like him to clarify that if he can.
  The question of safety in the North sea has been canvassed because it is the main issue at the moment and concerns us all. I have already said that the Government should not sit on their hands and wait until the report from Lord Cullen's inquiry is available before dealing with the obvious points that require action now. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that.
  I hope that the Minister will take on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North about trade union rights. Again, at recent meetings with the Secretary of State it was made clear that the publication of the consultation document leading to regulations for safety committees and safety representatives in the North sea was likely. We shall continue to press our points on trade union representation. It is not just a question of establishing safety committees, because such committees require back-up. Onshore there is a well-established, well-tried system, involving trade unions on a statutory basis. Those committees have been shown to be enormously successful in improving the onshore safety record.
  We want the same thing to happen offshore. We want the members of those safety committees and the safety
  760
  representatives to have access to the independent information and advice that is provided by the trade unions' research staff. We want a genuine contribution to safety in the North sea through the establishment of such committees and safety representatives, not a muted or toothless talking shop.
  The matter of the inquiry is coupled with the points made about the Piper Alpha platform. Will the Minister repeat the assurance given to me in a private discussion that every effort will be made to recover whatever evidence remains at the bottom of the sea? I understand the difficulty and the risk involved in recovering the various modules that still lie on the sea bed under this dangerous platform. I hope the Minister understands that there is still much uncertainty, for example, about where the original explosion occurred and how it occurred. Can he give us an assurance that no effort will be spared to recover vital evidence?
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Peter Morrison: I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) that this has been a constructive debate. It has also given the House the opportunity to range more widely than the precise provisions in the Bill, and that is helpful, not least because for the last 18 months we have not had an opportunity to debate the oil and gas industries. Very important issues have been raised, some of which dealt with the tragedy in July on Piper Alpha. The debate has not been very political, and perhaps the industry is successful because politics and politicians do not interfere in it to any great extent.
  I shall attempt quickly to answer the questions raised in the debate. The hon. Members for Aberdeen, South, for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked whether the work of the safety directorate would continue during Lord Cullen's public inquiry. I can give a categorical assurance that that is correct. I thought that I said earlier that that will be the case. I was also asked about the emergency shut-down valves. Proposals about those have been received by my Department from the industry, and in the light of those we are urgently considering what new regulations would be appropriate.
  The point has been made to me in my office and elsewhere that there should be a separate safety directorate. The hon. Member for Gordon said that I rebutted that with chagrin and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was prone to doing the same. I do not think that I did it like that; but, of course, I accept that that is how my reaction may have been judged. I thought that I said, in as reasonable a way as possible, that Lord Cullen would look at that matter and that we would look carefully at the recommendations in Lord Cullen's report. If my reaction came across as chagrin, it was not meant as such.
  As the Opposition know, we have followed the majority decision of the Burgoyne committee which was made at the beginning of this decade. That was assumed to be a satisfactory way of proceeding, and until that fateful evening in July not one parliamentary question had been put to me about the safety regime as such. Obviously hon. Members and outside bodies feel strongly about this matter, and it will be looked at carefully in the public inquiry.

  761
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South asked specifically about the abandonment of the Piper Alpha platform. In an intervention during his speech I gave him an answer to that question. I repeat that the decision made overnight by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I was subject to certain conditions.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South asked whether debris would be moved or removed. One of the conditions of the abandonment proposals is that my right hon. Friend can provide for debris to be moved, or removed, as he may direct. It was not until I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech that I made public at all, even to Occidental, the situation as it stands.
  Mr. Doran: The other main point I made about platform abandonment was whether the decision announced today by the Minister was a permanent or interim decision.
  Mr. Morrison: It is subject to the possibility of written representations by Occidental. In my office the hon. Gentleman and I discussed toppling the platform outwards. Such a controlled toppling would ensure that the remaining debris would be not be crumpled, or crumpled further, as it might be if the platform were toppled by natural forces. I hope that I have made the position clear, as I understand it.
  I was asked about pipelines and whether the certifying authorities were properly co-ordinated. I can give an assurance that that is the case. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has any specific matter to raise with me, perhaps he could do so after the debate and I shall quite happily look at it.
  762
  My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) spoke about discussions that he and his wife had had with friends about the corrosion of platforms. I assure him that there is a continuing requirement for platforms to be regularly examined for corrosion. They will continue to be structurally examined at regular intervals by the certifying authorities so that they come up to the standards required by regulations before certificates of fitness can be issued. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by that.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South asked about the British Gas monopoly. Perhaps that matter concerns many hon. Members. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission produced a report a little earlier this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to look at the proposal in the MMC report that up to 90 per cent. of a particular field should be sold to British Gas and that the other 10 per cent. should be sold to another client. As the hon. Gentleman realises, more customers are coming forward. One can quote, for example, the sale of gas from the Miller field to the North of Scotland Hydro Electricity Board. To a certain extent, that is starting to break what might have been a monopoly.
  I do not wish to detain the House any further because we have other important matters to discuss. The Bill is short and remarkable for being uncontroversial. It is the first Bill to be presented in this Session and it is important because it has a key part to play in the economy and in industry. I am most heartened that there is cross-party agreement on the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fallon.
  Committee tomorrow.

  Procedure
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  [Relevant Procedure Committee documents: Second Report (HC 49 of Session 1984–85) on Public Bill Procedure; Second Report (HC 324 of Session 1985–86) on Allocation of Time to Government Bills in Standing Committee; First Report (HC 157 of Session 1986–87) on A Parliamentary Calendar; Second Report (HC 350 of Session 1986–87) on Use of Time on the Floor of the House; Third Report (HC 254 of Session 1986–87) on Early Day Motions; Fourth Report (HC 373 of Session 1986–87) on the Work of the Committee; and First Report (HC 705 of Session 1987–88) on the Implications for Procedure of the Experiment in Televising the Proceedings of the House.]
  7.18 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): One of the many duties of the Leader of the House is to try to ensure that its procedures are kept under regular review and that the House has opportunities from time to time to express its opinions on procedural matters. Tonight's debate on a motion for the Adjournment provides such an opportunity and will enable hon. Members to raise any aspect of procedure in which they have an interest.
  The main matters before us tonight are the Procedure Committee's reports, listed on the Order Paper. I shall make some comments on those reports later in my speech, but first I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the fellow members of his Committee for their conscientious and valuable work. I understand that my hon. Friend hopes to catch your eye later tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
  In addition to these reports, however, there are several other current procedural matters which are of particular concern to a number of hon. Members. The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has recently produced a report of fundamental importance, for which I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and to the other members of his Committee. As hon. Members will appreciate, the report will require detailed and extensive consultation. This is bound to take some time, and I see no prospect of legislation being introduced this Session, but I have said that, unusually, I will try to arrange a debate before the Government have responded to the Committee's recommendation in the normal way so that the views of the House can be expressed.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I am sure that the Leader of the House will realise that this is not only an excellent report but the culmination of a great deal of concern in the House about this matter. He is saying that there will be a chance for an early debate, but little chance of changing Standing Orders in this Session. Does that mean that private Bills being introduced in 12 months' time will still go on under the old procedure? Many hon. Members feel that that would be unsatisfactory.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are moves afoot from various hon. Members to block private business so as to precipitate a decision. I for one would not be too enthusiastic at having to carry out
  764
  that exercise for a whole 12 months. Will the Leader of the House at least give thought to the idea that, by the time Bills are introduced in 12 months, we should have the new procedures in operation?
  Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I go along with the hon. Member's suggestion that it is acceptable to deal with matters before the House not on the merits of the issues but having regard to other considerations which are nothing to do with the promoters of the Bill or the merits of the Bill. I know that he wants to be helpful, and I wish to be helpful as well. This is an important report, and we should not delay it unnecessarily. The right thing to do is to have a debate as soon as we can to hear the views. I said, not that Standing Orders could not be altered if that was the will of the House, but that the legislation that will be necessary to implement some of these proposals could not be introduced this Session. The best thing is to proceed with a debate on the issue as soon as we can, to hear the views and see whether there is a measure of agreement as to how we should proceed and in what direction.
  Another issue which came significantly and sadly to the fore in the last Session of Parliament was the behaviour of hon. Members in the Chamber. We all expect that debates will sometimes be passionate and that feelings will run high, but we also expect Members to bow to your authority, Mr. Speaker, when you rule that things have gone far enough. Last Session, hon. Members were suspended from the service of the House nine times, compared with just 17 previous such occasions in more than 40 years since the war. This fact perhaps shows that the penalty of a five-day suspension is no longer enough when calculated against the media publicity that such suspensions entail. Hon. Members may wish to air their views on this matter this evening. I am sure that the Procedure Committee, which is currently considering the matter, will find them helpful.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there not another side to this coin, which is that the most senior Ministers of the House of Commons should tell the truth to the House of Commons?
  Mr. Wakeham: I refute that. I do not believe that it is any justification for disobeying Mr. Speaker, on any basis. I am surprised that the hon. Member, with his experience, believes that that justifies him disobeying Mr. Speaker.
  A further matter affecting the procedures of the House which will be in hon. Members' minds is the effect which television has on our deliberations. The Committee has just published its first report of the current Parliament on this matter. I have noted the Committee's recommendations that there should be no change to procedures while the experiment is in operation, and I concur with this. 'We have voted for an experimental period of televising. Let us have the experimental period first before we decide on any implications for our procedure.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the debate on 9 February, when the motion before the House was:
  "That this House approves in principle the holding of an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television; and believes that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the implementation of such an experiment".
  I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that the television cameras have already been in this

  765
  Chamber during the proceedings of this place. I understand that it would be surprising if the State Opening were deemed not to be a proceeding for the purpose of privilege. After all, both Houses are at that time properly constituted. In those circumstances, how can the Committee study
  "the implementation of such an experiment"
  when the implementation has already taken place?
  Mr. Wakeham: I assure my hon. Friend that the Committee, of which I am the Chairman, has not yet finished its deliberations or started to make its report. That report has to come before the House, and it has to be approved by the House before any experiment, under the terms of the resolution that my hon. Friend quoted, can be carried out by the House. I gave no permission for any television cameras to proceed, so it is not a matter for me whether any television cameras broadcast at any time.
  My hon. Friend may be referring to the fact that, at the time of the State Opening of Parliament, there were some television cameras in the Chamber which were used not for the broadcasting of the State Opening but for an experiment in the lighting arrangements, which was conducted by the Committee the day before, and which had been the subject of some discussion in the House. As far as I know, those cameras were not connected to the gubbins that are necessary before they can produce the signals that can go out across the ether to the great wide world. As I understand it, they were in operation the day before and the only signal that was received was on six monitors that were in the Aye Lobby at the time.
  Where did I get to?
  Sir Peter Emery: Do not start all over again.
  Mr. Wakeham: I think that I was saying, to put it into a sentence, that we should deal with the experiment of television before we deal with the procedures of the House. The tail must not be allowed to wag the dog.
  Each hon. Member will have his own particular interests and priorities in procedural matters. If they succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, I have little doubt, for example, that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will have something to say on the times and lengths of our sittings, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) may remind us of the importance of arrangements for scrutinising EC documents, and the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Faulds) may be able to advise us how best to prepare ourselves for television. Other subjects, which I have not touched upon, could be raised.
  Mr. Dalyell: Did the Leader of the House notice this afternoon the difficulty into which Mr. Speaker once again got as a result of this abomination of the open question? Is he going to give any views on the shortcomings of the open question? Have the Government considered whether this is a satisfactory arrangement? When we first came here, Prime Minister's questions were extremely strict and Macmillan and Home, and Wilson in his better days, would transfer any question that was not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I submitted evidence to the Committee on this subject, and I wonder whether the Government have any reflections on it.
  Mr. Wakeham: The Government are perfectly willing to agree with the wishes of the House in this matter. The Government do not have a strong view on how those matters should be dealt with. Ministers are here to answer questions and they will do their best to do so. However, the present arrangements are probably the most generally acceptable to the House. We may be a little wiser at the end of the debate, and the Procedure Committee may return to the issue.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wakeham: This will be the last time that I give way. This debate is designed to enable people to express their views, and hon. Members can make their own speeches.
  Mr. Thompson: I was interested in the point that has just been made about the televising of Parliament and the State Opening. I watched the television programme on the State Opening, so I intervene merely for information. I do not know which cameras were used, but there was a view of the Chamber including all the Benches. I do not know how that was obtained and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point.
  Mr. Wakeham: I am happy to consider that point, but it has nothing to do with my Committee. We did not do anything that we should not have done. Front-Bench Opposition Members who are distinguished members of that Committee can confirm that we are innocent.
  I wish briefly to outline some general principles and to comment particularly on two of the principal matters dealt with in the Procedure Committee's reports which are before us tonight.
  It seems to me that there are certain general questions which hon. Members on both sides of the House need to ask themselves when considering the principle and practicality of these or any other changes to our present procedures. First, will they in practice mean a more efficient scrutiny of legislation by the House? Secondly, do they respect the rights of the Opposition to probe the Government's proposals and advocate alternatives? Thirdly, can they be implemented without making unreasonable demands on the time and energies of Back Benchers? Fourthly, do they still permit a Government to "get their business" in an acceptable way? In other words, the proposals should not lay themselves open to exploitation designed to disrupt the normal proceedings of the House. Of course, a balance between these questions may need to be struck, but I believe that Members will wish to be assured that any changes in procedure will provide satisfactory answers to them.
  Against that background, I turn, first, to the Committee's revised proposals for the timetabling of Government Bills in Standing Committee; and, secondly, to the proposals for major changes in the procedures for dealing with delegated legislation, and, in particular, prayers.
  On timetabling, if I may remind the House, the Committee's main recommendation is that each Standing Committee should have its own Business Sub-Committee. After six sittings of the Standing Committee, the Business Sub-Committee would report to it, in the absence of "satisfactory understandings", its proposals on the date by which the Bill concerned should be reported to the House, the number of sittings required and, if appropriate, the

  767
  times at which the various stages of the Bill should be concluded. Such reports would be brought before the Standing Committee for debate and decision.
  I share the desire of the Procedure Committee to move towards the introduction of timetable motions, where necessary, at a time which allows for properly apportioned consideration of a Bill. In the most recent Session of Parliament, we have done our best to organise the business with this in mind, most notably with the timetable motions on the Education Reform and Local Government Finance Bills.
  However, I see several difficulties with the Committee's proposals. In my view, they may be an overreaction to a comparatively limited problem. I acknowledge that, in some cases in recent years, Committee stages have led to unbalanced scrutiny—the Telecommunications Bill is an example—but such instances are comparatively rare and, as I have explained, I am trying to reduce them still further.
  Moreover, it seems to me critical that decisions about the progress of individual Standing Committees and the need for timetabling should be taken and negotiated, as at present, in the context of a judgment on the progress of business in the House as a whole. I am not convinced that the proposed Business Sub-Committees would be able to take account of all the factors involved, nor is there any guarantee that the overall time spent by Back Benchers in Committee would not increase.
  However, I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) the various ways in which individual Standing Committees might be given some formal role in bringing the progress of business in Committee to the attention of the House. I hope that these discussions can be taken further forward, so that I can bring forward practical proposals to the House. In particular, I look forward to hearing the suggestions of Opposition Members in a few minutes' time.
  On delegated legislation, the Committee has put forward proposals which they hope would enable prayers to be debated and which would, as a quid pro quo to the Government, hold out the prospect of more affirmative motions being taken in Committee. In order to achieve this, the Committee proposes that any 20 Members would have the right to move at 3.30 pm that a prayer should be referred to a Standing Committee, with such motions being blockable by 20 or more other Members. A Minister, backed by a majority, would also have the power to ensure that an affirmative order was taken in Standing Committee rather than on the Floor. In other words, this would override the present blocking power of 20 Members.
  Again, however, I see a number of potential difficulties with these proposals as they now stand.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wakeham: I said that I would not give way again because I want to hear everyone's views, and it is important that I get on.
  Regarding the proposals on prayers, I believe that there is, again, a danger of exaggerating the problems that they are designed to address. Although I accept that a large number of prayers go undebated, as the House knows, prayers are frequently tabled for purposes other than
  768
  debate. I believe that, in the majority of cases where there is a genuine widespread desire for a debate, consultations through the usual channels enable this to be arranged.
  I recognise that the Liberal party—if I am allowed to call it by that name—does not get as many prayers as it would like, but, by definition, the number of Liberal Members means that they cannot always command a large number of prayers.
  Mr. Beith: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that, when those procedures were introduced, the then Leader of the House said that time would be found for all prayers to be dabated. The test of whether a prayer should be debated is not whether a large number of Members wish to debate it, but whether it constitutes legislation and should therefore be scrutinised by the House.
  Mr. Wakeham: The present arrangements are reasonably satisfactory, and those prayers which there is a widespread desire to debate are debated. I am considering a proposal in the report which I believe is not totally satisfactory. Moreover, it seems to me that the proposals whereby any 20 Members could at 3.30 block prayers from going into Committee for debate might invite regular and unproductive confrontation at this time of day. As far as affirmative orders are concerned, existing provisions mean that effectively, when the Opposition so desire, arrangements are made to take them on the Floor. Under the Committee's proposals, this provision would be lost. I do not believe that this would be acceptable either to the official Opposition or to private Members generally.
  Looking at the Committee's other recommendations on delegated legislation, while I accept that debate on substantive motions on instruments in Committee would give the latter a more formal role, I suspect that this would lead to greater attention to whipping arrangements than at present and to longer hours for Committee members; so, too, would the proposal for scrapping the 11.30 "cut-off' for prayers, with the "knock-on" effect that this would have on earlier business.
  Recalling to mind the general questions that I posed earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am not myself convinced that the Committee's proposals on the scrutiny of delegated legislation or on the timetabling of Bills answer them satisfactorily.
  We do not live in a perfect world. It would be excellent if the House had the time to consider at length every piece of delegated legislation, every European document, every clause of every Bill, and all in the civilised hours that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is proposing. Unless we invent some sort of time tardis, where the time available is infinitely longer than would appear from the outside parameters, then we shall have to accept that giving more time to one area of our work will restrict consideration of another.
  In recent Sessions, the House has reached general agreement and taken a consequent decision on a number of procedural matters. For example, Mr. Speaker, you now have the power to call for short speeches during certain debates; steps have been taken against filibustering during Committee and Report stages; and Special Standing Committees have been incorporated into the Standing Orders of the House. Tonight's debate provides us with a useful opportunity to assess other common

  769
  ground on procedure and determine the general wishes of the House on the next priorities for action. I shall listen with interest.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I advise the House that I have no authority to impose short speeches in this debate. However, as the debate must end at 10 o'clock, I ask those who participate in it to be brief so that all hon. Members now in the Chamber may contribute to it.
  7.40 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I welcome, however belatedly, the holding of the debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the kind things that he said about me. I do not believe that it is sour grapes for me to comment that the first of the reports that we are considering this evening was published 29 months ago. With the exception of the report which was published yesterday, the remaining four reports were published not later than May 1987, in the previous Session. The House may recall that we were first promised the debate during business questions in June 1987.
  I hope that the House will not think me unreasonable when I say that 14 senior Members spent many hours in Committee and in detailed research trying to produce recommendations that may drag, even at a snail's pace, some of the procedures of the House into the 20th century, not the 21st century, or even 1992. Surely the Government have a responsibility—yea, I venture to say a duty—to ensure that the House is allowed to debate our reports within a reasonable period—six months after the submission of reports. A delay of two years is an insult to those who have spent much time and effort on their work. Indeed, one member of the Procedure Committee refused to remain a member of it during the previous Parliament because he decided that its work was not considered seriously by either of the Front Benches. Perhaps I may have an assurance that that is not the position, and that in future our reports will be put promptly before the House, especially when reform of procedure is part of the recommendation.
  I turn now to happier matters. I am grateful that two of the Committee's recommendations have found their way on to the statute book, as it were. The use of Special Standing Committees is now part of Standing Committee procedure, but I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that they are used when appropriate. Since the acceptance of the procedure on 27 February 1986—I remember the date because it is my birthday—no Bill has been referred to a Special Standing Committee. Is the procedure to be allowed to wither on the vine? The Licensing Bill, as it then was, which was considered in the previous Session, was not a highly party-political measure and it would have been ideal for the Special Standing Committee procedure, which would have enabled outside views to be heard.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Leader of the House should tell us which of the Bills referred to in the Gracious Speech he intends to refer to a Special Standing Committee?
  Sir Peter Emery: I am certain that my right hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Gentleman's sensible intervention. Perhaps we shall have an answer to his question.
  I am happy that the 10-minute rule for speeches during the middle two hours of a debate has been enshrined, but perhaps the House will accept my apology, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, with six reports before the House, for not containing my remarks within 600 seconds.
  I shall try to deal with four of the main parts of the Committee's reports. The part which I consider to be the most important is the allocation of time for the consideration of a Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House. After all, time is essential for all of us in this place. I hope that this issue will be the main consideration of those who participate in the debate when I resume my seat. Even if other matters are of importance to them, I ask hon. Members to press the Government and the Opposition to accept that the Committee's recommendations have positive merit and deserve at least an experimental period so that their workability, which has been questioned by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, can be assessed properly.
  What is the history of the matter? When the Procedure Committee was established at the beginning of the previous Parliament, in March 1984, it was directed by the House to consider the passage of Bills in Committee. After considerable study the Committee reported on a procedure for the formation of a Legislative Business Committee that would assess each Bill. That Committee, if it considered that a Bill would remain in Committee for more than 40 hours, would establish a time structure to be set so that all parts of the Bill would be considered in Committee without the need of a special timetable motion to be debated and passed on the Floor of the House.
  That proposal was voted down because it was considered to be too inflexible. That meant that it took a little power away from the business managers and the Whips and, audaciously, gave that power to Back-Bench Members. We now know that that is the definition of inflexibility. When we set out to whittle away the power of the Whips, the walls of Jericho are before us. The trumpets of the Procedure Committee were not strong enough.
  Having analysed the vote on the issue, there was a greater turnout of the Establishment—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, junior Whips and all the Parliamentary Private Secretaries—than on any other three-line Whip of the Parliament. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for I mislead you. It was a greater turnout of the Establishment than on any other Division because it was a one-line Whip, not a three-line or two-line Whip. To safeguard "flexibility", the payroll marched into the Government Lobby three abreast. Only two members of it were absent. One was quite ill and the wife of the other was presenting him with a child.
  The Procedure Committee was not discouraged. If it was, it was for only a moment. It turned the other cheek and tried to overcome the criticisms. It adopted the criteria that are now agreed with the business managers. The four main essentials in considering changes are exactly those which were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. They are as follows: will they in practice lead to a material improvement; do they leave intact the legitimate rights of the Opposition; can they be implemented without placing unreasonable extra burdens on Back Benchers; do they still permit the Government to get their business?

  771
  What is necessary for Bills that are being considered in Committee? A Committee should not waste 100 or 120 hours debating the first three or four clauses of a Bill, thereby proving its virility in its opposition to the measure, until a guillotine motion is forced on the Government. As a procedure, that is nonsense.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How many examples of that can the hon. Gentleman place before us?
  Sir Peter Emery: There are a number of examples. During each Session, between five and seven timetable motions have to be introduced. The result of that procedure means, in many instances, that half or two thirds of the Bills are never discussed in Committee. I cannot give all the statistics to the House in what must be a short speech. I merely say that the facts are set out at the back of the Committee's report. The issue has been analysed quite fully and the conclusion hits the argument that there are not many examples of the first three or four clauses of a Bill being discussed for 100 or 120 hours, for example.
  Steps should be taken to try to ensure that every part of a Bill is discussed in Committee. We should not further the madness whereby amendments and clauses are discussed and voted upon hours after midnight after a normal working day. The rest of the world thinks that we are mad, or, even worse, irresponsible, in continuing with this medieval procedure. The House may take these all-night sittings seriously but the country does not, especially when we appear to be acting as prize asses.
  What has the Procedure Committee recommended? The recommendation is that, after six sittings of a Bill in Committee, the Business Sub-Committee—which would be similar to that appointed after a timetable motion, but nominated at the time of the selection of the Committee—should consider whether the Bill is proceeding satisfactorily. If it is, which will be the position in nine out of 10 instances, as suggested by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), no action will be taken and the Committee will proceed in the normal way. If the Business Sub-Committee considers that there are problems, it will take only one action at the first instance, but not that inferred by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It will decide by what date the Bill needs to be reported to the House. The Members and the Whips will then use their brilliant and historic techniques to help bring this about, with the proviso that time is found for every part of the Bill to be debated.
  If that procedure has been implemented, the Business Sub-Committee will meet again after 25 hours of debate. If all is proceeding reasonably at that stage, no further action will be taken. If, however, the Bill is bogged down, the Business Sub-Committee will then, and only then, decide exactly what time shall be allocated to each part of the Bill and how that will be structured within the date required for the Bill to be reported to the House. That may require afternoon sittings, evening sittings or even sittings three days a week. However, there should be no sittings after 10 pm or after the rising of the House. In that instance. Opposition Members will know, from their experience of dealing with timetable motions, that when a Business Sub-Committee operates, the Opposition call the shots as to what should or should not be debated within the time scale. We give a specific power to the Opposition
  772
  to ensure that what they want to have properly debated in Committee, as long as all parts of the Bill are debated, shall be given proper and adequate time.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: That is not so. Once the slots are allocated, any member of the Committee can filibuster or talk at length on one item so that a particular issue in that slot is not reached. That happens frequently under the present guillotine procedure. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government want to timetable a Bill from the start. If that is what he is after, that is totally unacceptable to the Opposition.
  Sir Peter Emery: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the last thing that I am trying to obtain. If what the Eon. Gentleman is suggesting occurs, it is within the power of the Business Sub-Committee to allocate much smaller slots than at present. There is a method within the proposal to correct that sort of thing. Having had to deal with Business Sub-Committees, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism. If his criticism is true, the Business Sub-Committee could allocate the slots to a smaller amount of time to ensure that what he suggests does not happen and that the filibuster is not used.
  Two matters are very important. First, there have been no instances that the Clerk of the House can find over the past 30 years where delays caused by the Opposition in Committee have stopped a piece of legislation set out in the Queen's Speech from reaching the statute book. Nor has delay in one Bill stopped other Bills announced in the Queen's Speech from being enacted. The concept of great delays in Committee harassing the Government and stopping legislation is a false shibboleth. The only harm that does is to the sleeping habits of the Back-Bench members of that Committee.
  Secondly, if the procedure that I have outlined were adopted, we would save between two and a half and three and a half days a Session on the Floor of the House. That time might be given to private Members' Bills or perhaps it would allow the House to rise a week earlier at the end of a Session. Everyone knows that the present half-day taken for a timetable motion is a complete waste of time. We no longer see it as a great parliamentary occasion. Usually the House has only a smattering of Members. There is no real heat, as there used to be 20 or 30 years ago, and time after time we hear the same speeches of noise and thunder. If ever Macbeth's lines apply outside the original script, they do to guillotine motions:
  "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."
  Mr. David Alton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a matter not simply of people's sleeping habits being interrupted, but that the primary job of a Committee, of scrutinising legislation, does not occur? Whole chunks of legislation go through which have never seen the light of day in Committee.
  Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman's intervention came at exactly the right moment in my speech. I was about to say that we should have sensibly staged debates in Committee so that a Bill can be properly and fully considered and not sent off to the Lords half-digested. That would save considerable time on the Floor of the House. We would also not have the filibuster at the start, which is useless.
  More time could be saved if the second-look procedure were adopted. Under that procedure, the Government

  773
  would give undertakings to introduce amendments or reconsider specific points. The Standing Committee could be adjourned after the normal completion of the Bill and asked to sit again within three weeks to take up the points that have been outlined by the Minister. The Minister would return to deal with those points which he considered helpful. That would save those matters having to be dealt with on Report and in certain instances—for example, the Committee stage of the Housing Act 1988—a vast amount of time could be saved for the Report stage and for the House as a whole.
  The first report of the Procedure Committee of Session 1986–87 recommended that a parliamentary calendar should be fixed for the dates of sittings. It must be to the benefit of Members to know exactly, more than just a few days ahead, what the schedule of the House is for Christmas and Easter even if the Government require flexibility at the end of the summer. It is no good saying, "Well, one knows approximately." If we want to make plans for constituency tours, overseas visits or to make arrangements with our families, whether the House is returning on 7 January or on any day up to 21 January is of vital importance to our engagements. The Government should be able to announce the dates for rising and returning for the Christmas and Easter recesses at the end of the Queen's Speech, even if they will not accept the full calendar arrangements set out in the report.
  The report about televising the proceedings is quite clear, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has summed it up. It is for television to adapt to ensure that Parliament is properly portrayed and presented to the viewing public. Therefore, no changes to procedure are required at this stage.
  There is a great need for consideration of delegated legislation. The report on delegated legislation is detailed and specific and highlights a number of serious problems that are likely to become worse rather than better. More and more we see parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants legislating the principle of the law, but leaving the regulations—the nitty-gritty of the law—to be decided by statutory instrument, which is out of the way in 90 minutes and can be altered the following year and every subsequent year if required. That is not the way that the Procedure Committee believes that the laws of the land should be made.
  As 1992 approaches and more EEC regulations come upon us, the Procedure Committee report makes detailed and specific observations. The amount of European legislation that must be considered is much greater than most hon. Members understand. It is imperative that a more effective method for our consideration of that delegated legislation is found. I urge that paragraphs 11 to 38 of the report should have a full debate and not just be shoved away. Those aspects of delegated legislation and the necessary reforms for amendments to delegated legislation require a great deal of thought.
  The strong dissatisfaction about the ability of private Members' legislation to be fully considered by the House was more obvious than any other issue raised by hon. Members with the Procedure Committee. That was clear to the previous Procedure Committee and was reinforced to the present Committee. On two Mondays in the late spring, instead of having four half-days for private
  774
  Members' motions, they should be transferred to two appropriate Fridays. Secondly, the longer full two days should be replaced by an allocation to private Members' Bills. The Government would lose no time and private Members would benefit.
  The House should consider whether the hon. Member in charge of the first Bill on that Monday should be allowed the option of moving the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule. Of course, that could be divided against and the hon. Member would have to carry the House. Again, the Government would lose none of their allocation of time if such a motion were carried. However, that would be a way of overcoming the strong feeling that when a Bill received very strong support on Second Reading it should not be blocked by three or four strategically placed amendments on Report on a Friday. It should have the same possibility of consideration as is given to Government legislation. That is not as revolutionary as it sounds because it would apply only to two private Members' Bills each year—those which were first on the two Mondays to which they were allocated.
  Mr. Alton: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree with the Bow Group's recent recommendation that the House should have the ability to formulate and move a motion to provide extra time for private Members' Bills? If it is the will of the House, after a Bill has had a Second Reading and been considered in Committee and on Report, surely it would not be unreasonable to allow the House of Commons to decide whether it wishes to allocate more time to complete the stages of that Bill.
  Sir Peter Emery: I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman says. However, I have to consider the way in which the Government act. The Government act in a very predictable way. That suggestion would mean that some Government time would have to be allocated to private Members' Bills. Our suggestion involves no taking away of Government time. Therefore, it stands a better chance of being accepted by the Government than anything that would cut Government time. Obviously, hon. Members must make their own speeches.
  Lastly, I wish to make two small but interesting suggestions. One is that a special or emergency Adjournment debate be allowed by the Speaker on two occasions per week for 20 minutes—a 10-minute speech and a 10-minute reply by a Minister—prior to the normal Adjournment. That would be for specific matters of considerable importance that had arisen. Some hon. Members do not like that suggestion, but it was made by the Committee.
  The other suggestion is the possibility of time for private Members' motions on a Friday being split so that one is debated for three hours—rather similar to a Monday half-day—thereby allowing a second motion to be debated for two hours. That, again, would spread the availability of time for private Members.
  The House will be aware that much work has been done by the Committee. I do not intend to sum up what I have said, but simply return to the most important points. If Parliament is seriously to be considered as trying to make sense of its procedure, nowhere more than upstairs in Committee is sensible change essential. We must not waste hon. Members' time in parliamentary dog-fighting, even if it is only for 50 or 70 hours—as was suggested by my right

  775
  hon. Friend the Leader of the House—on the first few clauses of a Bill. We must ensure that all parts of a Bill are seriously considered, debated and open to amendment before the Bill leaves the Committee. We must not sit at all hours of the day and night, to the scorn of the well-informed, the disrespect of the media, the satirical comment of the comedian, the contempt of those who wish to see good law reach the statute book, and—perhaps although of little importance—the ultimate despair of our wives. On this matter as much as any other, will the House this evening give clear guidance to the business managers?
  8.2 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I cannot speak on this subject without paying a heartfelt tribute to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who has worked so zealously as Chairman of the Committee on which I used to serve, undeterred by the shabby way in which the Committee has been treated. He referred to the fact that the payroll vote was wheeled out on a one-line Whip to defeat some major proposals and to the fact that reports have not been debated. Through all that he kept the Committee at work producing more proposals on a wide range of subjects. The House owes him a considerable debt for the work that he has done and continues to do.
  I was disappointed by the speech of the Leader of the House. After a couple of hours listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in public session, I thought that I had heard the most complacent of Ministers. It pains me even to imply that the Leader of the House is more complacent than the Chancellor, because I like him rather better than I do the Chancellor. However, he was totally complacent about many aspects of the procedures of the House. That can be attributed either to a lack of radical spirit or to a preference for the fact that at present the Government get their own way very nicely over far too many things.
  I shall pick out some of the key points that have emerged from this great pile of reports. First, on Standing Committee procedure, the Committee produced revised proposals, after criticisms of their first proposals, designed to ensure that Bills were properly debated in Standing Committee. It is scandalous that large chunks of Bills go on to the statute book without a word of debate in Committee. The House ought not to tolerate that state of affairs, which arises at least partly because of the determination of hon. Members to demonstrate their total opposition to certain Bills. But that total opposition does not prevent their having views on what the Bills should be like if they are passed, and therefore there is a need for orderly discussion. The Government really must remove the block which, with some help from the Labour Front Bench, they have placed on sensible alternative proposals.
  The Bills in the forthcoming legislative Session are enormous. For the first time I have received a Bill which runs to two volumes—the Water Bill is published in two separate volumes. There is a massive task ahead of us, and large chunks of those Bills which effect large numbers of people in Britain will never be debated in the House unless we get our procedures properly sorted out.
  The proposal for Special Standing Committees was enacted by the House. It is an ideal procedure for dealing with such measures as licensing laws, Sunday trading and other issues, but it simply is not being used. I endorse the challenge of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish
  776
  (Mr. Bennett) that the Leader of the House should say now that he is willing to submit some of the Bills in this Session to Special Standing Committees.
  The Committee did some excellent work on the statutory instruments procedure. That is an even bigger scandal. Year by year legislation pours out of this place which has not been the subject of any amendment procedure, or in many cases any debate whatsoever. People outside the House have to work with such legislation. I am surprised that the Leader of the House, as a qualified accountant, has not realised what a mess can be made of legislation that is not subject to a proper parliamentary scrutiny system.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments scrutinises those statutory instruments, every one of which passes through our hands? Therefore, there is some scrutiny. Can he persuade the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) to turn up more often so that she can take part in that scrutiny?
  Mr. Beith: I have not been very successful in persuading the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) of late. I did not even persuade her to join my party. However, I did the hon Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments a disservice, because that Committee examines statutory instruments, not for their merits, but for their technical competence, and it does an excellent job. However, on many occasions it draws the attention of the House to failings of statutory instruments which the House does not discuss.
  When the hon. Gentlemen earlier expressed some anxiety at the idea that we might remove the block that 20 hon. Members can now place on a statutory instrument going into Standing Committee, they seemed unaware that a successful placing of that block has the effect merely of ensuring that the instrument is never debated. If the 20 hon. Members rise to stop the Bill from going upstairs, there is no obligation whatsoever on the Leader of the House ever to find time for debate on the Floor of the House.
  I do not accept the Leader of the House's contention that many prayers are tabled for purposes other than debate. If hon. Members want to express an opinion on something on the Order Paper, they table a substantive motion which says what they think. They do not simply put down, "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty." That does not convey anything to anyone. It is there because there is a reason to debate an issue.
  Prayers for which no time was found are listed in the Committee's report as a percentage of prayers tabled. At one time the figure used to be nil. In 1978–79 it was 28·3 per cent. It has gone up steadily. In 1985–86 it was 69·4 per cent. It is probably more now. Nearly 70 per cent. of prayers were not debated at all. That is 70 per cent. of those statutory instruments on which hon. Members have said there ought to be a debate. It is not good enough to say that there has to be a large number of hon. Members, a whole party, or the official Opposition, seeking a debate. That is not the principle on which we legislate. As long as there is any wish in the House for some procedure to be used, legislation should be subject to a procedure. It is the making of the law of the land.
  Mr. Alton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way before he leaves the question of how we go about

  777
  making legislation. In the same context, does he agree that the Orders in Council procedure that applies to Northern Ireland legislation is totally inadequate because it is unamendable, and therefore leaves the House with no choice other than to vote for or against that legislation at the end of a cursory one and a half hour debate? All that that leads to is a feeling of great annoyance and anger among hon. Members representing Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Beith: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I omitted to say that the recommendation that there should be at least a reasoned amendment procedure in Standing Committee is very important, because it enables a Standing Committee to give a signal that something fairly fundamental is wrong which would not lead it to throw out the measure, but which puts pressure on the Government to bring forward some alternative proposals on the Floor of the House.
  The Committee made a limited recommendation, which I believe to be helpful, on private Members' legislation. It was defeated by a narrow margin of six votes to five. The proposal was that the House should, in a few limited circumstances, have the power to decide to bring the matter to a conclusion. If a Bill has had a Second Reading, been through its Committee stage and been debated for a considerable time, the House should have the power to bring the matter to a conclusion. Let us take the example of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) last Session. It brings the House into national disrepute when there has been a national debate on a major issue, the House has debated it at great length, but a decision cannot be reached because the House is incapable of giving itself time to reach a decision.
  The Government do not accept any such restraint in their business. They say that they must have their business. All that was proposed was that the House should, in a few limited circumstances, have the power to decide that an important matter should be brought to a conclusion. Last year it was abortion, another year it might be freedom of information and yet another year a measure affecting the disabled. Whatever the Bill, if there has been massive public debate and the House has gone through all the procedures necessary to bring it to Report, it is ludicrous that the House should be incapable of reaching a decision.
  The issue of the parliamentary calendar is probably more for the convenience of hon. Members and those who work for the House than for anyone else. It is ludicrous that we cannot predict when the House will rise at Christmas, Easter or summer. Indeed, Opposition Members might think that it would put the Government under usefully greater pressure if they had to work to a calendar. The Committee considered the Canadian example and found Members on both sides of that very divided and contentious House thoroughly happy that such a scheme had been introduced. I have checked since that visit, because there have been quite a few political alarms and excursions in Canada. Although the timetable was not fully operated in two recent years when major issues arose—most recently, the free trade issue—the Members still felt that it was good to have a timetable, even if sometimes they went outside it.
  Other issues will arise. I share the Committee's view that it would be premature to make changes designed to
  778
  suit television. After all, it is only an experiment and it has not yet taken place. I think that, in time, some procedures will appear strange—for example, the leader of the largest Opposition party can ask repeated supplementaries during Prime Minister's questions, but that opportunity is never available to the next largest Opposition party. So great a difference cannot arise because one party is larger in Parliament than the other. In time, I am sure that that will be seen to be an unfair procedure, but we shall see when we have had the television experiment.
  The House will have to consider wider issues. We believe that the House does too much—it legislates for Scotland, Wales and the regions of England on matters that should be decided in those areas. The sooner that there is a Parliament in Scotland, for example, dealing with those matters, the better. The Government also do too much. They are an amazingly itchy-fingered Government. They cannot wait to get their fingers into every possible aspect of our lives and then legislate about it. When I first came to the House many Tory Members of Parliament said that, when they were in power, there would not be so much legislation. They said that it was just the Socialists who wanted to interfere all the time. They said that when the Conservative party was in power there would be a lighter legislative timetable—at least, after the first couple of years when they had the main legislation on the statute book. What a fallacy that has turned out to be. There are no fingers itchier than those of Government Ministers, and none more so than the Ministers of this Government. I am not sure that our people are the better for that, as they struggle to live with the laws that we so inadequately scrutinise.
  8.13 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: We should be thankful that, at long last, we are having this debate. It is a serious reflection on the way that we conduct our business that not until the end of 1988 are we considering valuable reports from the Select Committee on Procedure published over a period of three to four years.
  I wish to direct my remarks to the second report, published in the 1986–87 Session, on the use of time on the Floor of the House and specifically to its reference to private Members' time. That is a crucial subject for hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially when the issues that they have sought to raise are of grave concern. I refer to matters with which Governments—indeed, all Governments—have felt unable to deal, such as abortion and tampering with the human embryo, both of which are concerned with the very beginnings of human life. If Governments have neither the time nor the moral courage to grapple with momentous issues of that kind, the least we can ask is that action is taken to consider the recommendations of Select Committees which have thought long and hard on the subjects and produced recommendations. Notice must be taken of the intense feeling of many hon. Members about the way in which we conduct business of this kind.
  It is incomprehensible to the public how we dilly-dally and fudge important matters. Indeed, it is incomprehensible to them how it is that a private Member's Bill, which commands an overwhelming majority in the House on Second Reading and completes its Committee stage, cannot make any further progress because of deliberate, blatant sabotage by a minority of hon. Members through

  779
  the use of existing procedure. The matter was brought to a head in 1985—and one or two hon. Members have already reminded the House of this—after a private Member's motion was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). It followed a blatant abuse of procedure, designed to block Mr. Enoch Powell's Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. Mr. Powell had introduced his Bill in December 1984. It was given a Second Reading on Friday 15 February 1985 by a large majority of 230 to 66, and it was sent to Standing Committee. It successfully completed its Committee stage and returned to the Floor of the House to begin its Report stage on Friday 3 May, when it was the second order of the day.
  The first order was a non-controversial Bill on the subject of road traffic documents, which had obtained a Second Reading on the nod and spent only five minutes in Committee. Because of a determined filibuster the debate on Mr. Powell's Bill did not begin until 1 o'clock. Mr. Powell moved the closure at 2.29 pm and a vote was taken on the hostile amendment under discussion, which the supporters of the Bill won by 157 votes to 82. There was then no further time available for the Bill—the saboteurs had achieved their purpose. The Government refused to provide the necessary additional time, so only one option was left to the Bill's supporters, who felt that the will of the House should not be thwarted by a tiny minority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown drew first place in the private Members' motions ballot and announced that he would introduce a motion to give Mr. Powell's Bill extra time. Opponents of the Bill then accused its supporters of abusing the procedures of the House, ignoring the fact that their own abuse of procedure had caused the original problem. Once more, the will of the House was thwarted when, on 7 June, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) moved the writ for the Brecon and Radnor by-election and a number of Members presented petitions of a similar nature, one after the other. The private Members' motion debate was adjourned at 2.30 pm after just 15 minutes of debate. That was scandalous, and many hon. Members expected the Select Committee to deal with the matter in a realistic way.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: As a new and inexperienced Member, I must say that many people of all politics and none in my constituency have said that they wonder how we can continue screaming and yelling at each other at Question Time. I have not been approached on any one issue by more people, including those who disagreed with the Life movement and with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on the issue of abortion. People wonder how the House of Commons can stand by and allow itself to be sat on by a minority of people making a mockery out of its procedures. It is an insult to democracy.
  Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend speaks straight from the heart. He is right.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been several attacks on the procedures of the House because of the recent Bill on abortion. Will you confirm that throughout the period when that private Member's Bill was pursued in the House the Standing Orders and procedures of the House were followed? There was no abuse of procedure; there was
  780
  simply a following of procedure. To attack the procedure as being an abuse is, in fact, an implicit attack on whoever is occupying the Chair, including yourself, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I must say on that matter that the procedures were properly carried out. There was no abuse in those terms.
  Sir Bernard Braine: If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had asked me that question through you, Mr. Speaker, I would have given him exactly the same answer. I am complaining about arrangements which caused consternation outside the House and the kind. of reaction to which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred. Not only were people complaining to their Members of Parliament, but most of us who were known to be worried about it were receiving vast numbers of letters, and some right hon. and hon. Members had to face demonstrations in and outside their constituencies. There was intense anger about this issue all over the country. My hon. Friend was absolutely right. We witnessed a skilful use of existing weaknesses in our procedure. This debate is to direct attention to those weaknesses and, if possible, to get them remedied.
  The Select Committee made some recommendations which I hope will be accepted by the House, namely, Nos. 22 and 23. The latter is extremely important. I am referring to like petitions, one after another, which are presented to take up the time of the House. The Committee, at paragraph 68, said:
  "The right to petition is undoubted."
  That is a reference to the disgraceful episode on 7 June 1985, but it went on to recommend:
  "if presentation of petitions has not been concluded by 10 am on a Friday when private Members' bills are taken any further petitions set down for that day should be presented, as on other days of the week, immediately before the moving of the adjournment for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion."
  If that recommendation were adopted now, there could not be a repetition of what happened in 1985. My complaint is that we are now in 1988 and nothing has been done about behaviour which caused intense anger up and down the country from supporters of all political parties. It is inevitably the only issue upon which the members of the Ulster Unionist party and the Nationalist Opposition in Northern Ireland are completely agreed. It is a matter which brings together hearts and minds across the political divide. It must not be treated in a trivial fashion. It is high time that the House spoke its mind on the subject, which it has not been given the opportunity to do until now.
  I would suggest, too, that a private Member whose Bill is first in the debate on a private Members' day should be empowered to move the indefinite suspension of the rule to provide for unlimited debate after 10 pm. It may be argued that, once a proposal of that kind is made, it could lead to all-night sittings, but I do not think so. In the main, the House is composed of reasonable people. The mere threat of a filibuster would soon be removed by the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule. Working on the assumption that each group of amendments would take one and a half hours to debate, it would take a large selection of amendments to force the House to sit all night.
  Mr. William Powell: Are not filibusters which occur on the Floor of the House far more likely to occur in the middle of the night than before 10 o'clock? If there is a suspension of the 10 o'clock rule, it is likely that there

  781
  will be some very long filibusters by hon. Members who are opposed to the measure that its supporters are trying to advance.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Let us make some progress in the matter. Of course, one can raise objections of that kind, but I feel that, once it is seen that the House wishes action to be taken, the message will be received.
  Mr. Alton: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. The truth is that there would be votes on closures after one and a half hours, whether it was in the middle of the night or at any other time, and the House could then make progress. Does he agree that it brings us into disrepute when 296 Members can give a Bill a Second Reading, and we can spend 30 hours considering matters in Committee—and we even completed our debate on Report of my own private Member's Bill—but then, in the middle of voting on Report, the clock can strike 2.30 pm and prevent the House from taking any further decision? Does he agree that that makes a mockery of the word "democracy"?
  Sir Bernard Braine: Of course, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is right, and I would advise my dear friend to note that he is a former Chief Whip. I have been here for many years and I have served in Committees all through the night, so I know how the system works. I feel that it is disgraceful for the House to be embroiled, as it has been, by such filibustering within the rules. I believe that, if we made these simple reforms, the message would be delivered. However, there are ways and means of dealing with those who seek to speak right through the night.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I have listened to the Father of the House and I am getting his message very clearly. However, it appears that he is basing his argument on one Bill, because that Bill was controversial. There were many hon. Members in the Chamber on that day, and I believe that Members speak in the House on behalf of their constituents. When they want to get in, they contribute. I contributed for 23 minutes the other night because I believed that it was necessary. So the filibustering, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, is a load of rubbish.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not pursue that. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), for whom normally I have considerable affection, is entitled to his opinion.
  Mr. Alton rose—
  Sir Bernard Braine: No, I shall not give way. Other hon. Members wish to contribute and I wish now to move to my conclusion.
  I want to make a subtle suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I believe that my proposal would assist the Government because it would prevent them from being pressurised—often by their Back Benchers—as they have been and as they will be in the future if there is no reform, into finding additional parliamentary time for a particular Bill. It would also enable the Government to remain strictly neutral towards that Bill. I suggest that the matter should be left to the good sense of the House. For example, since 1975 the majority of hon. Members have wanted to see an end to late abortion and also to abortion virtually on demand, which the supporters of the 1967 Act claimed
  782
  was never their intention to encourage. It is an outrage that a group of hon. Members who sought to amend the law, in keeping with the original intention of Parliament in 1967, should be denied that right by outdated and undemocratic procedures. It is time for good sense and fairness to prevail. It is time for change.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Before offering any comments on the procedural reforms before the House, I must express the view that the arrival of television, which is a development that I have opposed and still oppose, will precipitate a whole series of procedural reforms.
  The Procedure Committee's reforms that we are examining tonight were all arrived at without any informed consideration of the advent of television, because we were not in a position to do that. A number of the proposed reforms that we have made would have been markedly different if they had been considered in the context of televised proceedings. My view, and I have expressed it in the Procedure Committee, is that, on a number of fronts, we should suspend the amendment of procedure pending the completion of the six-month trial period—if that ever takes place. I hope that it will not.
  Our second report of 1985–86 dealt with the allocation of time. I believe that timetabling is correct. From a former position of supporting delay in Committee as a tactic—probably, in truth, it was no more than an inability to budget my own time effectively following my first election to the House—I have moved to a position of outright opposition to the tactic. It is a meaningless and senseless exercise. It is a delusion because, in practice, the Whips have complete control of the timetable. We never create a major obstruction to the Government's programme by using such tactics. Over the years I have sat on many Standing Committees and I have never seen a Bill delayed beyond the date set by the Government. Furthermore, few outside even know what is happening, apart from the lobbies, union observers and too-easily-impressed party activists who are duped into believing that some importance is attached to the exercise.
  It is important to retain the right to delay on Report. The loss of a day on Report, or even an overnight debate, is invariably well reported. It is an indication of effective opposition, whether it be a Government rebellion or an Opposition attack. It shows Parliament at its best.
  Since the Select Committee last examined the question of shorter speeches, the House has resolved to allow access to television. There can be no doubt that this development will result in demands from Back Benchers for television exposure. For a start, regional coverage of activities on the Floor will turn out to be far more important than national coverage, certainly for the mere mortals amongst us. There will be a marked shift in the weighting of speeches from national to local concerns. The incidence of national coverage for the average Back Bencher will be minimal, whereas regional coverage will become extensive, if only because it offers cheap television for the new franchises under the financial pressure in the new round.
  Hon. Members will be in search of a slot, and that can only mean far greater numbers of Members in search of Floor time, and therefore heavy lists for the Speaker to

  783
  consider. Pressure for shorter speeches is inevitable, and the arrangements approved on 27 February 1986 will be seen as minimal concessions.
  The extension of the restriction on Second Readings to full Opposition day debate and full day debates on Government motions has been the subject of an order for the past two Sessions. The Select Committee has proposed the adoption of a permament Standing Order, but I do not believe that that recommendation goes far enough.
  There is no reason why nearly all speeches should not be subject to the 10-minute restriction, apart from those by party spokesmen or those by Members moving motions, amendments or new clauses. Such a restriction could endure for most of the parliamentary day from the commencement of public business to the commencement of the Adjournment debate. Such a restriction could be perceived by some as unreasonable and burdensome. However, we should recall that the Speaker would have discretion and, on the desired proportion of our business that was not the subject of pressure, he or she could exercise that discretion.
  The only area of difficulty is the Report stage of a Bill. I believe that such business should be exempt from procedural restriction. The Report stage could be the subject of self-regulation prompted by the Whips, who, under conditions of televising, will acquire substantial new influence over events.
  Paragraph 5 of the Committee's third report of 1985–86 entered some interesting observations on the value of interventions and the use of prepared speeches. Prepared speeches in the form of written statements, such as the one that I am giving tonight, which are read into the record will make for poor television. I am sure that that will mean changes for many hon. Members.
  Interventions are much more of a problem, because they are often crucial to effective debate. I have thought long and hard on this matter and have concluded that, if we do have a 10-minute limit, speakers should not be penalised because of interventions. They should be awarded additional time, perhaps as much as a minute or two. At this stage this proposition may seem a bit sloppy, but I can only reiterate the view that if television comes in it will transform the Chamber and the nature of debate.
  I also agree with the recommendation to wind up business in Committee at 10 pm, for the reasons outlined.
  The other principal recommendation, which provides for the use of a Business Sub-Committe to fix a "fair terminal date", is extremely complicated. I am not sure that it would work in practice. The proposition appears to provide for a series of negotiated and renegotiated target "terminal dates" for proceedings in Standing Committee. I believe that the terminal date timetabling of Bills, under an alternative option that I am proposing, could be negotiated at Chief Whip level—dependent on arrangements—and, if necessary, occasionally with official Opposition and Government spokesmen in attendance.
  The agreement could then be referred to the Business Sub-Committee as proposed in the report for the timetabling of clauses. The cynic, indeed the realist, may argue that the effect of giving the Business Sub-Committee overall control of the "terminal date" would still, under my system, leave the Whips in charge of negotiations and recommendations to Committee. If that is the case, why go through the motions of the Select Committee's recommendations?
  784
  On a number of occasions I have referred to the rights of Privy Councillors. Our third report of 1985–86 on shorter speeches failed to tackle the question of the rights of Privy Councillors. According to my informants who were on the Committee at that time, the matter was not even raised during the deliberations.
  Sir Bernard Braine: It was.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Forgive me if I am wrong.
  Nevertheless, consideration of this matter is an important issue in the light of televising the House. Some of us refuse to accept that Members without portfolios who are Privy Councillors have any greater right to be called in debate than others who equally lack portfolios. I doubt that they have the right even to be called earlier.
  With the advent of television, this matter will acquire a new importance. Some of us, certainly I for one, will set about restructuring that privilege. We shall use procedure to secure its removal. I believe that the ending of the privilege will come through an initiative in the Procedure Committee in response to pressure on the Floor of the House. This matter should equally surface as an item on the agenda to be considered by the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, as it relates to fair play in the allocation of time and opportunities to Members. If my nomination to the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House had not been blocked, I should have dealt with that matter.
  My soundings among Conservatives do not suggest any great support for this form of Member advantage and privilege. In fact, a number of Conservatives have privately expressed to me their concern about the possible abuse of Privy Councillor privilege on their Benches. One Conservative Back Bencher referred to a Privy Council hoard on his Benches, comprised of people who are not the Prime Minister's most impassioned admirers.
  Some of my cynical hon. Friends might say, "Leave it to them." That has never been my view. The whingeing right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has never done a blind bit of good for the Labour party. On the contrary, he has only served to convince liberal Tories that they still have a voice at Westminster. Certainly such dissidents grab the headlines and make it more difficult for the Opposition to be seen to be spearheading opposition. I conclude with the view that. Privy Councillors will fight hard to defend the indefensible, but they must be beaten.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: It seems wrong that there is no equality among right hon. and hon. Members. Being a very junior Member I have less chance of speaking, on behalf of my constituents, even though they are clearly as important as those of a Privy Councillor.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are all born equal and should all be treated as equals in this Chamber. The problem is that we are not, and I do not blame you, Mr. Speaker, for that—it is precedent.
  I turn to public Bill procedure. Apart from the question of timetabling, there is in the second report of 1984–85 a number of recommendations awaiting debate. Among them is one for reconvening Standing Committees to dispense of undertakings given by Ministers—to which reference was made by our Chairman, and I may say that he has been a very good Chairman—and for the approval of consequential and drafting amendments. It was felt that

  785
  the recommendation for reconvening Standing Committees would reduce the amount of business to be dealt with on Report.
  No doubt there are times when such an arrangement would be helpful, but at others it could be positively unhelpful to the House, which, wishing to debate highly important and contentious legislation, might find that Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments denied debates on issues that the Government had carefully manoeuvred into Committee and possibly away from the cameras.
  I come now to the parliamentary calendar. I have few words to express on the subject, having been elected to the Select Committee on Procedure after its consideration. I admit to prejudice against the Canadian precedent that the Committee examined. The position in respect of the Scots must be mentioned. It is untenable, and the recommendation in paragraph 3 of the first report 1986–87 that the House should rise not later than 21 July would be a useful and much needed procedural reform. However, not even that would fully deal with the problems of Scottish Members. The timing of party conferences precludes the earlier resumption of hostilities at the end of the summer recess, but that need not be the case. We have the opportunity to reform, and paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the report argue the case very persuasively.
  As to use of time on the Floor of the House, the report makes reference to private Members' Bills procedure and the availability of time to right hon. and hon. Members wishing to raise matters of a topical nature. The House will not need much prompting to recognise my objectives. Although it may be said that there are times when a Labour-sponsored private Member's Bill could benefit from the prolonged debate that our proposals recommend, the present position is outrageous—although I fully understand that the beneficiaries of such a procedural warp may feel pleased with the current arrangements. However, in all natural justice they are defending the indefensible.
  The argument surfaced in the Committee in all its dishonesty. It had more to do with the arguments about abortion and the embryo than about parliamentary procedure. Those right hon. and hon. Members who sat on the Committee know what I am talking about. It does not augur well for objective discussion of Back-Bench power. When that matter is finally debated on the Floor of the House, I suspect that matters will take a similar turn. It will be interesting to know the position taken by the Leader of the House. Will he propose a reasonable and just approach, defending the rights of Back Benchers in the finest traditions of the House of Commons, or will he oppose our recommendations for tactical reasons? On the last occasion, he always seemed to bring, bear or carry the will of the Prime Minister on these matters to the House of Commons. I am not convinced that he is utterly objective. I know that he will object to my comments, but that remains my view, and I am sure that I am correct.
  I understand my own party's difficulty, but hope that the shadow Cabinet will resolve not to oppose but to ignore the recommendation in question and will remain neutral—if it is necessary for the shadow Cabinet to take a decision. Such an approach may not be in the finest traditions, but we should beware of spurious opposition. As the Committee points out in paragraph 61, the
  786
  Government's progress with Bills is not terminated by Big Ben at 10 o'clock; they simply table a motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule. No matter what the strength of opposition, the Government are likely to clear the Report stage without much difficulty.
  A switch from Friday to Monday for private Members' Bills could possibly secure for them an additional one and a half hours' debate or more. The four half days otherwise given over to private Members' Bills under present arrangements would be consolidated into two full Friday debates. It will be seen from the report that discussion took place on the right of a right hon. or hon. Member to move a business motion at 2.30 pm, providing for additional time after 10 o'clock on private Members' Bills on Mondays. That would transform the chance of a Bill clearing the hurdle of the Report stage. It would mean all-night debates on two private Members' Bills if there had been resistance to their passage, but if there are heated arguments on private Members' Bills, why should the House not sit all night on Monday? If that is the time that it takes to debate contentious legislation, and if it occurs only once or twice a year, we should be willing to afford that time. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are willing to turn up if we can debate a Report stage overnight and attempt to delay the introduction of legislation and bust the 2.30 pm timetable for the following day. If the motivation exists to do that, it should equally exist to allow proper debate of contentious issues.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that, in order to do that, a right hon. or hon. Member must still carry his motion with majority support in a Division? It is not a simple matter, but, in fairness, a right hon. or hon. Member must have the support of the House for such a motion.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall omit another point that I had wished to raise and turn to the matter of prime time and debating opportunities, which is also dealt with in the second report of 1986–87.
  Televising the House has wide implications for prime time. The organisation of Back Benchers on theme issues will require the development of considerable expertise in the Whips' Office. I feel sure that it will respond positively. The Opposition's Whips' Office will certainly do so, just as I expect that of the Government will. I understand that the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House visited Canada to see for itself the one-minute speech procedure. I am led to believe that it is appalling and trivialises issues. However, there is a need for a slot to privide an opportunity for important and topical issues to be raised briefly. The use of the Standing Order No. 20 procedure is an indication of the demand, and that is recognised in the report.
  The problem is that the report has produced an ineffective compromise. It provides for two additional Adjournment debates each week, but at what cost? I foresee the loss of private notice questions and of statements in prime time in favour of mini-Adjournment debates answered by Ministers in low-profile time after 10 o'clock, and without the right to question the Minister. The danger is to be found where the recommendation refers to "topical concern" and dissatisfaction with replies, enabling "notice" to be given "for the following day". I alert my colleagues to the danger inherent in that new

  787
  procedure, which could prove disastrous for Back Benchers. My inclination is to oppose it, although I shall listen with interest to any counter arguments.
  The House wil note that I entered a caveat in the form of an amendment to the report. Again, I failed. Some hon. Members not of my political view may have seen advantage. Also among the amendments tabled was my counter proposition, which extracted no support. My amendment did not provide for a ministerial response. I argued that in granting a five-minute Adjournment debate Mr. Speaker could by practice call a Conservative Back Bencher last in the debate. He or she would act as a sweep.
  That approach might be novel, but it would certainly have a marked effect on late-night debates, helping to keep the Government on their mettle and fully accountable. It would provide an excellent opportunity for regional television, in an odd way helping to reassert the national context in which the House debates in ordinary time by providing a regional slot, but it would also prevent Ministers from going to the Dispatch Box on what would in effect be 24 or 48-hour notice debates. I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, would find pressure being exerted on you not to grant PNQs, but to ensure that they fell within the mini-Adjournment debates.
  I have spoken for 19 minutes. Perhaps I have overshot my time, but I should have liked to talk about a number of other matters. I hope that no precipitate action will be taken, and that no procedural reforms will be introduced in the coming months before the television cameras come in. If television is allowed in, it will transform this place. We shall oppose it, but if introduced it might mean very different reforms.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: More than three and a half years after the Select Committee on Procedure produced its report "Public Bill Procedure", we are not debating motions to implement any part of it. Once again we are debating on a motion to adjourn; sometimes it is a motion to take note. Three weeks ago, our report was not even available when I tried to obtain a copy. I see that it has been hastily reproduced in almost legible condition by some process other than printing, presumably for this debate, but that is an indication of how much time has already passed since its production.
  Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Accountant of the House who authorised the expenditure of Select Committees taking evidence outside Westminster but within the United Kingdom. As he could not give me the answer, the matter went to your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Thomas. He and the Accountant had to fall back on a "take note" motion—not a motion to approve—concerning a Procedure Committee report of many years ago. That is the state to which our proceedings have deteriorated. It is lamentable that, even after such a lapse of time, there should be no proposals on which the House can make a decision.
  Much emotional energy has been expended on private Bill procedure. I think that an aspect of the fate of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill has a lesson for us. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was strongly in favour of the Bill, said that it received a large majority on Second Reading. So it did, but not in the form in which it went on Report. You, Mr. Speaker, were put in an impossible position. The Standing Committee had
  788
  inserted a provision which, had it been in the Bill on Second Reading, might have prevented it from receiving a Second Reading. Under that provision, if a woman had been impregnated in the course of a rape, she could nevertheless be denied an abortion.
  I understand the position in which you found yourself, Mr. Speaker. If you had given the House the opportunity to debate a provision that many regarded as iniquitous, it would have meant selecting another amendment. You would then have been accused in certain quarters of killing the Bill by selecting too many amendments. On the other hand, not to debate that provision—to which the Ho use had never agreed on Second Reading—meant that time was running out without any possibility of debating a crucial provision. The sponsors and supporters of the Bill never referred to that when they appeared on television saying how abusive were the proceedings of the House. The promoters of private Members' Bills need to adopt a discipline: all the major ingredients should be in a Bill when it is presented for its Second Reading. Such tricks should not be played on the House.
  The composition of the Standing Committee reflects the vote on Second Reading. A favourable Committee can be obtained if provisions on which a majority would not be obtained are not put in before the Committee stage. The House is then denied the opportunity of debating a major provision on the last possible occasion before Third Reading. In such circumstances, among those who are put in an impossible position is the occupant of the Chair.
  Sir Bernard Braine rose—
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall not give way to the Father of the House. Too much time—and time is running out—has been spent in discussing the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, although it was necessary for me to allude to it because it illuminates an aspect of private Bill procedure.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall give way when I reach the moment to do so, which has not yet arrived.
  The Abortion (Amendment) Bill illuminates the obligations that must repose with those who put forward private Members' Bills within whatever constraints of time apply—and there will always be constraints. I shall now give way to the Father of the House.
  Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend must not mislead the House. He made a perfectly sound point in his general observations about a different Bill coming to the House at a later stage, but he was wrong in this instance. The Bill's sponsors had decided to take note of speeches made on Second Reading which asked for the Bill to be amended. The amendments were moved by sponsors of the Bill, the aim being to bring back to the House a Bill that had taken account of views expressed on Second Reading. To that extent, the Bill might be regarded as having been improved; it was certainly more sensitive to the feelings of the House. It is wrong to suggest that Mr. Speaker was put in an impossible position. Mr. Speaker presides over a legislative process that allows for amendment.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If new provisions of a highly contentious nature are inserted into a private Members' Bill in Committee, the sponsors must be naive beyond all

  789
  possibility if they do not realise that they are going to present the Chair on Report with an impossible dilemma—a dilemma of their making.
  I now leave private Members' Bill procedure because I am concerned about the three-and-a-half-year-old report on public Bill procedure that we can just read in its present form. We suggested that there should be more use of Special Standing Committees. That is because the House often legislates on technical matters, with its mind unclouded by knowledge. That is why the Procedure Committee recommended the introduction of that procedure in the first place.
  It is one thing to have the procedure—extant as a possibility in Standing Orders—but it does not do anybody very much good if the Government do not make use of the procedure that is extant in Standing Orders. My plea is that it should be more used. I believe that the time spent in Standing Committee on a Bill would then be more tightly focused and more productive, as it would produce good legislation that did not have unintended consequences.
  One of the objectives of a Standing Committee on a Bill is to ensure that the Bill achieves the consequences that were intended and does not have consequences that were unintended. One of the virtues of the Special Standing Committee procedure is that those who are more familiar with the subject matter that will be affected by the legislation can give the benefit of their advice, not expressed in party political terms, to the House as a whole. That will also be of benefit in Committee and on Report.
  I turn to a much more recent report—only a year and a half old—entitled "Use of Time on the Floor of the House". There is an old adage that nature abhors a vacuum; but nature also gives way to pressure that it cannot sustain. Unless we make more provision for dealing with urgently contentious matters, there will be abuse of the points of order procedure. We know that there has been such abuse. The Procedure Committee's objective would be not to pretend that that abuse would go away, but to see how it could reasonably be accommodated without imposing on the House and those who serve it in so many capacities an even greater and unreasonable prolongation of our sittings.
  Our proposal in paragraph 76—that twice a week there should be a short emergency debate chosen by you, Mr. Speaker—was a reasonable attempt to give to the House an alternative to spurious points of order. To those who would reject it, I am bound to say, "What would you put in its place, other than abusing the rules of order?" The pressure is there for all to see and hear. If your Committee's very modest recommendation is to be rejected, Mr. Speaker, it must, in my view, only fairly be rejected in favour of a better alternative, not in favour of nothing whatever.
  Reference has already been made to a number of other aspects, but other hon. Members want to speak in the debate, which is already two thirds gone. Therefore, I must ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whose interest in procedure I know to be authentic, to give us time to take decisions about procedural matters, rather than just to debate them either on a take-note basis or in Adjournment debates. At the end of the day, however, I have this baleful message for him. However often the
  790
  Select Committee on Procedure sits to try to find ways by means of which the House does not sit at ridiculous hours, when it cannot perform its task appropriately or efficiently, and however many reports it produces, we shall be swamped by legislation unless there is discipline over the introduction of legislation. That, I am afraid, follows, and it is something that only the Cabinet can remedy. It is not within the control of Back-Bench Members of the House.
  I used the word "legislation" because about 15 years ago I introduced a Bill, the Amendment of Statutory Instruments Bill. Each year I have weighed on the kitchen scales the bound volumes of Acts of Parliament of the last Session and the bound volumes of statutory instruments. The latter got remorselessly heavier as compared to the former, as well as in absolute terms. The proportion of our legislation which the House is powerless to alter increases each year. Nothing will convince me that it is not the least skilful parliamentary draftsmen who are put on to drafting secondary legislation, because they know that their Minister will not have to defend it against amendments in Committee. Naturally, the more skilled ones are put on to drafting Bills, and the less skilled on to statutory instruments. The absolute bottom of the bucket are put on to drafting legislation subject to the negative resolution procedure, which will probably never come before the House at all for shortage of time.
  The House will not have done its task, however hard its Select Committee works, until it grasps the nettle of having a process for amending statutory instruments. Therefore, our first tentative step towards that is recommending a reasoned amendment to be within the power of the appropriate Statutory Instrument Committee. It is a tiny step and a halting one, but for heaven's sake, let us take it.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about the desirability of the House being able to amend statutory instruments. That would be very helpful when we are trying to redress power.
  I pay tribute to the work of the Procedure Committee, but it is sometimes too concerned with formal procedures and has not paid enough attention to the informal procedures which run parallel to the formal ones. Members of the Committee have illustrated that tonight by complaining that there has been no opportunity to debate their reports in the House.
  Members of the Procedure Committee, almost all of whom are here, with a small number of others, must understand that, if we are to amend the House's procedures, we have to ensure that all 650 Members are involved. Although at least one of the Select Committee's reports is out of print and difficult to get hold of, my impression is that most hon. Members have not looked at its reports. Speaking to a cross-section of hon. Members this week to find out what was to be debated tonight and their views on the subject did not lead to enlightenment for me.
  The first problem for the Procedure Committee is to ensure that its reports are fully debated in the informal atmosphere in the House before there is a formal debate. I fear that, with many of its proposals, it has not overcome that first hurdle and got a majority of hon. Members to consider what it proposes.

  791
  I am a little worried about the parliamentary calendar. An informal calendar already exists, but the problem will not be solved by making it formal. The problem is that the calendar is wrong. If we make the informal calendar formal, we will solve nothing. We will merely give the Opposition an opportunity to say, "We fought very hard and we have wrecked the calendar again this year." That is not much use. The fundamental thing to which the report draws attention is the view that the House should not sit in July.
  We ought to recognise, particularly as the average age of hon. Members has got younger, that hon. Members ought to have the right to go away on holiday with their families in July and not have to take their children away from school. The problem is especially acute in Scotland. It is not a matter of a formal or informal calendar, but of the House having the will to reorganise its time so that it does not sit in that part of July.
  I now turn to the question whether we should timetable Bills from the start. Let us be clear that, at present, the right to timetable Bills rests with the Opposition when the Bill starts off. In my experience, the Opposition make a good attempt to timetable the Bill effectively. Although it has been argued that some long Bills have gone through the House with discussion on only the first one or two clauses, I believe that, on the whole, those are exceptions. If one looks at the political content of such a Bill, one realises that most of the political issues can be debated on the early clauses. The majority of Bills that go through the House—having been timetabled in effect by the Opposition—go through with reasonable scrutiny, considering the difficulties.
  If we chose to have early timetabling for Bills, a series of abuses might arise. I have served on a large number of Committees and I have found amendment races particularly obnoxious. It is important that we should debate amendments at the right place in the Bill. If one has a timetable for amendments, there is a race to table the first amendment. If one tables an amendment to clause 27, for example, and the amendment says, "Insert at the beginning of the clause 'subject to subsection (1)(a)'", someone else will try to table an amendment that will be debated even earlier and that does not lead to orderly debate.
  It would be a retrograde step for the House if, as a matter of principle, responsibility for timetabling Bills was handed over from the Opposition to, in effect, the Government. If a Committee which had a majority of Government Members was appointed to timetable Bills, that is what we would be doing. If the Procedure Committee was suggesting that the responsibility should be handed over to a Committee composed of a majority of Opposition Members, I would not complain, but I am sure that Ministers would not be happy with that. I should not be happy about giving the Government more power over timetabling.
  I shall now deal with the Committee's report on early-day motions. It seems that the House has not been well served by some of the trivial early-day motions that have appeared on the Order Paper, but the main point is that early-day motions are a public way of reflecting the informal activities of the House. It is not easy to tell constituents that one has had a word with the Minister and pressed the point: it does not sound convincing. Putting one's name on an early-day motion is a simple process, but it is a way of giving some form to the series of informal
  792
  processes that go on in the House. We often talk about the Division Lobbies, the Members' Lobby and Central Lobby, but we should realise that much of the process of Parliament is the informal lobbying that goes on. Early-day motions offer an opportunity for a formal way of dealing with that informal activity. That is not too high a price to pay.
  It was suggested earlier that hon. Members who are suspended should suffer a longer period of suspension than that which is normally imposed. We should be careful about that, because, if suspensions were longer, we should be using the majority in the House to censure individual Members. Hon. Members should be accountable to their constituents and not too firmly accountable to the majority in the House. If suspensions were longer, they would be far more controversial and would cause more problems.
  I ask the Leader of the House to use the Special Standing Committee procedure more frequently. I suggest that the forthcoming legislation on children would be a good opportunity to use that procedure.
  I welcome the opportunity to amend statutory instruments. At present, we are too often prepared to put into primary legislation the power for the Secretary of State to do things by order and by regulation. If the House were less willing to give Ministers that power in the first place, fewer problems would develop.
  Finally, I should like the Leader of the House to think about the problems that occur with statements, especially if our proceedings are to be televised. It is not a satisfactory procedure for embargoed copies of White Papers and other documents to be given out to the lobby and to other newspaper correspondents, sometimes 24 hours beforehand and often on the morning of the day on which the statement is to be made, and then for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and minority parties to receive the same statements and documents perhaps just half an hour or an hour before the statement is made, but no of her Members being able even to get hold of a copy until after the statement has been made.
  If it is reasonable for journalists to be sufficiently briefed on matters so that they can write about them for the following morning's newspapers, it is reasonable that hon. Members should have the same opportunity to read the documents and ask questions about them. There is the procedure of the statement being given in the House, but there is often a wait of several weeks or months—sometimes even years—before there is a further opportunity to discuss those matters. It should be possible for hon. Members to receive such documents on at least the same terms as journalists.
  There should be far more debate about most of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Procedure. Such debate should occur in an informal atmosphere first, and once there is a clear majority in the House for change, we should proceed with the legislation. We should not bemoan the fact that such things are not debated on the Floor of the House. What we should bemoan is the fact that the Procedure Committee has not convinced sufficient hon. Members to take an interest in its reports for there to be a full and frank informal debate before we get to the stage at which we should vote.
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have been busy this evening, which is why I missed the first part

  793
  of the debate. I have been trying to win Weybridge for the Labour party, which is why I wrote to you. Could you appeal to hon. Members to make their contributions brief so that I can get in?
  Mr. Speaker: I was about to rise to my feet when the hon. Gentleman gazumped me to say that I understand that the shadow Leader of the House will seek to catch my eye at about a quarter to 10. Quite a number of hon. Members have not yet spoken—some of whom served on the Committee—but I think it is quite important in such a debate that Members who did not serve on the Committee are also called to speak so that we may have their views as well.
  9.17 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will forgive me if I do not follow too closely the specific points that he made. This is one of our more interesting debates, in which the currents of controversy move not across the Floor of the House like forked lightning, but up and down the Benches on either side rather like sheet lightning. The balance of opinion is sometimes rather interesting, if much more difficult to predict than usual. I shall resist the temptation to enter into the important, but in some ways private, fight that the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir. B. Braine), has reinstated this evening.
  However, I shall permit myself one reflection on the important procedural point that has been discussed in considerable depth. If the exploitation of procedure within the rules of order—it must always be within the rules of order because that is a fundamental premise—to oppose legitimate proposals, whether in the form of legislation or otherwise, is to be ruled out, we face a difficult problem. Naturally, like so many other hon. Members of all parties, I dislike such exploitation whenever it occurs. Furthermore, the public do not understand it and I do not think that they will ever. We must be extremely careful before we tighten the straitjacket of procedure on this House so severely that the patient—in this case Parliament—is suffocated. Having said that, I realise that to some extent I am undermining my own case on a number of the other points that I hope to make as briefly as I can.
  I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for his report—indeed, for all his serious reports. I have read most of them this afternoon and find myself in considerable agreement with a large proportion of their recommendations.
  I share the regret of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that we are not debating specific proposals placed before the House for decision. As is so often the case, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House showed his usual courtesy and consideration and raised a fundamental point about procedure—the behaviour of hon. Members. My perspective is nowhere near as long as that of the Leader of the House or as long as that of many other hon. Members, but perhaps it is a little longer than the perspective of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  A long perspective does not necessarily confer authority, except in your case, Mr. Speaker, because you
  794
  sit in the House for thousands of hours a year. Perhaps you spend more time in it than any other hon. Member, and therefore your perspective gives you special authority. Within the last few years the standard of behaviour in the House has declined. There has been a decline in courtesy, in good manners and, perhaps, a decline in that rarest of all commodities in this Chamber, wit.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Sir Ian Lloyd: The hon. Member for Newham. North-West (Mr. Banks) is an exemplar of wit.
  Mr. Banks: I have with me a book by Sir Alexander Mackintosh entitled, "Echoes of Big Ben." It says:
  "I trembled for the fame and fate of Parliament as I witnessed the extremely violent, disgraceful scene, in July, 1893, of hon. Members hitting each other."
  The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) has been in the House for a long time. Can he tell us when hon. Members last hit each other? That certainly puts into perspective the rather eccentric behaviour of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) who left the House earlier today describing hon. Members as disciples of Onan and making strange gestures to Mr. Speaker.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: Hon. Members hitting each other is not within my experience, and I hope that it will never be. It is always a little dangerous to quote from a decade in which, I think, Irish Members came here in an attempt to destroy Parliament. Fortunately for all of us, they failed. I will not go as far as to say that such an objective underlay the behaviour that we have seen, but Parliament serves no purpose whatever if none of us modifies our views or assumptions. Surely we come to the House to listen and to enlarge our experience and knowledge and, occasionally, to modify our assumptions and opinions. We cannot do that if we can never hear what anyone is saying.
  I shall describe two phenomena which I am sure are familiar to all hon. Members. The House contains what I call the "What about" mob. That mob consists of hon. Members who say, "What about the IMF? What about inflation? What about unemployment, nurses and miners?" Such interventions are not worthy of a soap box debate in Hyde park and are singularly unworthy of the House. Surely we can bring to our debates qualities and standards better than, "What about?" Such behaviour denigrates and destroys what we are trying to do.
  The other phenomenon is the finger-pointing mafia. Some hon. Members seem to think that their intellectual arguments are enhanced by stabbing their fingers at Front-Bench spokesmen. That is bad mannered and does not add to the point or force of the argument. The less we see of it the better and the more Parliament will be pleased. When television arrives in due course the public will not want to see such behaviour because they would not like it at all.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentlemen is complaining about mafia-like people pointing their fingers at the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When I stand up with my hands in my pockets it is more than likely that one of the Tory yobbos from the goose-stepping tendency will tell me to take my hands out of my pockets. I am in a bit of a dilemma about what to do. If I were concerned about behaviour in this place, I would not be concerned about people making a point on

  795
  behalf of their class. I would be concerned about those who come trotting in here half drunk or half sober, whatever the case may be, coming out of the 16 bars, or trotting off on business trips to South Africa, paid for by the Botha Government. I regard that as much more important than somebody who has his hands in his pockets or who is poking a finger at others when he speaks.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand my point. I sympathise with him if he is being shouted at by Members who tell him to take his hands out of his pockets, but I am not concerned about people who come here half sober or half drunk. I am much more concerned about people who come here half-witted.
  The report on the calendar is interesting. It tells us that it is now over 10 years since the House had two weeks' recess at Easter or Whitsun, and the proposal that it makes for setting the calendar recommends that we should have a least one week at Easter and one week at Whitsun. I disagree with the Committee on that point. It is time that we became somewhat more generous to ourselves, particularly at Whitsun. I do not know what the opinion of the House is on that question, but I should happily trade 10 days in October for five additional days at Whitsun, and I sense that that finds some support in the House.
  The real difficulty is this. We shall find more time—time lies at the heart of Parliament and much that we do here—if we spend a little more effort in trying to stop the waste of it. Parliamentary time, like energy, is something which is best found by conserving it. For example, I regard the second Division last night as a conspicuous example of the waste of 20 minutes of parliamentary time. It proved nothing to anyone and by the most simple procedural device, every point could have been satisfied. You, Mr. Speaker, could have asked the Liberals whether they would be willing to record their 20 votes against the majority. All that would have been needed would have been a yes, the Division would have been recorded and the great British public would have been none the wiser, or all the wiser. There would have been no fundamental difference to what we were doing.
  Other points, which I wish to make as quickly as possible, also concern time. In the report on the use of time on the Floor of the House, the key conclusion is that in paragraph 2, which states:
  "Compared with legislative bodies in other large democracies, the House of Commons continues to sit on more days per annum than any others."
  That prompts the immediate query: Are we, as a country, for that reason better governed than the other large democracies? Different sides of the House will have different opinions in answer to that question. The report concludes:
  "there needs to be the greatest possible efficiency in the use of the available time."
  I wholeheartedly agree with that.
  What are the facts? We waste time on a prodigious scale, and no more seriously than in four particular ways. The first, which has already been mentioned, is bogus points of order. We can do with far fewer of them and if, by other means, we can give hon. Members legitimate opportunities to raise legitimate points, we should do so and encourage them to do it in other ways.
  Secondly, there is the tedious introduction of largely, or often, irrelevant parochial aspects and illustrations in hon.
  796
  Members' speeches. We are all guilty of that. It seldom adds much to the debate or to the quality of the argument. We could all impose a greater self-discipline there.
  Thirdly, there is the tedious repetition of arguments. Theoretically, this is against the rules of order, but it is seldom that anyone is pulled up for tedious repetition. We are all guilty of it and we should all do it less frequently. We are all guilty of introducing, ad nauseam, fallacies and assumptions that cannot be sustained.
  Fourthly, there is the question of voting. Here lies the greatest possible scope. We do not practise what I believe is widely practised now in all other managerial systems outside and possibly even inside politics. That is known as management by exception. The vote that matters is that which is decided by the electorate once every four to five years. That is the vote that makes the greatest impact on the nation and its affairs. Very occasionally, and particularly if the balance between the governing party and the Opposition is small, a vote is challenged or altered by a profound disagreement within the Government or the Opposition. Occasionally, there is such a thing as a procedural ambush. That is increasingly rare, especially when the Government have a substantial majority. It can be challenged by accidental absence, for example, by a significant number of Members being delayed on a plane from Scotland to London.
  However, in my humble judgment, the nation is not interested in those changes, except when Governments are threatened or defeated; that is when the parliamentary balance no longer reflects the general election ballot. Those are the divisions in which the nation is really interested. If we alter our procedures in such a way as to give the nation what it wants, which is a full and proper report on those occasions, we can save ourselves an enormous amount of time on many of the other Divisions that take place here. By and large, the media are uninterested in whether our majority is 150, 100 or 50. The evidence of this is that those Divisions are seldom reported, apart from the particular examples that I have mentioned.
  We have no management by exception when we should have such management. We assume a Government majority, but we could allow far more efficient procedures to reveal variations rather than reassert meaningless totals. There are many ways of achieving that and I shall simply mention two of them. First, there are the non-electronic methods. There is no need, for example, on a second Division late at night to troop through the Division Lobbies. I believe that your discretion, Mr. Speaker, and direction to record the vote of minor parties would have achieved every objective except that of wasting time.
  Where there are several Divisions and we are bound to record identical votes, we can easily amalgamate them, without prejudice to anyone, least of all the Opposition. That applies to amendments, substantive motions and Third Readings where there may be three votes one after another. We all know that, plus or minus two or three votes, the identical Division will be recorded, and that we will have wasted 50 minutes of the House's precious time, which, as the Procedure Committee admits, we need for other purposes.
  Finally, I must at least mention the fact that we largely ignore the significant potential of electronic devices. It now seems possible for any hon. Member to leave a completely secure coded vote in the system, which can be withdrawn

  797
  immediately on demand or cancelled by telephone. That technical possibility may seem far-fetched, but we should consider the contribution that it could make.
  Late sittings have been much discussed. The House should consider the 10 o'clock rule in a fundamental way. The Procedure Committee suggested that hon. Members do not often refer to that or vote against it, but I regard that argument as specious. We do not vote against the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule for the simple reason that we know that the Government would win every Division on that type of vote. It is rather futile as the Government would always outvote us.
  I very much agree with the Study of Parliament Group's trenchant comment that
  "proceedings in the chamber should comprise those on which Members are most anxious to exercise their rights to attend, speak and vote."
  The group concludes that
  "the chamber could be spared even more secondary legislation, most debates on European Community Documents and, more significantly, the remaining stages of much legislation and more Second Readings. It could therefore become the rule that business such as secondary legislation and EC Documents would always be dealt with in Committee unless specifically brought to the Floor of the House by government, by opposition parties on an Opposition Day or by backbenchers on a Private Members' day."
  I heartily commend that conclusion to the House.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: Regardless of the political colour of the Government, our democracy is in a crisis, both within this place and outside. That is seen to be so by many outside the House because of a number of actions that the Government are taking. The same applies to those who are within the House. Throughout our society we see the overwhelming and overbearing influence that is being brought to bear both inside and outside the House. The procedures of the House, which we are now debating, are being used in a way that reflects the contempt that Governments in general, but this one in particular, hold for what is nominally the legislature.
  There has been no serious attempt to reform the way in which this place works. That is because basically it works to the advantage of this Government, perhaps more than it has worked to the advantage of any Government in the past. When television cameras come into the Chamber and viewers see the way in which the Government manipulate Parliament, there will be tremendous revulsion. The same can be said of any party which forms a Government, but the Conservative party and the present Government have demonstrated so clearly the problems that a Parliament without power faces when it is faced with an Executive that exercises no restraint.
  There is a great deal more that the Opposition could do to highlight the problems and to produce a serious alternative to the way in which our democracy currently does not work. Unfortunately, there are two camps within the Opposition. There are those who say, "We'll give them some stick when we get in next time. We don't want any changes because we can be just as authoritarian. We can abuse our democracy in equal measure." I do not agree with that view. Secondly, there are those who feel that, if we were to make serious changes to our processes and procedures, their little niche, speciality or maverick ability
  798
  in this, that or the other area would fall prey to a wider democracy. Both camps are wrong. I hope that tonight's debate will cause one or two of their members to think afresh about the wider values that we Socialists should promote.
  We must examine the role of the House of Commons in a democracy. How do we expect the House to move forward so that it can play a serious role in our democracy? How can it extend its ability to hold Government to account? If there ever was a golden age, how can we re-invent the ability to scrutinise government? No outsider, no impartial judge, would say that we in this place effectively hold our Government to account. That can be said of Governments of whatever political colour.
  Perhaps we need to go far further than the reforms proposed by the Procedure Committee in the many reports that are before us. We should move on to consider the separation of powers, a written constitution, a Bill of Rights and the wholesale reform of the judiciary before we can seriously tackle the inability of this place to hold the Government to account. That will have to wait for another debate and another day.
  One of the several problems that has emerged during the debate is that a number of hon. Members have concentrated their sudden desire for procedural reform to make Parliament effective on one bad experience that they personally underwent during consideration of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill 1987. I do not believe that they do the cause of parliamentary reform any good whatsoever by suddenly discovering that there are problems with the private Member's Bill procedure and suddenly griping that there have been difficulties.
  Mr. Beith: In my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who intervened earlier, has argued for the past 10 or 15 years, long before his Bill came before the House, that there should be time for private Members' Bills to reach a conclusion.
  Mr. Allen: I do not know about individual cases, but there certainly has not been a massive groundswell on those issues over many years. People have suddenly discovered it because of the issue that was raised last year.
  Like every other debate on a Select Committee report—there have been only five on substantive motions since 1979, even though there have been almost 400 reports—after tonight's debate there will be no vote. This has merely been a talking shop exercise. If the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, will allow me, I suggest that it may be an error in the Procedure Committee reports that they contain no proposal that a specified number of Committee reports should, as of right, come back to the Floor of the House for a decision. Under such a system, a number of the hon. Gentleman's recommendations would have been voted upon. Until we link the system of Select Committees to the Floor of the House, those Committees will be divorced from real accountability and scrutiny by the Government.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Why only a proportion? If the House sets up a Committee to consider something, surely that presupposes that the Committee should come back with proposals and the House should vote on them. Otherwise, what is the point of setting up the Committees in the first place?
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend expresses his own view, and I do not wish to comment on his remarks.
  Parliament is letting down democracy, as it is not fulfilling its role. Perhaps I come to this debate with some naivety as I am a new Member. However, I hope that that also means that I bring a fresher eye to this problem. I hope also that my commitment to this issue is in no doubt. It is something of a chore, I may tell the Leader of the House, to have to go to the Table Office every day to table my motions on the Order Paper, despite the welcome that I always get there. However, I have spent a year tabling my motions in an attempt, as Conservative Members said earlier, to bring this issue to the fore and get, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, a number of hon. Members interested in this area. This is not an arcane and esoteric area. It is an area of parliamentary reform which is vital to the ability of our democracy to take decisions effectively, to inform people outside, and, above all, to hold the Government to account.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Perhaps it is rather surprising that the hon. Gentleman and I, as new Members with a fresh view, share the opinion of the Privy Councillors who have spoken this evening and believe that a change in the procedure is long overdue. Surely it must be right that the Government should find time to bring forward as soon as possible substantive proposals that we can vote on to change the procedure.
  Mr. Allen: The Government will not find time to change the House, given that the House serves the Government's purpose. Until the House reasserts its independence from Government, I see no prospect of these matters being brought to a decision. None the less, they must be brought to the attention of hon. Members. I have continually tabled motions which appear as remaining orders of the day. Perhaps one day Mr. Speaker will surprise me by selecting one. I hope that that happens on a day when I am in attendance—as I usually am. Please do not surprise me, Mr. Speaker, by selecting one on an odd day when I am not here.
  I have proposed that speeches in all debates should be limited to 10 minutes: that is self-explanatory. They should be timed by another clock in the Chamber that can be stopped so that interventions are not taken out of the 10 minutes. That would encourage debate as hon. Members would be very willing to give way and pursue points knowing that they would not lose any time out of their 10 minutes.
  The point that all hon. Members should be treated equally in debate has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I fully endorse his proposals about Privy Councillors. A list of speakers should be available before each debate so that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) would not have to come back half-expecting to be called to speak tonight. He would have been able to phone in and find out, and listen at leisure when he arrived.
  Timetables should be introduced for all Bills. The theory of timetables is that the Government get their Bill at the end of the day, and they know the day on which that Bill will come out of Committee. But in Committee the timetabling of the Bill should be the possession of the Opposition, and they should choose the areas to be scrutinised in greatest depth.
  800
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned dates of sittings. Special Standing Committees are becoming increasingly important. Given the cursory examination that Bills receive, there should be a period of one month between First and Second Reading so that there can be examination outside of the clauses of the Bill.
  Finally, Committees of the House should be allowed to come to the Floor of the House by right to present at least one report each year so that there is a connection between the Committee system and the Floor of the House. The Leader of the House kindly raised the question of hours, so I shall not spend any time on that. Tonight's debate has been helpful, but it would be far more helpful if the Leader of the House agreed that decisions as well as speeches should be forthcoming.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I was hoping that at least one novelty would be proposed tonight. I would suggest the installation of polygraph lie detectors in both Dispatch Boxes. That would he to the advantage of the public and Back Benchers and to the disadvantage of Front Benchers on both sides. However, no such novelties have been proposed today.
  If we consider what are normally regarded as the proper functions of a Parliament, we are not too bad at the redress of individual grievances; but everyone has to accept that we are not too smart at scrutinising the activities of the Executive, we are absolutely deplorable at controlling Government expenditure, and we have not been too good at producing understandable, workable laws.
  During the past two or three years, it has not been the practitioners in the field who are unable to understand the law. In view of the successful court actions against the Government, particularly in local government finance and social security, it is clear that some of the Ministers who introduced the Bills did not understand them and broke the law fairly soon after they were enacted. In those circumstances, I do not think that we are doing too well in the production of understandable law.
  One aspect of Parliament that tends to be ignored—the Select Committee, at least in some ways, tended to set it to one side—is our function as a place for free expression of opinion, where people are allowed to express their views and conduct campaigns within a political arena. I hope that no one will take offence when I say that I feel that the Select Committee has taken rather a managerial approach to this place, and in some sense there has been a lot of effort to depoliticise it, as if one of the Committee's objects was the smooth operation of the House. That is not always the case.
  I do not want to talk about short speeches, other than to say that you, Mr. Speaker, should be empowered to impose a time limit from 6 pm to 9 pm, if you so wished, rather than from 6 pm to 8 pm or from 7 pm to 9 pm. That would definitely be an advantage.
  The Select Committee made proposals for allocating time to Government Bills in Committee. In fact, not many Bills end up being guillotined—although, because of the sanguinary activities of the Leader of the House, during the last Session more Bills were guillotined than in any other Session in the history of Parliament. However, the number was still only six, so we are not reduced to guillotining Bills too frequently. Most Bills go through Committee as both sides expect; only the most

  801
  controversial of Bills do not. I am doubtful about the idea that a Committee should self-guillotine, fairly quietly and without much publicity. It is generally to the advantage of the Opposition to insist that if the Government want very controversial measures to go through quickly, at some point in the proceedings they must come to the Floor of the House and face adverse publicity.
  Last Session we forced the Government to guillotine the Social Security Bill; the result was 140 column inches of newspaper coverage, mostly unfavourable to the Government. That was useful and worth while. It is a stick with which all Oppositions should be able to beat Governments, and to do so in public rather than reaching agreement upstairs.
  The Select Committee recommended changes in the rules governing debates on statutory instruments. What strikes me as peculiar is that, four or five years after a Bill has been passed, no one has the faintest idea why it was thought to need the affirmative procedure. The belief is that the affirmative procedure applies to important matters and the negative procedure to less important matters. The fact is that what might appear to be important while a Bill is going through often turns out to be relatively trivial two or three years later.
  The present rules for deciding whether statutory instruments should be dealt with on the Floor of the House or upstairs are probably better than the Select Committee's proposals. Much more important is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the willingness of the House to allow important parts of legislation to be sloughed off into regulations when they should be on the face of the primary legislation. If we do not jib at putting such important matters into regulations rather than into primary legislation, the question whether they are dealt with on the Floor of the House or upstairs is trivial. I share the doubts of the Leader of the House about the wisdom of taking a substantial chunk of prime time at 3.30 pm for procedural wrangles about what should happen to particular statutory instruments. Neither side would benefit from such a use of parliamentary time.
  A matter of much more consequence is whether it should be possible for the House to amend statutory instruments. Anyone can recognise the advantages of being able to do so. There might be a possibility—although I understand that it is not what the Select Committee is proposing—of identifying groups of extremely significant pieces of secondary legislation that could be amendable, but not to make secondary legislation in general amendable. That might go some way towards alleviating concern about the really poor level of draftsmanship to which the hon. Member for Honition (Sir P. Emery) referred.
  Our present parliamentary calendar is ludicrous and has been determined by a hangover from when the House was run by country gentry. There are few of those left in the House, although there are a number of lawyers. We need an altogether different parliamentary calendar. If that necessitated the major constitutional change of shifting the party conferences to another time of year so that we could spread out our time more sensibly, perhaps we should consider doing that. Even within existing
  802
  arrangements, it would be advantageous to most people to have some kind of parliamentary calendar, rather than conduct our affairs in our present haphazard way.
  It is clear that, whatever we decide about the parliamentary calendar, in the end the Government will always be able to amend it if they are desperate. I cannot see many Opposition Members saying, "By God, we've triumphed this time. We've forced them to smash the parliamentary calendar to such an extent that we shall all meet on Christmas day." That will not normally be one of our objectives.
  It appears to me that it would be easier for you, Mr. Speaker, and for practically every hon. Member, if we had a calendar set out in advance, and, by and large, the Government made us stick to it.
  While we have our present approach to parliamentary government, the Government will always be able to fix what happens in the Chamber. [Interruption.] I believe that the Whip has misunderstood the amount of time for which the Leader of the House has asked.
  I believe that in general the propositions before us are rather managerial in their approach. In line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) suggested, we need a more radical change to the way in which the House goes about its tasks, because we are still obsessed with 18th-century French ideas that in some way or another the House of Commons controls the Government.
  The fact is that, once a Government have a majority, the Government control the House of Commons. As long as we fail to recognise that basic point, most of the propositions from the Procedure Committee will not have a substantial impact on what happens in the House or how we carry on our business. We need to start from an altogether different proposition. If we want the Procedure Committee to produce the radical changes in procedure which my party believes in, we must give it a more radical role altogether. We cannot criticise it for producing the propositions that are before us, because no one has asked it to be especially radical.
  9.58 pm
  Mr. Wakeham: With the permission of the House, I shall say a few words.
  Because of the late start to the debate and the number of Members who wished to speak, I believed that it was better not to make a substantive reply on the issues, but to hear as many hon. Members as possible. I know that a number of hon. Members did not get into the debate. The debate was held on the Adjournment so that views could be expressed, and I cannot complain if I received some pretty strong views from a number of quarters, because that was the purpose of the exercise. It is clear that virtually any change to our procedures is considered controversial by one part of the House or another. I shall seek to find some general agreement and see whether we can make some progress.
  Other matters have arisen in the debate that the Select Committee on Procedure might like to consider further and to give us some guidance on.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will the shadow Leader of the House come and advise us?
  Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the hon. Gentleman spoke with considerable authority and experience of opposition, which is an important part of the balance of this House.
  I shall study tonight's speeches carefully. I also hope that the overwhelming majority of Members who did not take part in this debate will also study them, because what we do will also depend upon them.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Milk Quotas
  10 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether we could take the two motions together?
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret having to make an objection to the two motions being taken together as I appreciate that the subject matters are linked not only in the form of the liquid, but because of the relationship between them. However, if we discuss the two motions together, the quality of scrutiny goes down, because we have only one and a half hours' debate on three different matters, including a possible amendment. Unless we finish the first motion within one and a half hours, we shall have double the time if we take them separately. Therefore, on the grounds of scrutiny, I object to the motions being taken together.
  Mr. Speaker: We shall deal first with the motion on milk quotas.
  Mr. MacGregor: I am perfectly content to take the two motions separately.
  I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8108/88 on milk and milk products and of the Government's intention to pursue agreement which meets the requirements of the European Court's judgment while containing costs and ensuring that the effectiveness of milk quotas is maintained.
  It is important to give the House a brief reminder of the background of this matter. In 1984, when milk quotas were first introduced, it was clear that something had to be done to deal with sharply-rising surpluses and ever-escalating spending on support for the dairy sector. The existing regime was simply not working, so the Community had to act. Quotas were not the Government's original preferred approach, but it became clear during the negotiations in autumn 1983—I was Minister of State at that time and involved in the negotiations—that quotas were the only negotiable solution for the Council of Ten Ministers, as it then was.
  There are considerable disadvantages to milk quotas, and I have never hidden that fact. They involve a large and costly administrative burden for the Government and industry. Perhaps one of their biggest disadvantages is that they inhibit new entrants to the industry and inhibit entrepreneurial farmers within it. On the other hand, quotas have enabled the industry to contain its dairy problem. I say "contain" because expenditure is still high, and the dairy regime is still the most expensive in the Community.
  It is true that the surpluses are largely being dealt with—the "vanishing mountains", as I have described them—and it is important for the public and hon. Members to realise that today those mountains are vanishing.
  In the past year we have seen an 80 per cent. decline in the butter mountain in the United Kingdom and the skimmed milk powder mountain has vanished. The disposal of production, however, is still heavily subsidised. About three quarters of the Community's skimmed milk powder production and one fifth of butter production receives a subsidy to assist in finding an outlet for that production. We are now trying to deal with that problem

  805
  and are urging that some of the subsidies should be reduced. The Commission, with my encouragement, has now taken action on that matter.
  Mr. William Cash: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Court of Auditors recently pronounced on the incredible waste connected with the public storage of goods that form part of the common agricultural policy. That storage costs us about £3 billion-plus a year, and the Court of Auditors described the whole system as a total shambles and utterly discredited. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do something to get this matter under control, because it represents one of the greatest wastes of public expenditure that the country witnesses?
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend goes a little far, and perhaps I can explain why. We are not talking about £3 billion being wasted through bad storage methods. A large part of that cost has been incurred in the straight storage and disposal of the surpluses. I made it clear that, as a result of the CAP reforms, those surpluses are significantly falling, so, over a period, that cost will reduce.
  Where the Court of Auditors has been right in drawing our attention to difficulties is in respect of the way in which some of the storage and dispoal systems have been operating. The cost of these difficulties is a much lesser figure. The real need is to get rid of the surpluses, for that is the way that costs will come down. Nevertheless, while we have surpluses, I am in favour of ensuring that we operate them as efficiently as possible and that there is no waste or mismanagement. That makes for inefficient use of resources for which the taxpayer has to pay. I assure my hon. Friend that I drew attention to the Court of Auditors' report at the last Council meeting, saying that we should all be concerned to learn its lessons. I am glad to say that I was supported by the Commission, and that the Council will be considering the report shortly. But the distinction to make is an important one.
  I referred to some of the quota system's helpful elements, including containing expenditure. Above all, on that side of the equation, quotas have given our dairy farmers stability. Producer numbers have fallen since quotas were imposed, but that is the continuation of a long-term trend. Fundamentally, dairy farmers know the broad constraints within which they will be working until 1992. The price they receive for their output is about 3 per cent. higher than it was a year ago. Dairy farming profits, which were falling when quotas were introduced, have risen steadily since then.
  With the rationalisation of processing capacity that has occurred, the industry is in good shape to maximise the value of its production, and—with curbs on production—that will be the key to its future prosperity.
  One of the other, often very difficult, problems about quotas is the acute difficulties that arise—especially in the initial stages but also subsequently from time to time—in the methods of and principles applied to the distribution of quotas. That was one of the most difficult tasks facing us on the introduction of quotas—deciding how to distribute them. It is one of the issues before us tonight. In April, the European Court ruled that the original Community quota regulations were in breach of Community law by failing to make provision for producers who intended returning to
  806
  production after fulfilling the four or five-year cessation period required by the scheme. That judgment requires the Commission to make proposals for changes to the quota regulations.
  At this point, I stress that neither the Council of Ministers nor the Commission in any way welcomes that development. It presented a problem that we did not seek and the need for policy changes that we did not wish to make. However, the Council is obliged to act in response to a European Court judgment. It has no option.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: There is an option. If the Council of Ministers agrees that this is thoroughly disadvantageous, an amendment to the treaty would overturn the Court's ruling.
  Mr. MacGregor: That is probably beyond the abilities of the Council of Agriculture Ministers to bring about. We feel that we must act within the Court's judgment, but I shall explain how we are trying to minimise the disadvantages. In view of the shortness of this debate, and despite the fact that it is a single debate, perhaps I ought to get on with my speech, so that other right hon. and hon. Members may have an opportunity to contribute.
  I have sympathy with those farmers who have complained about the measures that the Council is now considering on the ground that they are unfair to existing producers—for example, those with development awards, and particularly those who found their original quota requests sharply cut back in 1984. I have to say that this is not a step taken by Ministers on their initiative. We are being purely reactive, as we are obliged to be, and it has been my objective—and here I come to my hon. Friend's point—to minimise possible unfairnesses.
  The Commission's response to the Court's decision is the package of proposals as refined for decision by the Council and set out in document COM(88)446. Briefly, a new category of producer eligible for the allocation of quota is defined on the basis of restrictive criteria. These are designed to ensure that the only producers who benefit will be those who are committed to return to milk production, although they joined the cessation scheme at the time.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: How is the Court's decision being interpreted? Does it apply to farmers who ceased milk production if the five-year period was before 1984, or specifically to those cases in which the five-year period ended after that year? Would such farmers be prevented from applying for quotas? Many of them would like that to be clarified.
  Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give a clear answer to that question yet, because it is one of the matters currently being debated in the Council.
  An increase in the Community quota reserve of 500,000 tonnes is proposed to alleviate the problems faced by member states in allocating quotas to the new category of producers. To compensate in part for the extra costs flowing from the additional production, the Commission proposes to reduce the butter intervention price by 2 per cent., which would be offset by a reduction in the co-responsibility levy for small producers. Finally, the package incorporates a technical change in the way in which supplementary levy is calculated to clarify member

  807
  states' liability in the first two years of quotas. Those are the key ingredients. There are a number of other detailed points which there is not time to go into this evening.
  From the outset of our Council discussions, I emphasised my belief that we should be guided by certain principles. First, we should aim to ensure that the quotas of existing producers were not affected by the need to respond to the Court's decision. Secondly, the conditions for eligibility should be restrictively drawn to ensure that only those genuinely intending to go back into milk—and then doing so—should benefit. Thirdly, the quota should not be capable of being sold or leased.
  I know that those points have been strongly supported by many of our farmers, and I am pleased to see that there has been growing support for them in the Council. The measures before us reflect them, while taking fair account of the interests of those producers who clearly did and do intend to return to milk production. Moreover—this is another important criterion—the package now taking shape will not undermine the effectiveness of the quota system.
  The package has already been subject to considerable discussion in the Council, and I cannot be certain when we shall reach final decisions, although I hope—it is only a hope, but 1 intend to try to achieve it—that it will be at the December Council. I am keen to resolve the issue—which is causing uncertainty among our dairy farmers—as quickly as possible. Overall, however, while a number of points of detail remain to be resolved, the question of eligibility conditions seems to he moving to a satisfactory resolution.
  The remainder of the package has received rather less attention in Community discussion, but raises some important issues. In view of the continuing level of surplus production, I regret the need to increase the total amount of quota available, but—as I have said—it was not of our choosing. It will not be easy to avoid, given the need to make provisions for a new category of producers without affecting the outlook for those who already hold quotas. The need to limit the potential demand for new quota is the main reason for keeping the eligibility criteria very restrictive.
  I support the proposed cut in the butter price, although I regret that even on the Commission's figures it does not compensate for the whole cost of the extra quota proposed. Given the current cost of the dairy regime—which, as I explained, is still the most expensive in the Community—it would have been unfair to seek compensatory savings from other sectors for a problem that has arisen in the dairy sector itself.
  By the same token, I am unhappy at the suggested cut in the co-responsibility levy for very small producers. It has little economic justification; it is not relevant to the Court's judgment that we have to implement; and it disadvantages the United Kingdom because so few of our producers fall into that category. I have therefore been opposing it.
  Overall, this is a complex proposal which has been forced on the Community by an unexpected decision of the Court. However, in the light of discussions so far, there are better prospects than I feared at the outset of a package emerging that is reasonable in all the circumstances. There is still, therefore, enough time for us to ask for views and to reach a final decision. That is why I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I have made a short speech to enable as many hon. Members as possible
  808
  to express their views on the proposal. It will enable me to take their views into account when I prepare my approach to the further and, I hope, final Council discussions.
  10.15 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I, too, intend to restrict my remarks to the aftermath of the Wilder case so that as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible can take part in the debate.
  We welcome the opportunity to discuss this important matter. It enables hon. Members to put their views to the Minister, which he will be able to take with him to the meeting that is to be held between 12 and 16 December. He can then fight for what we believe in. Many hon. Members believe that the Court's judgment is perverse, but that is the legally correct position and we have to abide by it. Nevertheless, the judgment highlights the injustices that many small dairy farmers face. They have done badly out of the introduction of quotas. They have not had the advantage of the golden handshake schemes from which farmers who are covered by the Mulder judgment can benefit. That fact needs to be put on the record. Many small farmers were able to make a living before the introduction of quotas. The cuts, however, have made it difficult for them to continue in business as dairy farmers.
  The Minister implied that the Mulder case presents the Commission with a serious problem. A literal and generous interpretation of the Court's judgment could mean that an additional 5 million tonnes of milk would have to be found. To put that into perspective., I understand that that is roughly equal to the total quantity of milk that has been saved since the introduction of generous quota systems in 1984. Faced with that dilemma, the Commission felt that it had been placed in an impossible position. It has therefore proposed a limited scheme.
  It would be useful if the Minister could tell hon. Members about the bargaining positions of the other member states. It would also be useful if he could further clarify the British Government's stance. We understand that the new scheme will be available only to those farmers who received the non-marketing premiums after 1 April 1984. That is restrictive, but I do not grumble about it. We understand also that the new scheme will apply only to farmers who are able to show that they can run viable dairy units. It will not apply to farmers who are already in receipt of the dairy quota.
  The most interesting aspect of the Commission's proposals—I stress that they are proposals—is that the Minister was frank and open at the November Council meetings when these matters were discussed. His stance was known when the Council was discussing the small group of people who are eligible. The Minister supported the Commission's proposals. May we be told about the attitude of the Germans, the main beneficiaries of the scheme, and that of the Danes and the southern Europeans to the scheme, who will not benefit from it?
  Another interesting point in the document is that if any of the new quota is subsequently leased or sold it will be confiscated and returned to the Community's reserve. When, a few minutes ago, the Minister elaborated on that, the House applauded what he said. Is it likely that if quotas are leased or sold they will be confiscated and returned to the Community reserve, or will we find that

  809
  that clause is not implemented? We think that the extra quota should not have a cash value on it. I hope that the Minister can give us a firm assurance about that.
  The Minister has previously cautioned farmers about the inherent value of quotas and warned that, while they have a value now, there is no guarantee that quotas will go on indefinitely. It is right to repeat that, because we are all aware of the considerable amount of money that is spent on the leasing and purchasing of quotas.
  Will the Minister take on board the worry that there could be transnational quota purchases after 1992? There are considerable differences between the market prices of
  810
  quotas in the Republic of Ireland, Britain and Holland. At the moment it is not possible to trade quota across national boundaries, but such trade will presumably be allowed after 1992. That being so, the concept of a national quota, which we found acceptable, could be destroyed. Taking the argument to its logical conclusion, we could find that there are no cows in Britain, and that all milk is produced in Holland.
  We basically support the Government's line, and we think that they and the Commission are right to try to restrict the availability of quota. We find the judgment rather unfair, bearing in mind the fact that many small farmers have done rather badly out of the milk quota system.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the early negotiations in 1983 and 1984, when milk quotas were introduced. I think that I would not be exaggerating if I said that he and I have those negotiations written across our souls in indelible ink. We will never forget those difficult months.
  My right hon. Friend referred to some of the inherent weaknesses of milk quotas. One of our anxieties was that quotas should be properly enforced in all countries. Now I read that in Italy, for example, there is a suggestion that massive amounts of levy have not been paid. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that, if that is the case, no effort will be spared in extracting that money from Italy. I remind him of a provision which he and I got put in late in those negotiations—that in the event of a country not paying up, the levy would come from the farmers and not from the Government. That is important, and I hope that he will not forget it when dealing with Italy.
  I agree strongly with most of what the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, but he was a bit unfair not to acknowledge that, when quotas were introduced, we leaned over backwards to ensure that small farmers got back to their pre-quota milk production as quickly as possible. I think that we succeeded. That should be acknowledged.
  We must accept the judgment of the European Court—the hon. Member for South Shields responsibly and honestly said that—but I think that it was grotesque in every way. It is well known that most of the people who took the 1977 scheme to be paid to get out of milk production did so as a permanent and not as a temporary step. Few of them could go back into milk production even if they wanted to. No doubt some of them will do, hoping to be able to make a quick buck out of the value of the milk quota, but I shall say more on that later.
  I am sure that the Minister remembers, as I do, the difficult months after the introduction of the milk quota. What caused as much resentment as anything else was the fact that some people who had taken the scheme to go out of milk production then came back into it and were given generous quotas. That was widely regarded as unfair at the time, arid it will be regarded as even more unfair now if some of those people return after years out of milk production. The European Court has gone off its head in making that judgment.
  I welcome the Minister's comments. I want to underline them and suggest that they should be sticking points in the negotiations. This quota is unexpected, so it should be non-transferable; people should not be able to profit by selling it. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke about that crucial matter.
  How will my right hon. Friend deal with a case in which somebody who has been given extra quota then wants to sell his farm? Will he be allowed to sell the quota with the farm, or does it die when he leaves the farm? That is an important matter. It must be a sticking point that people who are given this windfall should not be able to cash it.
  I welcome enormously the Minister's statement that the United Kingdom Government are seeking to protect existing quota holders and not to take some of the extra windfall quota from people who, goodness knows, have had enough difficulties in the past few years with milk
  812
  quotas. The Minister will be taking part in difficult negotiations: I understand that almost as well as any other hon. Member.
  I grieve that the Germans' lack of realism seems to continue unabated despite the death of Mr. Strauss in Bavaria. I hope that a little more realism will creep into the way in which Mr. Kiechle works his case in the Council of Agriculture Ministers, because it has been less than responsible for many years. I understand that the Germans want producers, under the windfall arrangement, to receive all the quota that they would have been granted had they been producing in the base year, and that they also want part-time farmers to benefit. I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist that proposal, because I see no purpose in supporting the Germans' suggestion.
  I endorse heavily what my right hon. Friend said about his strong opposition to reducing the co-responsibility levy for small producers as part of the whole package. My right hon. Friend knows that one of his most important battles on behalf of British farmers in Brussels and Luxembourg will be to resist the continuous attempts by the Commission and other countries to slant the common agricultural policy in favour of small farmers. That is an attack on British agriculture because we have a hugely better and more efficient structure than almost any other country in the Community.
  The proposal to reduce the co-responsibility levy for small producers is just another way in which small farmers—the majority of farmers—in almost all other Community countries benefit at the expense of British agriculture. One should remember that the average size of herd in this country is about 60 cows, whereas in a country such as Portugal, I believe, about 97 per cent. of the milk is produced from herds of three or fewer cows. That fact illustrates the differences in structure. We must not allow the Community to take us in Britain to the cleaners.
  I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's approach to this most difficult and unforeseen problem, and I wish him luck in the negotiations.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will agree that since the overnight introduction four years ago of milk quotas, agriculture in Britain has never recovered confidence. It will take a long time to restore that confidence. I say that with respect to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and his hon. Friends because I am not in any way condemning him, but simply referring to the milk quotas that were forced on us by the EEC Commission.
  It is a great pity that during those four years the industry has lost further confidence in nearly every sector. I have agreed with many of the suggestions made by the Minister in the past four years about what should be done to try to help agriculture, but I hope he will recognise that it is the wish of the majority of farmers in this country that he should stop dismantling many of our agricultural institutions, and that he should not take away the guaranteed price system that has operated so successfully for some of our products. I shall not refer to any of them tonight, but I should like the Minister to be aware of the views of many farmers. After reading what Mr. Derek Andrews, the permanent secretary to the Ministry of

  813
  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has said, the fortunes of the farming community do not look very bright. It seems that agriculture will have a bad time in the next 12 months.
  I turn now to milk quotas and the EEC ruling. I am sure that many dairy farmers throughout the country were as shocked as I was on hearing the EEC's ruling about the two Dutch farmers. However, that has happened and we must live with it. I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the Minister tonight. My hon. Friends support him wholeheartedly and hope that he will be successful in his deliberations in Brussels in the coming months.
  I am sure that to their way of thinking the Dutch farmers will feel that they have been fortunate. I wonder whether there are any dairy farmers in Britain who would go to court about an extra milk quota. Could any farmers in Britain do the same as those two Dutch farmers? It would be sad if many dairy farmers in this country would do so.
  Although this matter has been covered by many hon. Members, I should like to ask some questions. I hold the same view as the Milk Marketing Board, which is in favour of making sure that milk production surrendered will not be surrendered to the non-marketing schemes.
  The dairy industry in this country would like answers to three questions. First, many farmers have asked me—I pass this on to the Minister and hope that he can give me an assurance on it—whether the milk quotas will be operating in this country after 1992. Although the right hon. Gentleman said that the butter surplus in the EEC was diminishing, does he foresee a day in the near future when there will be a milk shortage in the EEC?
  We have heard about quotas being bought and sold and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) talked about the transnational quota system that will operate after 1992. A few years ago many dairy farmers in Wales sold their quotas to farmers in England, but I was delighted to learn that the trade is now in reverse. Many farmers are worried about the value of the quotas. I agree entirely with the Minister, who has been saying for the last few years that we have to be careful that farmers' milk quotas do not become worthless after 1992.
  The final and best question is the one put to me by dairy farmers. Can the Minister give an assurance that British dairy farmers will have the opportunity to compete on equal terms with their counterparts in the rest of the EEC? If he can give that assurance, many dairy farmers will look ahead with confidence. The ruling has my backing and that of my hon. Friends.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Paul Marland: There is no doubt that the introduction of milk quotas has substantially reduced the output of milk from our dairy farms. The turn round in farmer opinion after the quotas were introduced has been astonishing. There was an enormous amount of ill-feeling flying around when my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and our mutual right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were doing their best to introduce the milk quotas. I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I
  814
  remember going to the three counties show and then on to Ross-on-Wye and Dyfed. We were mobbed by farmers. I always thought that farmers were friendly until we went to those places.
  It is to the great credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that he stuck to his guns and carried on with a difficult job. Dairy farmers now owe him a debt of gratitude that they can never express. That was a difficult time for my right hon. Friend, but the one thing that dairy farmers do not now want to part with is their dairy quota.
  It is good news that stocks are falling, because that means lower costs to the taxpayers, less flak for the farmers and less criticism that the dairy industry is not trying to solve its own problems.
  Like other hon. Members, I should like to turn to the MÜlder factor, the Dutch farmer who took financial inducements to stop milk production through a beef conversion scheme before quotas were introduced in 1984. Admittedly, it was a temporary arrangement, but how was anybody to know that the Dutch farmer was later to return to dairy farming? Mr. Wilder, who pocketed the cash that was available, has now changed his mind and decided to return to dairy farming. May I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister whether it is possible to appeal against this European Court of Justice ruling? [Interruption.] I notice that the Minister moves his head to show that it is not. At any rate, he has not fallen asleep.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) suggested that Commissioners might rewrite the rules. That is not an unrealistic suggestion. Perhaps we could have an explanation about that. It seems to be the height of injustice that farmers, who were involved in expansion plans when the quotas were introduced, were not offered the facility that is now being offered to Mr. MÜlder. Many of my constituents who were engaged on Government expansion plans were kneecapped when the quotas were introduced. Many of them, although they were not made bankrupt, had to sell their farms and go into a different business. Why should they not be allowed such an opportunity? Perhaps we could go to the European Court about that as well. There is a great feeling of injustice because the MÜlders have received what the farmers in the Forest of Dean see as rather special treatment.
  It is incredible that the EEC will find another 500,000 tonnes of production to help Mr. MÜlder, and anybody else in his position. It will be a great incentive to other farmers to find ways to ride in on the back of this court case to see whether they, too, can get some extra production or come back into dairy farming. It cannot be right that, having cashed in once to get out of milk, he should seek to cash in again to get back into milk. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend say that he will use his best influence to make sure that this is not resaleable, not leaseable and not inheritable.
  A quota is now worth money, and the MÜlder case is seen by dairy farmers throughout the country as the height of injustice. All the good will of the farmers of the Forest of Dean and of dairy farmers throughout the country goes with my right hon. Friend in his negotiations to ensure that the quota is not resaleable and cannot be passed on. I wonder whether any more skeletons will fall from any more cupboards. Perhaps we should do our best to bring them all out, once and for all, and put an end to it, so that the farmers can know not only where they are now, but

  815
  where they will be in the future. I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck in these negotiations, for many of us admire his lucidity, tenacity and stamina in hanging on in all these negotiations. He is positively terrier-like in the way that he approaches the European negotiations.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: First, I apologise for the fact that I may not be here for the winding-up speech.
  I shall take a slightly different tack from that taken by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). Milk quotas have not just created benefits. In my constituency, a brand-new factory that cost £2 million and employed 60 people had to close. It is a shame that we cannot debate New Zealand butter with the milk quotas, because they tie in. I accept the good reasons of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North (Mr. Spearing) for objecting to that, but the only logic that would cause me to change my mind and be in favour of the importation of New Zealand butter is the fact that there is now a shortage of milk for manufacturing processes. It makes no sense to stop imports of New Zealand butter in those circumstances.
  I am a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, and many of its members have jobs in the milk processing industry. The quota system may have got rid of surpluses, which is a good thing, but we do not have a free market. It is surprising that Tory Members do not want it. We have a monopoly shortage. The Minister said that the butter mountain has started to melt. Not thousands of tonnes, nor hundreds of tonnes, nor even a single pat of butter goes in intervention. We have a shortage of milk. Companies with orders for evaporated milk, full-cream milk powder, yogurt and cheese—all labour-intensive processes—cannot fulfil those orders because, although we have the manufacturing capacity, we do not have the raw materials. These are all genuine orders; there is no subsidy.
  The Minister said that quotas brought a secure future for the milk-processing industry, but that is not correct because there is a lack of investment in the industry. There is surplus capacity, but not the promise of extra milk to meet those orders. I accept that there is a surplus in Europe. I asked the Minister about that before the recess and he admitted that that was so, but, when I asked whether there was a surplus in the United Kingdom, he did not answer the question. Italy and France are putting cheese into intervention, but, in Scotland, the creameries cannot meet export orders for cheddar cheese, which would greatly help our balance of payments, because of the milk quota system. In a perverse way, therefore, the ruling of the European Court will perpetuate that situation.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Was not the quota system designed to ensure that the United Kingdom opened up its market to liquid milk from Europe? As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a shortage of milk in this country. Manufacturing capacity is unused because of that shortage and the system is now achieving what Europe rather than the United Kingdom wanted—access to the English market for continental liquid milk.
  Mr. Martlew: If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we got a raw deal from the Commission's milk quota proposals, the answer is yes, just as we normally do.
  816
  However, the dairy farmers who are left did not get a raw deal; they are doing very well. If we consider agriculture in general, dairy farming is the one area that is doing well. One of the reasons for that is that the Milk Marketing Board, which is, in effect, a farmers' monopoly co-operative, pushes up the price of milk for manufacturers. That money then goes to the farmers. As a consequence, we shall be pushed out of the world market and some creameries will close. Those farmers now have guaranteed security. They have a product that is more valuable than milk and, in some cases, more valuable than the land that they farm.
  Let me quote an example from an advertisement in Saturday's Yorkshire Post. The advertisement, which appears under an advertisement for cess pools—that is perhaps significant—states:
  "Milk quota for sale. Both clean and part used with B.F. 3·56 to 4·05 per cent."
  The figures refer to the butter fat content.
  We cannot blame the farmer for selling the quota. He did not buy it; he just happened to be there when the EEC and the Government gave him the commodity. Surely that cannot be right.
  We must consider a system in which we can equalise the amount of milk that goes into manufacture in Europe. One of the reasons why there is a shortage of milk at present is the milk curve. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare, but we must examine the possibility of a monthly quota so that we can calculate the times of year when we require the milk. That cannot be done by giving financial incentives to the farmers. We must consider a system whereby, in the spring, there would be no surpluses to go into intervention, but, when in periods of shortage, we would have the milk to ensure that our creameries kept going.
  I hope that the Minister will examine that option and consider ways of getting rid of that distasteful speculation and bartering of milk quotas represented by a certificate that the farmers never earned and do not deserve. The only person who pays is the consumer.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have two brief questions for the Minister, who is clearly dealing with great skill with an issue that has arisen from a judicial decision. First, what is the net cost of that which has been proposed? The papers that are before us are mystifying. The Commission refers to a "net deficit" of about £18 million. The Ministry tells us that the cost will be about £30 million. The third estimate comes from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who, being a sensible and humble man, has taken a middle view and opted for £24 million. Why is there such a great difference between the estimates, and where will the money come from?
  In a recent debate we were told that there are legally binding terms and restraints on agricultural spending. I ask the Minister to tell us where the £30 million, or £24 million, will come from. Will it mean some compensating factor for other spending on agriculture?
  Further to the net addition to Community spending on agriculture, will there be any additional spending by member states, including the United Kingdom? The Court of Auditors' report says that the transfer of financial responsibility for butter dumping to member states was unlawful, and the Council of Ministers declined even to discuss the proposal. We know, however, that butter dumping is extremely expensive. It was revealed in a

  817
  parliamentary answer last week that the most recent price of selling butter is 2·75p per pound, which seems extremely low. When the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), the Liberal party's spokesman, was speaking of the possibility of a shortage of milk and butter because of the reduced quotas, he should have been aware also of the implications of the fire clearance sale.
  Will there be additional spending by member states because of any increase in the dumping of butter, which has reached extraordinary and substantial levels? My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that specific assurances were given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by all the members of the European Council in February, when they agreed to a massive increase in Community spending. I hope that we shall be told who will pay for the deficit. Secondly, will there be a compensating effect on the Community's spending on agriculture? Thirdly, why are the Commission's figures so wildly different from the Government's estimates?
  10.53 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I, too, have experienced the milk quota issue at first hand. The quota was announced on the day that I was selected as the Conservative party candidate for the Stafford by-election. That is another event that I am unlikely to forget.
  I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which recommended that the issue before us should be debated at an early date. There is the important matter of principle that these matters are ultimately subject to majority voting, and there is potential for a blocking minority that will be constituted by the Mediterranean countries. We do not know what the outcome will be, and at the same time it is clear that the proposals that we are discussing are inspired largely by the interests of the German Minister and the electorate which he serves.
  I have the greatest possible respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister, for he is a man of great skill and determination, but how are we to retrieve a situation that will have a significant adverse effect on the British farmer, on the assumption that majority voting will have the result that we expect? We must stand up for our rights.
  There was a unique event on Monday, when the proposal to take note of a European document was opposed by the Government. If we are out-voted on this issue, we should not take that lying down in the Council of Ministers or as a Parliament. We should ensure, as a Government and as a Parliament, that we make our protest and that we act accordingly, if necessary by a vote in the House.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I support my right hon. Friend the Minister in this matter. I believe that he is working very hard for constituents like mine who over the past few years have had a 19 per cent. cut in their milk quota and who now have some stability. They welcome the
  818
  fact that the Minister is determined to fight to preserve that position and to ensure that farming is on a fair financial footing over the next few years.
  In Pembrokeshire we have watched with some concern the implications of the MÜlder case, especially for family farms which tend to be small and medium-sized units. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the parliamentary answer that he gave me recently. In one he said that it was not envisaged that there would be any further cuts in quota after this year, taking account of those that have already been announced. In another he said that surpluses had, to a large extent, been eliminated in the dairy sector. Given that that is the case, we must ensure that there are no cuts in quota as a result of the MÜlder judgment.
  Farmers who now believe that they have a stable position should not find suddenly that further unexpected cuts are made in 1989 and 1990. It is up to the Commission to find some other way if it is necessary to recompense farmers who went out of production in 1978 rather than take it out on the farmers who are still in production and who have been led to believe that the position has been fixed for the foreseeable future.
  I welcome a letter sent by Mr. O. J. Williams, the prospective Conservative candidate for the European Parliament constituency of Mid and West Wales, to the Minister in September in which he stated that in 1984 only 65 per cent. of hardship cases were met. Not every farmer who suffered hardship received benefit. It is important that we should remember that when we are dealing with the MÜlder case. We should therefore take a fair, but restrictive, attitude towards the applications from farmers who went out of production as long ago as 1978.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I commend the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). That is not something that I normally do, but at least he was the only individual on the Government Back Benches to commit himself and his support to this evening's proposal. I congratulate him on that.
  I was surprised by the attitude adopted by the Minister when he opened the debate. I was also surprised by the comments of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) who followed him this evening, but who preceded him in office. They both spent some considerable time hand-wringing and bemoaning the evils of the quota system and the common agricultural policy. I have to remind them that it was the Conservative Government who took us into the European Community, who accepted the common agricultural policy and who for the past nine years have been the stewards of British interests in the European Community. If there are any deficiencies in the quality of the agreements—
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this sentence and make this point, I will give way, as I think that he has a valid intervention to make. However, at least he should have the courtesy to allow me to finish the point that I am making.
  If there are any defects in the agreements coming from Europe at the moment, we know who is responsible for them. The British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food represents British interests in Brussels.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman go on the record and agree that, as a result of the referendum, the Labour Government ensured that we stayed in Europe and, furthermore, renegotiated on terms that have turned out to be less than satisfactory?
  Mr. Davies: That is irrelevent to this evening's debate. My point is that for the past nine years all the agreements made in Brussels have been made with the agreement of successive British Ministers. There are two of them here tonight who have bemoaned and criticised the quota system—the present Minister attempted to suggest that there would be some benefit from quotas—but they have been responsible for the implementation of the quota system in Britain. We should not forget that.
  We have had a very wide-ranging debate, and I was surprised at just how wide-ranging it was. Indeed, the contribution from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) was quite entertaining, as is normally the case. I hope that we did not keep him from his dinner for too long.
  The Mülder case and the judgment that resulted from it receives our support for two very good reasons. First, the outgoers scheme, as it was introduced in 1978, was known to be a temporary scheme. The Minister was suggesting to the Under-Secretary that a Labour Government were in office at the time. That is true. I hope that I am showing the degree of consistency that my party has always shown on these matters in endorsing the action taken by that Government in 1978. It was a temporary scheme, and it would be quite wrong for individuals who voluntarily involved themselves in those outgoers schemes now to be penalised. Therefore, we support the principle that was developed in the MÜlder case. Secondly, the principle of the violation of legitimate expectations was the basis on which the judgment was made.
  We supported the Minister's initiatives on set-aside. It is important that the principles developed in this case are seen to be supported by all parties in the House. Otherwise, initiatives such as the one that he is now taking under set-aside could be in jeopardy if farmers felt that their legitimate interests would be prejudiced in two, three, four or five years' time—God forbid that quotas on cereals would be introduced—and they would be reluctant to enter into set-aside agreements. For those reasons, we support the principles of the judgment in the Wilder case.
  Mr. James Paice: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a fundamental difference between a temporary scheme, whereby the scheme itself is not supposed to last for ever, and the temporary exodus of individual farmers? In the case that we are discussing tonight, the farmers themselves decided to go out of milk production. There is a great difference between whether the scheme was temporary and whether the farmers' cessation of milk production was temporary.
  Mr. Davies: I understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but, as I understand it, the temporary scheme was clearly intended to take farmers out of milk production for a limited period. That was the nature of the scheme and the basis on which entrants into the scheme signed various agreements.
  I support the principles involved, but I have some doubts about the implementation of the scheme. I understand that in September, when the Commission was considering the matter, it estimated that 1 million tones
  820
  of quota would be required to meet applications under the scheme. The scheme now before us provides for only half that figure: only 500,000 tonnes of additional quota will be made available. Will the Minister square that circle and tell us how he proposes to deal with it? If there are more applicants than quota, will he come back and suggest that more quota be found? Will he enforce some percentage agreement, take applications on the basis of first come, first served, or will he reduce the amounts available? Those are serious questions and I hope the Minister will tell us how he proposes to deal with them when he replies to the debate. They are particularly important for Britain because the British dairy industry was as prepared as that of any other country in Europe voluntarily to involve itself in the 1978 scheme.
  I draw the attention of the House to the appendix that accompanies the motion. It refers to the number of applicants for cessation in the various countries of the European Community. In the United Kingdom there were 5,694 beneficiaries of the milk non-marketing premium and 2,510 beneficiaries in the dairy herd conversion scheme. In total, more than 8,000 British farmers participated in the schemes. The Under-Secretary agrees. I am grateful for that because I have here a comment which he made in the explanatory memorandum on the European Community legislation. He said:
  "The United Kingdom accounted for a high percentage of the production surrendered under Regulation 1078/77 and will wish to see this reflected in the allocation of any additional quota."
  British farmers provided 10 per cent. of production relinquished under those schemes, with 8,000 of them participating. A court judgment now makes quotas available to two Dutch individuals who took court action. When the Minister replies, I want him to say how the proposals will affect the 8,000 British farmers who took advantage of the 1978 scheme. He should have the answer readily available.
  I refer the Minister to the detailed translation available in the Vote Office, which sets out the criteria for eligibility for entry into the scheme. One has been included quite deliberately to exclude not only British farmers but a large number of European farmers. It states that they had to have
  "applied in vain to the Member State's competent authority for a reference quantity between 31.3.1984 and 31.7.1988."
  The Ministry has records of all the applications lodged with it for quota between 31 March 1984 and 31 July 1988.
  The Minister is shaking his head, either because he does not have the records or because he is not prepared to agree to the provision. If the latter, it is a pity that he did not say so during his speech. If the former—that he does not have details of those who applied—it means that 8,000 British farmers eligible, in theory, for admission to the scheme cannot apply because the Ministry does not have records of their applications.
  Mr. MacGregor: It is the latter case. I opposed that provision in the Commission's proposals. I am glad to say that it does not now appear that it will be included.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Davies: I share the delight of Conservative Members. However, it is somewhat remiss of the Minister not to say that what appear in the document as the conditions that will apply do not meet with his agreement, and that the House is being asked to take note not of this

  821
  document but of an amended document. We do not know what those amendments will be. I like to think that the right hon. Gentleman treats the House with a degree of integrity. He should be prepared to say how the document will be amended and how the criteria will apply.
  As the Minister has volunteered that snippet of information, I shall press him further. Will he give an assurance that the criteria will not have to be met?
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is qualified majority voting. It is not open to one Minister to give an absolute assurance on how negotiations will end. I said that I opposed the proposal, and I have support for that. I do not think that it will be in the final scheme.
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for that concession. I shall test him once more—[Interruption.] We do not often have time to debate these matters. If Conservative Members want to take me on, I shall be happy to take them on during the remaining 22 minutes. I have legitimate points to make and these matters must be properly debated in the House. We have already had one important admission from the Minister, and I want one more.
  If there is to be a similar provision—that to meet the eligibility criteria applicants will have had to have lodged their applications with the Ministry between 31 March 1984 and 31 July 1988—in the light of the Minister's reservations, will he assure us that there are adequate records of any British farmers who made applications verifying that they lodged applications during the relevant period? That appears to me to be a simple and straightforward question. If the Minister will give the undertaking that that information is available in his Department, I shall be happy with that.
  A number of questions were asked by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), the answers to which we would be interested to hear. We, too, have a number of questions. How is the quota to be apportioned; and what percentage of the additional quota does the Minister believe will be available to the United Kingdom? How many applications have so far been made? How many applications are held by his Department? If the criteria discussed earlier are to be enforced, how many applications have been made? How many of those applicants would meet the necessary criteria? How many British dairy farmers, who took advantage of the two outgoers schemes in 1978, would be eligible for this scheme if it were accepted as it presently stands? Those are specific questions which we are entitled to have answered.
  The Minister was very candid when he said that the Commission had been forced into taking this initiative—if we can call it that—which was reactive and for which we expressedd our support. Of course, that was the minimum that was compatible with the judgment. We do not criticise the Government for the way in which they have presented this or for their behaviour so far. However, for all of us, it is a sorry reminder of the inadequacies of the common agricultural policy, and it should remain a spur both to the Government and to Opposition to achieve a radical reform of that policy. That is the real lesson to be learnt from this debate.
  11.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I am surprised that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that everything should have been cut and dried before we came into the Chamber; if it had been, all the speeches in the debate would have been worthless and useless, and there would have been no point in having the debate. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who asked for the debate to be split into two halves, would also have been wasting his time. The hon. Member has gone, but he will be here again. The Scrutiny Committee asked for the debate so that the Minister could get the flavour of opinion in the House on this important issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) began with an intervention saying that we could perhaps change the rules altogether; that has been taken up and, of course, has been brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) covered many of the matters which were subsequently reinforced. Initially, he asked what the attitude was of other member states. He named Germany, Denmark and the Mediterranean countries. He wisely chose three divergent opinions. The Germans want a less restrictive scheme than we do. They want to allow in, perhaps, all the people who were excluded all those years ago, and they want to allow in part-time farmers. The Danes support my right hon. Friend in wanting a more restrictive scheme. I am not sure whether the Danes support the Germans in the introduction of part-time farmers, but we certainly do not.
  The southern and Mediterranean countries are asking, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly has done, for a renegotiation, a payback: "Let us do a deal. What will we get out of it?" Perhaps we could have expected such attitudes.
  The hon. Member for South Shields said that, when and if quotas are reallocated, they should be nonnegotiable. My right hon. Friend has already said that if those quotas are reallocated, he will try to ensure that they are not transferrable and non-negotiable. It is a special scheme with special quotas and I hope that we can draw up special rules.
  The hon. Members for South Shields and for Ceredigion and Pembroke (Mr. Howells) also asked whether quotas will go on for ever and whether there will be Euro-trading in them. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke also asked whether there will be a milk shortage after 1992; whether there will be transnational quotas and whether British dairy farmers will be able to compete on equal terms. I can only answer yes to the last question. The Minister and previous Ministers have done their best and have succeeded in ensuring that our farmers can compete on equal terms. I would need to look into the crystal ball to be able to give the hon. Gentleman any reasonable answers to the rest of his questions. Perhaps he can have a word with Merlin when he pops home.
  I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). The work that my right hon. Friend did during the introduction of quotas is now being recognised. I have been to farmers' meetings where they have said straight out that they did not realise that it would

  823
  all turn out as well as it has—I am sure that at the time my right hon. Friend knew that it would. It is because of my right hon. Friend's hard work that we now have such a sensible system.
  My right hon. Friend will be reassured to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is following in his footsteps by hounding the Italians at every stage. The only way in which we can guarantee that British farmers are not disadvantaged is to ensure that all the member states of the EC stick to the rules that are imposed by a qualified majority or a unanimous vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said that the court judgment was grotesque, and since then many people have supported that statement.
  I have already said that this is a special quota dealing with a special category. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that the terms of the quota should have been chiselled on stone in black and white to prevent alterations. I am sure that he will accept that all the terms will be the subject of negotiation in Brussels during the long hours of deliberations.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be highly desirable if the European Court of Justice decisions could be attributable to the judgments made by individual judges? Then we would know who made the majority decisions in that court.
  Mr. Thompson: It might help my hon. Friend, but it would not help me. It would not alter the case. I shall not be led down that path tonight—perhaps one afternoon in the Smoking Room.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) left the Chamber after advocating what I would have called, to provoke him had he been present, a free market in milk. However, as he is absent, I shall not bother.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) mentioned costs. He will have read the financial implications given in the explanatory memorandum:
  "The Commission estimates the cost of increasing the Community reserve, measured in disposal terms, at 90 MECU (£59·9m). In addition the 0·5 per cent. reduction in co-responisbility levy will reduce receipts by 20 MECU (£13·3m) giving a total cost of 110 MECU (·73·2m). Against this is set the savings of 74 MECU (£49·3m) from the reduction in the intervention support price for butter leaving an overall deficit for the proposals of 36 MECU (£24m)."
  However, my right hon. Friend and others in the Council are striving to neutralise the effects of that half a million tonnes of butter as much as possible.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: How?
  Mr. Thompson: How unusual. I turn, expecting my hon. Friend to be extending his hand. I move on.
  The kind contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) was most welcome. He spoke clearly for the dairy farmers in his constituency.
  824
  As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), we agree that in Britain, 8,000 farmers took up the various outgoers' schemes. In Europe alone, 6 million tonnes of butter were removed, and in Great Britain we took out 20 per cent. of our production. How many farmers will want to return under the scheme is not known, but those in Great Britain who satisfy the conditions when they finally emerge amended and not unamended—and I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the satisfaction, which word I do not use in any derogatory sense, of saying that they will not be unamended—will be able to join the scheme, as will all European members.
  Mr. Ron Davies: For the sake of the accuracy of the record, will the Minister confirm that his Department has accurate records of those applicants who participated in the two outgoers schemes in 1978 and who, after the introduction of quotas, subsequently made quota applications?
  Mr. Thompson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer to his question this evening. I shall take it up with my officials and see exactly what the situation is. It is no use doing the work twice. We must first see how the scheme as amended turns out.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I refer to a constituency case that I thought was dead—that concerning Eric Lodge. The Minister may recall that Mr. Lodge's land was only good for milk production because of previous opencasting. Subsidence wrecked his cow house and all his feeding sheds, and by the time the board put that right, the quota was introduced—so he had a marvellous farm and cow house but no cows. That was because of the quota system. He made a quota application but was turned down. Is it possible that the new provision will allow him to enter the scheme again?
  Mr. Thompson: Distressing though the case is, I do not think that that gentleman will fall within the ambit of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke mentioned the 64 per cent. of hardship cases—cases like that of the hon. Gentleman's friend—that were initially turned down. I do not think that I can give the hon. Gentleman any hope, but I shall look into the matter if he will write to me about it. I shall also write to the hon. Member for Caerphilly if I can get together a reasonable and concrete letter without undue expenditure of time and money. Once the document has been amended and has passed through the Council, we shall have a clearer idea of the answers that he has asked for.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8108/88 on milk and milk products and of the Government's intention to pursue agreement which meets the requirements of the European Court's judgement while containing costs and ensuring that the effectiveness of milk quotas is maintained.

  New Zealand Butter
  11.25 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8961/88 on New Zealand butter and of the Government's intention to pursue agreement to these proposals which meet the aim of establishing arrangements for the continued access of New Zealand butter on special terms for the period 1989–92 in a way which represents a reasonable balance between the interests of those involved.
  The document contains the Commission's proposals for dealing with future arrangements for the import of New Zealand butter into this country. The treaty of accession to the Community, in recognition of our traditional trading links with New Zealand, provided that decreasing quantities of New Zealand butter could be imported over a five-year period at a reduced rate of import levy. The treaty also provided that the arrangements could be extended by unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers, acting on the basis of a Commission proposal.
  The importance to New Zealand of its butter exports to this country was acknowledged by Community Heads of Government meeting in Dublin in 1975, and the special arrangements have been extended by the Council on a number of occasions since then. The quantities of New Zealand butter permitted to enter the United Kingdom at the preferential rate of levy have been reduced from just over 165,800 tonnes in 1973 to 74,500 tonnes in 1988, reflecting the continuing decline in United Kingdom butter consumption.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: What has been the percentage reduction in the consumption of butter in this country since the last time the New Zealand quota was decided?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have not the precise figures for the last three years. I think that the reduction is between 5 and 7·5 per cent., but I shall check the figure, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will respond at the end of the debate.
  That substantial and continuing decline in consumption—it is probably rather larger than my figures suggest—is one of the problems facing the dairy sector as a whole.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: In 1976 the Commission recommended that the figure for New Zealand imports should be 25 per cent. but, because consumption has fallen, New Zealand butter now accounts for 37 per cent. of the market.
  Mr. MacGregor: Those figures are not quite right, but I shall deal with my hon. Friend's point later.
  The present arrangements for New Zealand butter imports expire at the end of the year. The document explains the Commission's proposals for the continuation of imports between 1989 and 1992. The proposals have two main elements. First, a cut of 10,000 tonnes in the quantity of imports, to 64,500 tonnes, is proposed for 1989, followed by equal annual reductions to 55,000 tonnes in 1992. Secondly, it is proposed to reduce the rate of levy from 25 to 15 per cent. of the butter intervention price from 1 January 1989.
  The proposed reduction in the quantity of New Zealand butter imports over the next four years reflects the trend
  826
  since accession and the continuing fall in overall United Kingdom butter consumption. The proposed reduction in the rate of import levy would partly offset the loss in revenue to New Zealand from the cut in quantity. The Commission's proposals would therefore be consistent with the Community's international obligations. They imply a reduction of 26 per cent. in New Zealand imports by 1992, which is twice the reduction in Community milk production since the introduction of milk quotas, and more than double the annual percentage rate of reduction in butter imports under the previous arrangements. However, in terms of the total United Kingdom butter market, our estimates suggest that if the Commission's proposals were adopted. New Zealand supplies would represent about the same share of the market as they do under the present arrangements.
  The Commission's proposals would ensure continuity of supply of New Zealand butter to the British consumer. We believe that it would be unlikely to have any significant effect on retail prices, or any significant adverse effect on the United Kingdom and Community taxpayer. Now that the support arrangements in the milk sector have been tightened and intervention stocks substantially reduced, it is unlikely that significant quantities of butter will enter public storage in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the budgetary costs of the concession to New Zealand will be considerably lower than might previously have been the case.
  I should like to emphasise one point about which there is still considerable misunderstanding among United Kingdom farmers. As New Zealand and all other butter imports were excluded from the original calculation of United Kingdom dairy quotas—the original basis was past production by our own producers—whatever decisions are taken about the future arrangements, they will have no effect on United Kingdom quotas. It is important to stress that point, because there is a great deal of misunderstanding about it. Some people believe that if New Zealand butter imports were reduced even further than is provided for in the Commission's proposals that would lead to an increase in United Kingdom dairy quotas. It would not.
  I have a few words to say about the amendment. The concerns that are expressed there are fully met by the Commission's proposals.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Some members of the Council of Agriculture Ministers have criticised the package and may have been trying to unravel it. How does the Minister view his role in regard to those critics? Is he actively promoting the package, and will he continue to do so?
  Mr. MacGregor: I shall make my position on that clear at the end of my speech. It would be more natural to do so in that context. There are many varying points of view on both this and many other proposals that are before the Council of Ministers. Criticism has been voiced by many Ministers, often from conflicting standpoints. Some of them are inevitably linking the butter proposals with the sheepmeat proposals, because New Zealand is involved in both. My view is that there is no legal link between the two, but some Ministers are making that link. The sheepmeat proposals are being criticised widely by nearly all Ministers—again from many different points of view. There is nothing unusual about that.

  827
  As for some of the concerns that have been expressed—not least in the amendment, which has not been called, but which highlights some of the concerns—I believe that the Commission's proposals meet them. It is important to remember, as I have stressed throughout, that butter consumption in the United Kingdom has been falling for a number of years, and I expect it to continue to fall. If the proposal is adopted, I expect the New Zealand share of the total United Kingdom butter market to fall only very slightly—so slightly that its share will be about the same as it is now over the four years of the agreement. I expect the New Zealand share of the packet butter market to continue to increase somewhat, as it has done in recent years. Consumer choice would therefore be broadly the same.
  As for the consistency of the proposal with the Community's commitments at the start of the Uruguay round, which we shall discuss in the mid-term review in Montreal next week, it could be argued that as the New Zealand arrangement is a unilateral concession by the Community there is no legal obligation on the Community to maintain it after it runs out at the end of this year. The New Zealanders are, however, perfectly at liberty to appeal to the spirit of these undertakings to justify continued access. It is in any event reasonable that the proposal should provide for a continuing reduction in the New Zealand quota in line with what has happened in the past and with the continuing decline in our butter market. The proposal is consistent with the Community's commitments on the Uruguay round and, as my hon. Friends will have noticed, it is endorsed by the New Zealand Government.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is trying to justify the proposal, but in view of the dramatically changed circumstances since we joined the Community, the advent of quotas and the reduction in butter consumption, can we continue to justify the substantial import of New Zealand butter, bearing in mind the loss of jobs in creameries throughout the country and the grave problems faced by many people in creameries and other areas of milk and butter manufacture?
  Mr. MacGregor: New Zealand has accepted reductions in British imports of its butter recently in line with reductions in butter consumption. Under these proposals there will be a rather sharper decline in butter imports than there will he in milk quotas in the Community. Any reductions in imports from New Zealand, however, would not have any effect on quotas and, therefore, on creameries.
  We have still to take a decision on these matters in Council. In theory it will be done before the end of the calendar year, but the recent progress in the Council of Ministers leads me to suggest that we might be being optimistic in thinking that we will reach agreement before the end of the calendar year. This is therefore an opportune moment for the House to express its views. I suspect that, in contrast to the previous debate, we shall hear some contrary views on this subject, just as very different points of view are being expressed in the Council.
  Many interests are involved—Community producers, consumers and taxpayers—and there are the Community's obligations to New Zealand. The Government believe that
  828
  the Commission's proposals represent a reasonable balance between them. and that is the point of view that I have been expressing in the Council.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have to tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and his hon. Friends.
  11.37 pm
  Dr. David Clark: The Minister rightly said that this is probably an issue which will prove quite divisive and lively. We have had some good debates on it. It stirs many emotions. I do not apologise for that. The House knows that politics is not always determined by logic. Sometimes it is determined by emotion.
  Many of us feel that we owe a debt of gratitude to the New Zealand people. Some of us remember that, in the early 1970s, when we were arguing the case against our entry into the EEC, one of our greatest worries was what the status of New Zealand would be. Many of us were very pleased that we were able to achieve protocol 18 of the 1972 accession legislation, which gave some continuity and hope to New Zealand dairying.
  The New Zealanders have adapted remarkably. They now send considerably less butter to Britain than they did in 1972. According to a parliamentary answer given to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 2 February, in 1986, 27 per cent. of the United Kingdom butter market was provided by New Zealand. I use the Government's figures.
  As we consider the argument and the problems that the Minister faces in negotiations in the Council of Ministers, we hope that he will fight the New Zealand corner—and we wish him well.
  I regret that there is a considerable amount of misinformation—I use that word and not "disinformation"—about this matter and regret the hostility from the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, the Milk Marketing Board and the Farmers Union of Wales, which feel that the New Zealand Government and people are being treated too generously. I do not share that view.
  I remind the House and the NFU that farmers in New Zealand produce that butter without a single penny of subsidy and that they can send that butter halfway round the world and jump a tariff barrier of about £500 per tonne, and still compete with European butter. We are talking about a very efficient argriculture, which is not protected.
  In enunciating such views, I take comfort from the fact that I have the support not only of many of my hon. Friends but of hon. Members of all parties. I was pleased to see early-day motion 543 in the last Parliament. It was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others, and attracted over 200 signatures. I note that there is an amendment to this motion that broadly goes along the same lines and urges the Government to stand up and fight for the New Zealand point of view.
  There is considerable misunderstanding about this matter. As I go around the country and talk to farmers and at NFU group meetings, I find the misconception that if we could get rid of the New Zealanders, our milk quota would be increased. Therefore, it was rewarding to hear

  829
  the Minister state the position categorically. We cannot repeat it too often. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) repeated it clearly in a written answer on 8 May 1986:
  "The United Kingdom milk quota, like those of other member states, is based on past national production levels with no account being taken of imports from New Zealand or any other source."—[Official Report, 8 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 238.]
  I have repeated that because it needs repeating as the message has still not got across, and it is because the message has not got across that there are so many misconceptions.
  Another misconception is that we guarantee a market for New Zealand butter. Of course we do not. What we do guarantee is the opportunity of entry for New Zealand butter. Once the butter is in this country, it must compete with every other brand or make of butter, whatever its origin, on a strictly commercial basis. People buy New Zealand butter because by and large they want to buy New Zealand butter. They do not buy it because there is no alternative. The brand name "Anchor" is one of the premier brand names in this country. I hesitate to mention this, but I think that I should remind hon. Members of what the Prime Minister said on 19 May:
  "People here still wish to purchase that country's butter.—[Official Report, 19 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 1088.]
  It would be wrong for us to take steps that are too rigorous and to stop people having the choice of New Zealand butter. We in the Labour party believe that people should have the freedom to choose that brand of butter.
  As we have heard, the consumption of butter has been falling in recent years. I suggest that, if we took draconian steps and banned New Zealand butter, as some responsible people advocate, consumption of butter would fall even further.
  As with many other products, demand for butter is sustained and stimulated by advertising. I think that about £8 million a year is spent on advertising it in Britain, and of that amount, £6 million is contributed by the New Zealand Dairy Board. If New Zealand butter was not coming into Britain, that shortfall in advertising would not be made up and the result would be an even steeper fall in the consumption of butter in Britain. Overall, British butter producers would not benefit.
  Another reason for being careful about restricting the access of New Zealand butter—the Ministers touched upon this—is the whole issue of the current GATT negotiations. I am mindful, as I know the Minister is, that the next round of the Uruguay talks will take place on 5 December in Montreal. The spirit of most countries is that world agricultural trade should be liberalised and subsidies reduced, with resulting benefit to Third-world and other countries. That spirit is correct.
  The EEC has given a commitment to liberalise trade and it would seem strange if at the same time we were leaning towards more protectionism by restricting the entry of New Zealand butter. As I have said, just over one quarter, 27 per cent., of the United Kingdom butter market is in the hands of the New Zealanders. They have obtained it through competition and brand loyalty. The Opposition are committed to the entry of New Zealand butter to Britain.
  I realise that the Minister is engaged in a complicated set of negotiations involving not only butter. As he says,
  830
  there is also lamb, which is covered by a firm GATT agreement. The issue of top fruit was discussed earlier this year. I hope that the message he takes from the House is that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members—including all Opposition Members and probably a majority of Conservative Members—feel that it is his duty to go to Europe and fight the other Ministers on behalf of the New Zealand producers. That is the will and the desire of the British people.
  11.47 pm
  Sir Richard Body: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add,
  'but much regrets the restriction on consumer choice for British housewives caused by the proposed further reduction of 25 per cent. in the New Zealand quota, and urges Her Majesty's Government to consider whether the proposal is consistent with the pledge given by all the participating nations at the start of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that no new barriers to trade would be introduced while the negotiations continued.'.
  I hope that my hon. Friends who have come into the Chamber clutching their briefs from the National Farmers Union will go back to their constituencies echoing what has been said about the effect that any cut in quota will have on our dairy farmers. It is not only our dairy farmers who will be affected, but our arable farmers too. I am glad to say that I have many arable farmers in my constituency. We should never talk about milk or milk products without having regard to the interests of the arable farmers who produce the feed grains that go to the dairy herds.
  For the life of me I can see no prospect of any arable or dairy farmer benefiting in the slightest by the proposed cut in butter imports. Surely it is common sense that not a tonne, not an ounce, not a pat of New Zealand butter can come to Britain unless the British people say that they wish to buy it. No one can dispute that. Therefore, we are talking about an attack on the preferences of the British people.
  The New Zealand Dairy Board has for decades been advertising butter and promoting it in a way that the Milk Marketing Board has failed to do. It is a disgrace that the Milk Marketing Board insists that we must agree to cuts in the imports of New Zealand butter when it has done so little for decades to promote butter and has left it to the New Zealanders to do the task.
  The New Zealand Dairy Board has not only advertised butter and promoted it for years, but has gone out of its way to blend a type of butter to suit the British palate. It has taken endless pains to achieve that end. According to all the market research, the majority of people prefer to eat that kind of butter, which is blended to suit their palate. Therefore, if there is a further cut in the amount of butter that we shall be allowed to eat of our own choice, that is an attack on freedom of choice. That is something that we treasure and wish to promote.
  I know that my right hon. Friend will go to the Council of Ministers and fight hard for our consumers. I hope that he will draw the attention of his colleagues to protocol 18 of the treaty of accession, to which he referred earlier on. It is because of that protocol that we are required to import a declining quantity of New Zealand butter.
  That article had two parts to it. One was that we would accept a decline in the amount of New Zealand butter that we were allowed to eat, and the other was a pledge by the Common Market not to do anything to frustrate New Zealand from seeking markets elsewhere. We debated that

  831
  for a long time. Those of us who can remember those awful dreary debates that we had about our accession to the Community will remember that New Zealand butter was one of the main sticking points, and we were given an assurance that the EEC would do nothing to make it difficult for New Zealand to find export markets elsewhere.
  What happened? Our butter production went up, and when New Zealand sought to sell butter to Hong Kong, an island without a single dairy cow, as far as I know, and almost on the doorstep of New Zealand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, we live in a small world. If I have my geography right, New Zealand is nearer to Hong Kong than to the Common Market. However, when New Zealand tried to promote the sale of butter at a competitive price to Hong Kong, in went butter from the Common Market, dumped at a ridiculous price, so New Zealand lost that market. New Zealand went to Moscow and sought a market there, and again butter from the EEC was dumped and it lost that market. Wherever the New Zealand Dairy Board has sought an outlet for its products, the EEC has gone in and denied it that market.
  The Common Market has broken the pledge that it gave under protocol 18 of the treaty of accession. I hope that my right hon. Friend will emphasise that when he mets his colleagues. New Zealand has cut its dairy production again and again, although it is the lowest cost producer in the world. It has fought hard to find markets elsewhere, but every time that it has done so it has been thwarted by the funds—raised from our money—of the Community.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will emphasise a point that was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and is included in the amendment—the fact that the Common Market gave a further pledge at the beginning of the Uruguay round not to impose any fresh barrier upon trade with third countries until the completion of the GATT negotiations. If the Community goes ahead with that further barrier against New Zealand's trade with us, it will be in breach of that undertaking. I hope that the Community will not contemplate that step until the GATT negotiations are complete.
  I am sure that the House and the consumers of this country will wish my right hon. Friend well in his negotiations. I hope that our farmers also will wish him well, in the knowledge that they cannot lose by New Zealand continuing to send butter to this country. The promotion of butter needs to be financed by the New Zealand Dairy Board to sustain our dairy farmers. It is a paradox that our dairy farmers have in the past gained as a result of the board's skills in promoting butter in the past few decades.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the firmest assurances that he will argue as strenuously as he can for the interests of the British people.
  11.56 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not have an interest to declare, but I am married to a New Zealander and breed New Zealanders in captivity under licence in this country part-time.
  I was in New Zealand throughout the 1960s as the New Zealand equivalent of Robin Day, although not as well paid. I remember a series of British Ministers, both Conservative and Labour, coming out throughout the
  832
  1960s. I interviewed most of them and on television and to the public generally they gave solemn and sincere assurances that New Zealand interests would be safeguarded and defended by the British Government, that New Zealand would have continued access to the British market and that the traditional and close trading relationship would be maintained. Those assurances were given by Minister after Minister into the 1970s, when we finally went into the EEC. Perhaps New Zealand was a little trusting in heeding those assurances without demanding more definite quid pro quos, but they were certainly intended at the time. I regard it, therefore, as a matter of honour, and the curtailment of New Zealand access, which is implicit in these proposals, is wrong and immoral.
  The Minister, whose work has been impressive in many other spheres, has not fought has strenuously as I and many of his hon. Friends should have liked to defend New Zealand's access to this market. The reduction in quota from 165,000 tonnes in 1973 to 55,000 tonnes in 1992 is a 26 per cent. reduction on 1988 imports and is a faster rate of reduction than before.
  The butter negotiations have been tied in with the sheepmeat treaty, which was a treaty obligation. They should not have been tied together. The Minister's position has been more ambiguous than it should have been. His defence of New Zealand interests has not been as strong as I should have liked. I can understand that, because it is not a happy position for a Conservative Minister of Agriculture to be unpopular with those involved in agriculture. By reducing milk output, he has not been in the happy position of his right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) when he was Minister of Agriculture.
  It is wrong that the National Farmers Union, individual farmers and Conservative Back-Bench Members should attack New Zealand access. Their argument is misguided, as the Minister has said. It is wrong even to insinuate that there should be a reduction of the New Zealand quota. A reduction of New Zealand butter imports would not lead to a better milk quota for the United Kingdom. If there were to be an increased quota, it would be followed pari passu by the other members of the EEC. The effect in the United Kingdom would be minuscule. There would be an increase in the price of milk and, therefore, an increase in the price of butter. The consumption of butter would decrease and the only beneficiaries would be the margarine manufacturers, not the farmers who are attacking New Zealand access. It seems that we would be going to a great deal of trouble to benefit the margarine manufacturers.
  The Minister should have fought more strenuously in Britain and in the rest of Europe. It is clear that we do riot have a good deal. I warn the Minister that there will be anger in the House. That is shown clearly by early-day motion No. 543 of the previous Session, which was signed by over 200 Members, and by the amendment which has been moved tonight. There will be anger in the country as well if the Minister does not respond. He must fight to the utmost to prevent any undermining that could follow from what has already happened.
  We have a moral obligation to New Zealand. Furthermore, there is a consumer issue. Consumers want New Zealand butter. They like New Zealand butter and they buy it. They are accustomed to the taste of New Zealand butter. Consumer organisations want sustained

  833
  access for New Zealand so that consumers can buy the butter that they want and should be able to secure. It is unreasonable for the Minister to say that, because consumers want New Zealand butter and because the product can hold its share of the market, it is legitimate to reduce access in order to increase market share because of consumer preference. That is a tortuous argument.
  As has been said, New Zealand is the only substantial advertiser of butter. Of the £8 million that was spent on advertising butter last year, £6 million was spent by New Zealand. Against that, £16 million is spent on advertising margarine. It is clear that the consumer wants New Zealand butter, and as a result of advertising New Zealand is sustaining the demand for butter generally.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude to Icelandic cod in Grimsby?
  Mr. Mitchell: That is a silly question at this moment. It is irrelevant as well. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman regards it as a humorous question. In fact, we want Icelandic cod in Grimsby because we want to maintain the processing side of the industry. Similarly, the consumer wants New Zealand butter. I do not see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question, but he has his answer.
  This is a trade issue as New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world with which Britain trades successfully. Our annual trade with New Zealand amounts to £1 billion—visibles and invisibles—and we are actually in surplus. That is a unique phenomenon for Britain. At a time when we have such a horrendous trade deficit, why should we allow a substantial market for British goods and services to be undermined by the reductions in quota that are implicit in the document? We should support our markets and our friends.
  As the hon Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) said, protocol 18 of the treaty of accession gave solemn undertakings that the EEC would not frustrate New Zealand's efforts to develop alternative markets and to diversify its sales. That undertaking has not been kept in any respect. Wherever New Zealand has tried to develop alternative markets for butter, wherever it has got its butter exports going, it has been counteracted by large-scale dumping of EEC butter. That was done not only to compete with New Zealand's exports, but to depress the price of butter on the world market. The solemn obligation has in no way been sustained by the EEC. Having failed in that crucial respect, although New Zealand took the plunge and agreed to diversify its markets, to start now to reduce New Zealand's access to this market is unreasonable.
  New Zealand's share of the British butter market went down from one third in 1970 to about 27 per cent. in 1986. Despite all my efforts to the contrary—and I have been magnificent—the butter market has shrunk. It is half what it was when we entered the EEC. New Zealand's trade has diversified enormously. Nine tenths of its trade came here before the war. Now nine tenths of it goes elsewhere, but 45 per cent. of New Zealand's butter export earnings are still made in this market. It is crucial to the New Zealand economy because 14 per cent. of New Zealand's total exports come from the dairy industry.
  Curtailment of the quota will be a bitter blow for an economy that is facing real difficulties. For a highly
  834
  efficient primary producer, which developed as this country's farm in the antipodes, it will be a bitter blow to farmers whose standards of living have been cut drastically and who have been hit hard by what has happened to world agricultural trade. This will be a further blow which we in this country should not countenance.
  Why should we cut New Zealand's access to this market in any respect? I regard the Minister's stand on this as equivocal. What economic sense does it make to penalise New Zealand—the most efficient producer in the world, with which we trade successfully and in surplus—and to be forced to buy over-priced, inefficiently produced butter from the EEC, from nations with which we are in a horrendous trade deficit, which is getting worse every year? The proposal to cut quotas will be a serious blow to our trade with New Zealand. The proposal is a moral and political folly of national self-interest. We should not reduce the quota, as the Minister evisages; we should sustain New Zealand's access as much as we possibly can.
  12.7 am
  Mr. David Curry: There is no point in discussing this issue unless we put it in the context of decision making within the European Community. That lays down the framework of the debate.
  It is not an option to preserve the status quo, because the present entitlement lapses at the end of the year and legally the Community could simply say that no butter should be imported if the rules are not renewed. As the original agreement talks about transitional arrangements, that clearly envisaged progressive reductions.
  However, it is not an option to seek to wipe New Zealand off the face of the map. There are reasons for that. First, there is a common interest between the Community and New Zealand in trying to maintain prices on the world market. There has been some success. The minimum price was $1,000 per tonne at the start of the year, $1,100 in March and $1,250 in September; it is now being traded at $1,400 and some sales have been concluded at $1,600 per tonne, including sales by the New Zealand Dairy Board. Secondly, in the light of the GATT negotiations, the Community would not be in good order going into those negotiations if it were to introduce the proposed cuts for the New Zealand quota which were out of line with the reductions that had been progressive over previous years.
  That is the framework within which the decisions must be taken. A political compromise will be struck and the interest lies in the requirements for the compromise. I believe that the first interest is a continuing choice for the consumer in the United Kingdom and availability of New Zealand butter broadly with the same proportion that we had before, in a declining market place, as all hon. Members have noticed. The second is a fair deal for New Zealand, because, as hon. Members have said, New Zealand has invested in the marketing network in the United Kingdom and put a major proportion of its advertising expenditure into the United Kingdom and is entitled to look for a fair revenue for its producers.
  The final requirement is justice for British and European farmers, who have taken significant cuts in their quotas and who feel that all participants in the market place should share that burden, although they have realised a major capital asset in the dairy quotas. The cost of disposing of the surpluses and making the mountains

  835
  disappear has been borne by the taxpayer as well as by the producer, and sometimes each side in that equation forgets the other.
  On that assessment, is the deal fair? The cuts are not draconian; they are not as high as expected. Most people would have punted the Commission's opening bet at around 50,000 tonnes. It is significantly higher than that. The reduction in the levy seeks to compensate in revenue for the cut in quantities sent by New Zealand farmers. In my experience, what matters to farmers is the bottom line of the account. Consumer choice is preserved because the cuts are broadly in line with those that have taken place historically, and the European farmer cannot say that a 14 per cent. cut in the New Zealand quota is not a severe measure.
  It has to be emphasised that any other proposal could be worse. What the Commission has put on the table is the best that New Zealand will get. Any amendment will be worse for New Zealand: that is the political reality. It is an illusion to think that a cut in the New Zealand quota will produce one extra gramme for British dairy farmers. The quota will not be redistributed. We could argue that, if New Zealand butter did not come in, perhaps there would be a little extra for everyone across the Community, but even that is very doubtful. I believe that the reaction of the New Zealanders, with all the marketing effort that they have put in, would be to buy continental butter and put it into Anchor packs. There is nothing to prevent them from marketing continental butter in the United Kingdom under the Anchor label.
  The market in Europe is not yet in such perfect balance as people suggest. There may be only 100,000 tonnes of unsold butter in public storage. However, liquid skimmed milk is still being subsidised into calves' feed at 53 ecu a tonne, and skimmed milk powder is being subsidised into calves' feed at 650 ecu per tonne. Therefore, it is ridiculous to talk about the market having undergone some miraculous transition to balance. There is still a long way to go. Butter is being subsidised into pastry-making, ice cream and other manufacturing projects.
  The proposals represent a balanced view, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, we have to consider them with the lamb and sheepmeat proposals. Most people consider it a package, although the legal status of the two agreements is wholly different—one is a bilateral deal and one is a voluntary restraint within the overall framework of the GATT. With the proposal to cut the New Zealand lamb entitlement to a level still above the historic level of New Zealand shipments—with some limitation on chilled lamb, which in some senses is more sensitive to the United Kingdom market—the Commission has produced a cleverly worked package, which may be one of Commissioner Andriessen's last measures as Agricultural Commissioner before he takes on his new role as Commissioner for External Relations.
  This is a well-wrought deal. It is fair to all the parties concerned, given that the Commission had to square a circle containing very conflicting interests. I believe that the housewife has the same proportion of choice that she had before. The European farmer cannot complain that his pain is not shared by others. The combination of the cuts and the levy change for New Zealand maintains the revenue expectations of that country and justifies its input into the promotion of the butter market.
  I commend to my right hon. Friend the view that, within the confines of his negotiations, he should seek to
  836
  promote the deal, as it comes as near as we are likely to get into the practical political circumstances of producing something supportable, even if all parties are not ecstatic about it. It is a well-wrought package and he would do well to defend it as it now exists.
  12.14 am
  Mr. Geraint Howells: The National Farmers Union and the Government appear to be at loggerheads over the issue of New Zealand butter. Perhaps the Minister will explain why. The NFU represents a large number of producers in this country. The NFU's view is also taken by the Milk Marketing Board, which has served the dairy industry well for the past 50 years. It is also the view of the Dairy Trade Federation. They are all agreed that the New Zealand butter quota should be reduced to 40,000 tonnes next year and be abolished by 1992. There is a great deal of disagreement among the unions, the trade, the Milk Marketing Board and the Government. It would be helpful to know why.
  There has been a 15-year transitional period and the dairy trade is wondering how long it will continue. Hon. Members on both sides have said that we would not have an additional milk quota if the New Zealand butter quota were abolished.
  I should be grateful for clarification on the question of profitability, which is important to British farmers. The Government are duty bound to look after the interests of their dairy farmers. I still believe that we should treat New Zealand gently and allow it to continue to send butter to this country, and, so long as the Minister does his utmost to safeguard the interests of British dairy producers and consumers, he will have the blessing of my party.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). I especially agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said in his outstandingly clear speech.
  The House is beginning to realise what a contentious issue this is and always has been. Various arguments are deployed. There are those who say that there should be more, even unlimited, access to New Zealand butter. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has almost made it his life's work to find every conceivable argument from the bottom of the barrel to criticise the European Community. We are all familiar with that, and it is the gist of the amendment. There are others who say that New Zealand butter imports should be abolished as soon as possible.
  Like many hon. Members, I have spent a large part of the past four or five years travelling around the country to speak at farmers' meetings. I often met strong objections to New Zealand butter imports. I discovered that almost all the criticism was based on the false assumption that if those imports were abolished there would somehow be increased quotas for Britain and, possibly, the Community. That is erroneous, and my right hon. Friend has nailed that argument. Many of the cries from farmers and the Milk Marketing Board are based on that erroneous assumption. I hope that we can kill that.
  We must put the position of New Zealand imports into its historic context. I well remember that in the early 1970s, when we were negotiating to join the Community—the team was led, I think, by Lord Rippon as he now is—some

  837
  issues came up time and time again. There was the issue of sugar imports from the developing countries, and there was the issue of New Zealand butter imports. I notice that some of the people who, 15 years ago, insisted on the need to maintain New Zealand's share in the United Kingdom butter market are now saying that it should be eliminated altogether so that perhaps our farmers would get some extra quota. That is a silly argument and one to which we should not listen.
  I hope that we shall hear no more from the Opposition about it being wrong to reduce the amount of New Zealand butter that has been imported over the years. I remind Members on the Opposition Front Bench that the amount of New Zealand butter imports decreased during the yew's of their Government, as it was their Minister who negotiated that decrease.
  I feel that the proposal to go down to about 55,000 tonnes in 1992 is about right. I understand that the New Zealanders have said that this is the lowest level that they can accept and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, I was pleasantly surprised that the Commissioner did not put a somewhat lower figure on it. I believe that it is about right, but I warn the Minister that there will be those in the Council of Ministers who will take this proposed figure as the starting point. I can anticipate the arguments of, perhaps, the French and Irish Ministers, who will use this as a starting point from which to negotiate a significantly lower figure. I hope that my right hon. Friend will support the Commission and resist any suggestions that this figure should be further reduced.
  I believe that we have a continuing debt to New Zealand because of what it did to support Britain in two world wars, and we should never forget that. It would be a tragic mistake if we were to sell New Zealand down the river, and we are not doing so with these proposals. As my right hon. Friend said, they will mean that New Zealand's share of our butter market will be more or less maintained. That is the key, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will support the Commission in sticking to these proposals.
  12.22 am
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I have an interest in this matter. The New Zealand dairy products that are imported are processed and prepared for sale at the Anchor Foods factory in Swindon. Some £25 million has been invested in a modern factory, providing excellent working conditions and employing 400 of my constituents. A substantial number of those jobs are for unskilled workers, and, as elsewhere, there is a diminishing number of such jobs in Swindon. There can be little doubt that a reduction of nearly 20,000 tonnes of New Zealand butter during the next four years would mean redundancies among those of my constituents who work for the Anchor Foods company. The loss of £40 million in turnover a year could not easily be replaced by diversification.
  Of course, as has been said several times, this is not the final decision of the Community; it is a proposal. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will support this proposal to the full, without the possible consideration of any further concession? If my right hon. Friend is unable to give that commitment or unable to deliver in the negotiations, the viability of the factory in
  838
  my constituency will be at risk, 400 jobs will be on the line, and to what purpose? It has already been said many times tonight that nothing that happens as a result of the negotiations on New Zealand butter will affect the British farmer one iota. If the total imports of New Zealand butter were distributed throughout the Community, it would give each of our farmers only a couple of extra pints a year.
  The housewife has already been mentioned. We should consider what the consumer wants. A survey of more than 1,000 housewives who buy butter was conducted in March and April. It revealed that 84 per cent. of all respondents thought that New Zealand should be able to continue to sell butter in Britain; 9 per cent. disagreed; and 7 per cent. did not know. It revealed that 79 per cent. of all respondents thought the people of Britain should be allowed to buy as much Anchor butter as they want and 54 per cent. of that total expressed their favourable feelings strongly. Do my right hon. and hon. Friends believe in free trade? Do they believe in the consumer's right of free choice in our markets? The survey continued:
  "84 per cent. of all respondents said yes, they did think the British Government should continue to make sure people can buy New Zealand butter in Britain, while 7 per cent. said no and 10 per cent. did not know. Of those 84 per cent., 94 per cent. agreed that the British Government should insist that the Common Market continues to allow people to buy New Zealand butter in Britain. Of those, 30 per cent. expressed their agreement extremely strongly, 31 per cent. very strongly and 30 per cent. fairly strongly."
  Is my right hon. Friend the housewife's friend? Will he stick out for the interests of our consumers?
  The reduction in the New Zealand butter quota would not increase United Kingdom milk quotas one jot. When the national production levels were originally calculated and the quotas were set, they took no account of New Zealand butter. It is worth repeating what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) told the Select Committee on Agriculture on 24 February 1987:
  "there is no question that if we did not have the New Zealand butter our quota would in some way be larger; in fact it would not affect the production of farmers, because even if the whole of the New Zealand production was taken over by British butter, all it would mean would be that it would have to come out of our present quota."
  One cannot say plainer than that, and my right hon. Friend has repeated that message tonight. Those who believe that that is not the case should read this debate in Hansard and appreciate that crucial point.
  The only cut in New Zealand dairy imports that could be justified is that which reflects the national, overall reduction in our consumption of butter. When I intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech, he said that, in the past three years, butter consumption had dropped between 5 and 7·5 per cent. We are being asked to contemplate a reduction, however, of more than 25 per cent. in the New Zealand butter import quota for the next four years. I do not believe that those figures are in phase. What we are being asked to agree tonight is in excess of what equity demands, let alone what our consumers require.
  The Government should be prepared to return to the table in Brussels and argue for a better deal for New Zealand butter than that contained in the present proposal. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of my objections on behalf of my constituents.
  12.29 am
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: This is a sad episode in a long and sorry story. Once again representatives of our Government—one devoted to principles of free trade abroad and non-intervention at home—have put before the House documents that do violence to both. That is a great shame. Earlier, it was pointed out that when we joined the Community in 1973, we entered into a compact on behalf of New Zealand whereby it would be limited in the amount of butter that it could send to Britain. However, in the Dublin declaration annexed to the protocol we agreed that the Community would not deprive New Zealand of essential outlets.
  It may he thought ironic—or not, as the case may be—that that provision was contained in a Dublin declaration. During Question Time yesterday the Prime Minister said in respect of other Dublin declarations:
  "although the Government of the Republic of Ireland make fine-sounding speeches and statements, they do not always seem to be backed up by the appropriate deeds."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 575.]
  That accusation can also be made of the Community.
  In 1973 we imported about 165,000 tonnes of New Zealand butter. Today the figure is less than half that. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who seems to be limiting his access to the Chamber—placing himself, unusually, under a voluntary restraint agreement—asked how one could justify continuing New Zealand butter imports. They can be justified because no one is forced to buy New Zealand butter, and imports and sales are determined by consumers. If people did not buy New Zealand butter, not one ounce of it would be imported into this country. New Zealand butter's price is competitive, notwithstanding—and no one has pointed this out—the fact that it attracts a 25 per cent. tariff.
  Since 1970 New Zealand's market share has fallen from .33 to 27 per cent. I obtained that figure from a written answer to a question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who asked earlier what the figure was. I know that my hon. Friend is a very busy chap and he may not have noticed that answer to his question.
  The reduction in New Zealand butter imports over recent years is significant. I was surprised to hear one of my hon. Friends, who is keen that we should import coal into the United Kingdom from other countries to make our own industry more efficient, take a different line in respect of butter. In much the same way Opposition Members are not keen to see coal imports, but are keen to encourage butter imports. I am sure that that has nothing to do with the demographic and occupational make-up of their constituencies. However, as a representative of some of the finest dairying country in Britain, I can tell the House with complete consistency that, as a believer in free trade, I am convinced New Zealand should continue to enjoy the freest possible access to our markets.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who, in an otherwise lucid and realistic speech, remarked that the proposed cuts were not draconian, when they are the largest cuts yet advanced in relation to New Zealand's market, amounting to 25 per cent. over the four-year period, with a cut of 10,000 tonnes this year alone. Notwithstanding the fact that the levy will be reduced from 25 to 15 per cent. that will not compensate New Zealand for its losses on access, which will lead to an
  840
  overall fall in income of 16 per cent. It has been pointed out that the levy will lead to no compensating or countervailing benefit for British farmers.
  Butter consumption is falling, and no doubt it will continue doing so. One reason is that consumers are having to pay many times more for butter than they would in a free market. In 1973, butter prices were the same as margarine. Today, butter is two and a half times more expensive. The reason is the protection racket that is the common agricultural policy. Farmers have done trernendous damage to their own interests by the vigour with which they have supported agricultural protection.
  That has dawned on farmers in New Zealand. The New Zealand farmers union makes it clear that farmers there are not rattling the begging bowls as they are in this country. They are firmly committed to the principles of free trade, because they know that if they endorse protectionist policies other countries will do the same and agricultural markets will become organised as they are in the Community, to everyone's cost—consumers, taxpayers and producers alike.
  As has been said many times this evening, the Community has not kept faith with New Zealand. Community dumping has disrupted New Zealand's markets all over the world, and, although we have reduced the accumulated surpluses that have so exacerbated the problem, there is still no guarantee that in the future the Community will not seek to invade the markets which it agreed in 1973 would be left to New Zealand.
  The linking of the reduction in butter imports with the restraints on lamb imports does fundamental violence to our principles of free trade, not only in this country, but in the Community and the wider world, under the GATT negotiations. We agreed in the Uruguay round that we would not seek to increase protectionist barriers against third countries, yet that is precisely what we are seeking to do in the extension of voluntary restraint agreements on lamb. Under the GATT treaties, New Zealand should be able to export unlimited quantities of lamb to the Community at a tariff of 20 per cent., but that was limited by a voluntary restraint agreement in 1980—the kind of "voluntary agreement" that is reached when someone points a gun at a man's head and asks him to hand over his wallet—to 245,000 tonnes at a tariff of 10 per cent. It is now proposed to reduce that to 205,000 tonnes, with further limits on chilled products.
  I cannot understand how we can hold our heads high in the world while saying that we favour the reduction of trade barriers and then bring proposals such as this to the House. I appreciate the realism of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. I accept that the proposal is probably the best that we shall get. I am not trying to justify it; I am merely being realistic. It is vital that we advertise to people, not only in this country, but elsewhere in the Community, that this is where the buck stops, that the New Zealand Government have reluctantly accepted that this is the best deal that they will get, and look to our Ministers to fight for them as they have in the past and as they have recently declared they will continue to do.
  I urge my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to do just that—to stand up for New Zealand, for Britain and for British consumers.
  12.37 am
  Mr. John Greenway: I shall keep my remarks very brief, as the hour is late. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made an excellent speech, and I hope one day to emulate his knowledge of these matters.
  The debate has been interesting, and I have found it most informative. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) pointed out, we receive many briefs on these important issues, not least from our own Whips Office, and they help us to form a sensible judgment on what we should do. One element, however, has been lacking in the debate. We have concentrated entirely on circumstances relating to a particular Commission proposal. I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us how he envisages the position in 1992. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon suggested, this is the best that we can expect, that will still leave 55,000 tonnes in 1992, when the single European market comes into being.
  I take my right hon. Friend's point that any further reduction in New Zealand butter imports would not affect our dairy farmers' quota now. However, the quota arrangement is not permanent but temporary. By about 1992 the quota regime will have to be reconsidered.
  The House has shown tonight that it is committed to the moral obligation that was entered into in 1973 to allow access to New Zealand imports, but it is fair to place on record the fact that some hon. Members are equally concerned—in some cases more concerned—about farming interests in our own constituencies. Young dairy farmers, looking to the future, are asking, "What future is there for us in dairy farming, taking into account the present balance in the market place?" We must take their views into account.
  I think that the House ought to accept the Commission's proposals, but we shall have to return to the problem. The conflicts that are emerging will have to be addressed. When the single market is in place, I believe that the other member states will resist the import of any New Zealand butter. Our farmers will then ask why all the New Zealand butter has to come to this country.
  12.40 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Minister has referred to the special regard that the United Kingdom has for New Zealand. He also pointed out that the treaty of Rome reflects that fact. The proposals that we are discussing are a further reflection of that relationship. The largest ANZAC ceremony outside Australasia is held every year on Cannock Chase. Therefore, the Cannock area has a special regard for New Zealand.
  I am somewhat sceptical about the EEC. Its attitude towards New Zealand butter is most depressing. I have not participated in previous debates on EEC documents. The document that relates to this debate runs to about 60 pages. It is full of information and figures, and it has made most interesting reading. A most interesting fact is that the document contains scarcely any reference to the consumer. It is an entirely producer-dominated and orientated document. The omission of the consumer from the document confirms that the common agricultural policy has established completely wrong priorities.
  842
  Many hon. Members have referred to the arrangements that have been entered into to reduce the amount of New Zealand butter that is permitted to enter the United Kingdom. Imports have been reduced from 166,000 tonnes to 74,500 tonnes during last year. The New Zealand share of the market has not remained static: its share has fallen from 33 per cent. to 27 per cent. It has already suffered a cut. Tonight, New Zealand is being asked to take a further cut and to shoulder a further share of the burden.
  Apart from having to accept quota restrictions, New Zealand has also had to pay the levy and compete against home-produced and EEC products. Notwithstanding those hurdles and the falling demand for butter, New Zealand managed to ensure that in 1987 the retail sale price of new Zealand butter in small packs was about 4·4 per cent. less than the price of equivalent United Kingdom butter.
  Anchor butter remains the houswife's favourite butter. It has always been and it remains my favourite butter. When I was at school I took it home to Germany where I lived to ensure that I did not have to eat German butter. I have been consistent throughout.
  Despite high butter stocks in the United Kingdom, the consumer is clearly exercising his or her choice and preference for New Zealand butter. I am distressed that the Commission is proposing yet more reductions in New Zealand butter quotas. By 1992, they will have fallen to 55,000 tonnes, which is precisely one third of the 1973 quota. The House has to consider how far the Commission may press us in the future. Presumably, it wants ultimately to reduce the figure to zero.
  I believe that the interests of the consumer in this matter are paramount, but there are other considerations such as historical association and the fact that New Zealand has tried, with great success, to restructure and liberalise its enonomy. Moreover, we earn more money from our trade with New Zealand than it earns from us.
  I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will take heart from the message given by the House that they should go out and fight for the interests of the British consumer and our friends and allies in New Zealand.
  12.45 am
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: This has been one of the most realistic and agreeable debates on EEC affairs for many months, probably because of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). I want to speak for only one minute.
  I hope that the Government will accept that what they are proposing is a reduction in consumer choice. The House should face that fact. The Government may take the view that the proposed reduction of one quarter is consistent with what they think will be the reduction in butter consumption, but nobody can argue that butter consumption will decrease by one quarter during the next five years.
  I hope that the most recent activity of the European Commission—it banned imported apples so that housewives had less choice—will get across to the Government the fact that we must ensure that the housewife can buy what she wants, not just what the Common Market has in surplus.

  843
  Bearing in mind New Zealand's problems, is there anything that we can do about butter dumping? There is talk of what might happen next year, but we know that dumping has been extraordinarily high during the past 12 months—to the extent of butter being dumped at 2.72p per pound, which is outrageous. Can the Government persuade the Council to ensure that housewives can buy what they want and that dumping is reduced?
  12.46 am
  Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister will take away tonight the united view of the House of Commons. All who have spoken have been supportive of New Zealand. I have found the debate instructive and constructive, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will draw strength from it. When he negotiates in Europe, I hope that he will remember the message that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) delivered: that he should fight the case for New Zealand. I am sure that he will have the good will and support of the House when he does that.
  I am glad that all hon. Members who have been rising in their places have been called. The case was put admirably by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who brings a distinctive view to these matters. He was supported with great authority by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). If he were present, I would take issue with my hon. Friend as he made a passing reference to the Minister's predecessor but one. He did the Minister a disservice when he compared him unfavourably with the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). In previous debates, we have all omitted to observe that, 12 months before milk quotas were introduced, the right hon. Gentleman was stamping round the country telling farmers to produce. If I were offered a choice between the present Minister and the right hon. Member for Worcester, I would settle for them both remaining in their present jobs.
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) did the House a service by drawing attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) had not bothered to read the answer to his parliamentary question, tabled earlier this year. I should like to correct the hon. Member for Tatton, as 26 per cent., not 27 per cent., of the United Kingdom butter market is taken by New Zealand imports. That is the 1987 figure, not the rather dated one that the hon. Gentleman used. I am sure that he will update his records and use the former figure in future.
  The hon. Member for Tatton did New Zealand a disservice when he mentioned our opposition to imported coal. Our opposition is not to imported coal per se, but to imported coal that is produced under slave labour conditions in South Africa. To attempt to draw a comparison—as the hon. Gentleman did—between the dairy industry in New Zealand and the coal mining industry operating under slave labour conditions in South Africa does a grave disservice to the people of New Zealand, who are our historic friends and allies. The case tonight has been overwhelming. Imports of New Zealand butter provide consumer choice. It is a wholesome product, and is sold at a competitive price. It is part of a trade relationship that is best described by a statement by the New Zealand high commissioner earlier this year:
  844
  "The visible and invisible trade in each direction is now worth nearly £1 billion a year—though Britain still earns rather more from New Zealand than New Zealand does from Britain …. The remitted profits of British investment in New Zealand alone exceed the receipts from New Zealand's dairy export to Britain."
  The Labour party supports our historic and traditional relationship with New Zealand. In the light of arguments such as the one that I have just quoted, I fail to see how a Conservative House of Commons can do other than support these proposals.
  12.50 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) started, as he ended, by saying that the House supported these proposals. Brevity will mean no discourtesy, as I have only four minutes in which to reply to the debate.
  So that the record need not be changed, let me correct my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), who quoted figures per year, giving a total of 23 per cent., not in toto. That is just to keep that part of the record straight. Those who read Hansard will understand that.
  I must start by reminding the House that this agreement must find unanimity in Brussels—and it will be a difficult unanimity to find. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will not mind my saying that he is an old hand at this game. He highlighted the difficulties of France and Ireland. I repeat that unanimity will be difficult to find. I should like to start where my right hon. Friend ended by saying that the Government believe that the Commission's proposals represent a reasonable balance between the many interests involved.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made the point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), that it is not the Government who buy butter. It is the housewife who does that. The hon. Member for South Shields fully supported advertising, which is unusual for the Opposition. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the value of generic advertising. He also emphasised that the Labour party wanted to fight for the New Zealanders. The hon. Member for Caerphilly also made that point.
  In his delightful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston pointed out the difficulties that New Zealanders have faced in finding other markets. However, despite those difficulties—I do not quarrel at this late hour with his specific examples they have found other markets. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon will discover that Anchor butter will find other markets, that New Zealanders will continue to find markets abroad to meet their requirements and that they will continue to sell their butter here.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was not fair to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) should read the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), because it encapsulated many things that needed to be said. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was gracious enough to mention that speech. I assure him that the matter will be renegotiated and that we will again discuss the matter in the House. He spoke

  845
  specifically about 1992. The Community decision on the future level of New Zealand imports took into account a wide range of often conflicting factors.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings.
  Question, That the amendment be made put and negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8961/88 on New Zealand butter and of the Government's intention to pursue agreement to these proposals which meet the aim of establishing arrangements for the continued access of New Zealand butter on special terms for the period 1989–92 in a way which represents a reasonable balance between the interests of those involved.

PETITIONS

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  12.55 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: It has been a long night, but I have been very willing to stay here until nearly 1 o'clock to present this petition on behalf of 2,000 people, many of them my constituents, to preserve the Settle-Carlisle railway as part of the national network.
  As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Transport Users Consultative Committee is sending reports to the Minister, and British Rail has produced new figures to show that revenue on passenger traffic on the line has increased from £1 million to £1·7 million. Examination of the Ribblehead viaduct has demonstrated that the repair costs will be halved from the £5 million that British Rail claimed. The course is set fair for the retention of this beautiful railway which is useful not only for scenic visits by tourists but also as an important lifeline for people who live in the area.
  I hope that, when the Minister sees on the Order Paper the 29 petitions with more than 80,000 signatures that were presented this week, he will recognise the strength of opinion about keeping this excellent lifeline, link, main-line route and beautiful engineering achievement as part of the national network. It gives me great pleasure to read the petition. It says:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble petition of the supporters of the Settle to Carlisle railway sheweth that the outstandingly beautiful and historic Settle-Carlisle railway provides an essential transport system for the people who live in the area; for people wishing to visit the area; for people travelling between the Midlands, Yorkshire and Scotland; for British Rail as a diversionary route; for British Rail to use as a potentially important freight route; and for hundreds of thousands of people who wish to enjoy the scenery near the line and the engineering heritage of the line itself.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that the Settle-Carlisle railway and the associated Blackburn-Hellifield railway, will be retained as an integral part of the national railway network.
  And so say all of us.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Sir Richard Body: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have your guidance? I too came with a petition in the same terms as that presented by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I took the liberty of putting it in the bag to make sure that it reached the appropriate place as speedily as possible. I hope that I am in order when I say that I wholeheartedly support the petition and the hundreds of people who have signed it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is out of order. He has put his petition in the bag but he cannot present it without giving notice.
  12.58 am
  Mr. Andy Stewart: I wish to present a petition in the name of Mr. Robin Stewart Smith, 3 St Mary's drive, Edwinstowe and 1,000 other signatories in support of the retention of the Settle-Carlisle railway line.
  The history of Sherwood forest is legendary, and my constituents share the views of the local people and others nationwide who want to protect this line for future generations. Like the petitioners, I hope that the railway line can be saved, and will join Sherwood forest as part of our famous heritage.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Council House Sales (Torbay)
  1 am
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I wish to present a petition signed by more than half the council tenants of Torbay council—2,634 people—who are horrified by the undemocratic decision of the councillors to sell off their homes, despite an overwhelming vote against such a move by the tenants. The tenants point out:
  "after a vote of all Council tenants monitored by the Electoral Reform Society and where a majority of three to one tenants elected against the sale of their houses to a private landlord, the Torbay Borough Council chose to ignore that majority by inclusion of abstentions and non-voters as signifying acceptance."
  This petition is signed by more than half the tenants because they want the House to be aware of the wishes of the majority. The petition ends:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to (1) accept the straight majority vote, as is traditional in this land, and (2) maintain the Council's Housing Stock in the hands of the Torbay Borough Council as is the wish of the majority of tenants.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  1.1 am
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I present a second petition, which is signed by 2,771 people, who are horrified by the plans to sell off or close the Settle to Carlisle railway. The petitioners and I believe that this outstandingly beautiful and historic line provides an essential local transport link for the people who live there and for the people who are visiting the area. The livelihoods of some people depend upon it, and it is an essential and under-developed part of this nation's rail network. The finances are increasingly showing the viability of this railway line. The petition ends:

  847
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Settle-Carlisle railway, and the associated Blackburn-Hellifield railway, will be retained as an integral part of the national railway network.
  To lie upon the Table.
  1.2 am
  Mr. Garry Waller: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 4,000 people living in or near the Keighley constituency, which calls for the retention of the Settle-Carlisle railway. The signatories of the petition, with whom I strongly identify, believe that it is vital that the line should be retained for generations to come. I am proud to be a vice-president of the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line Association. Whether the future of the railway lies in the private or the public sector, we would not easily be forgiven if we allowed the commission of that act of vandalism that closure would constitute. The petition ends:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Settle-Carlisle railway, and the associated Blackburn-Hellifield railway, will be retained as an integral part of the railway network.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  1.3 am
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I have two petitions to present. The first has over 1,000 signatures of supporters of the Settle-Carlisle railway. The fact that so many people in my constituency have signed the petition shows how important this railway is as part of a national rail network. These petitioners are calling for the Settle-Carlisle line to remain part of the network. It is a particularly beautiful railway, and is used and admired by many people from all parts of the country. It is because of
  848
  that that many people want to see that line remain as a functioning part of the rail network, and of our public transport system.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Seals
  1.4 am
  Mr. Elliot Morley: The second petition I wish to present is from the children of the Rochdale road junior school, and has over 150 names. They have signed a petition to show their concern about the fate of the seals in the North sea. It is a matter of great pride to me that the children of a school should show so much concern, and such organisation to send in this petition, signed by them and the staff of the school. The petition is a great credit to the children, and it is creditable that they have this concern about the environment, and that they know how to organise themselves and express themselves to the House, which has the ultimate power to do something about the matter.
  The petition states:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the children of Rochdale Road Junior School, Scunthorpe in the constituency of Glanford and Scunthorpe, showeth that they are greatly concerned about the virus that has been decimating the seal population of the North Sea, particularly along the coast of the United Kingdom.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the government to do all in its power to support research and provide resources to combat this virus and protect the seals.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  1.5 am
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I am grateful, even at this late hour, for the opportunity to raise an important issue so early in this Session of Parliament. I refer to the problem of noise levels at RAF Upper Heyford.
  There has been an airfield at Upper Heyford since the late 1920s. For some time now it has been a major NATO air base. F111 aircraft have been based there since 1970 and their numbers were significantly increased by deployment of an additional squadron of EF111s in 1984. Local people have always recognised the contribution that the base may make to Britain's defences and acknowledge that the first duty of the realm is the defence of the realm. However, that public duty has to be balanced against the collective private interests and considerations of hundreds of people living in the proximity of the base.
  RAF Upper Heyford lies in the Cherwell valley. The airfield has one physical runway which is aligned roughly on an east-west axis. To the west, literally at the end of the runway, lies the village of Upper Heyford with an adult population of about 1,750 people. A little further away, on the valley ridge, lies Steeple Aston with a population of approximately 860 and Middle Aston with a population of just over 100. At the other end of the runway, again right against the perimeter fence, lies the village of Ardley with a population of about 670. In total, about 2,400 adults and their children live very close to the base. There can be no airfield in Britain or, I suspect, in NATO where so many people and so many villages are so close to an airfield runway and so vulnerable to aircraft noise.
  During the late 1960s, there was a substantial increase in aircraft activity at RAF Upper Heyford and thus an increase in aircraft noise. That led in turn to an increase in very real concern among local people that aircraft noise was making their lives intolerable. A survey carried out by some pupils at Bicester school in 1969 and 1970 stated:
  "the chairman of Steeple Aston Parish Council told us that the council had done everything possible, but with very little in the way of actual results. They have written to the Base Commander, attended many meetings at the Base, as well as writing to the Ministry of Defence (who only referred the letters back to Upper Heyford)."
  That sense of frustration in 1970 is undoubtedly experienced perhaps even more deeply today by the parish council and local residents who feel that officials simply are not listening to them.
  However, in 1970, the Ministry of Defence realised that something had to be done to try to relieve the burden of aircraft noise on local people. The minutes of Steeple Aston parish council in September 1970 state:
  "In an endeavour to alleviate the noise, aircraft taking off from Upper Heyford were now instructed to turn 10 deg right as soon as possible after take-off. If it were possible with the compatibility of safety, it may be possible to turn more than 10 deg."
  That was 1970. Following further public concern, these informal arrangements later became more formal.
  Early in 1974, the United States air force experimented with and finally adopted a formal noise abatement flight pattern for departures to the west. The procedure involved a right turn before the aircraft had left the confines of the
  850
  airfield to avoid Upper Heyford village, following a line slightly to the north of Middle Aston and culminating in a left turn to avoid direct overflight of Duns Tew.
  In 1984, as the result of suggestions from a civil airline pilot who lived in Ardley, basically a similar procedure was adopted for departures to the east of the base to avoid Ardley. Despite these noise abatement measures, there was still considerable aircraft noise. In fairness, however, householders in the worst affected villages qualified for noise insulation grants. From time to time there were complaints about aircraft straying from what were regarded as agreed flight paths, but the noise levels were at least tolerable.
  What for a number of years had at least been tolerable levels of aircraft noise became intolerable in June of this year. On 24 May, the United States air force announced to local people that both noise abatement departure routes would cease to be used from 1 June. From then on planes would take off in a straight line and fly direct over the villages. That means that to the west of the base they fly directly over Upper Heyford and Steeple Aston. To the east, jets fly directly over Ardley. The official reason for such change was that over the years the F-111 aircraft have become heavier and the planes' thrust has remained the same. Thus, on the ground of safety it had become necessary to straighten the flight paths. The consequence of the change was that the levels of aircraft noise were no longer tolerable. Instead, they became intolerable.
  My hon. Friend the Minister came to RAF Upper Heyford to learn more about the situation for himself. In consequence, the United States air force was asked, during the latter part of the summer, to experiment with flying slightly different flight patterns over the area to ascertain whether any improvement could be made. Simultaneously with these experiments, noise tests were carried out by the RAF institute of community health and the Cherwell district council, the council being the environmental health authority.
  A combination of these experimental flight patterns and extensive noise tests have led in due course to a slightly modified flight pattern. The results of the tests to the west of the base have now been published. They show that, while there has been a slight reduction in noise levels in the southern end of Steeple Aston, the modified flight paths have meant a substantial increase in noise for Middle Aston. Much of Steeple Aston and Middle Aston now lie within a 78 dBA contour. Amazingly, the noise tests by the RAF institute of community health in the Ardley area, to the east of the base, have not yet been completed. However, there is every reason to believe that, given the results that have been obtained by Cherwell district council and a straightforward extrapolation of the noise footprint elsewhere, a substantial part of Ardley will now come within the 83 dBA contour.
  What do the figures mean? I can inform the House that 70 dBA is the level at which the Ministry of Defence pays for houses to have noise insulation grants. So there is a clear public recognition that any household that has continually to endure those levels of noise merits some compensation and the ability to have its home insulated. I am concerned about substantially greater noise levels. There is not time in this debate to discuss in detail the way in which noise is measured, but it is important to remember that it is a logarithmic scale, not a linear progression.

  851
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently refused a planning appeal in the Cherwell valley because the background noise was 73 dBA. The local district council recently took enforcement proceedings against a factory in a nearby built-up area where noise levels were in in the mid 60s dBA. By contrast, many local people are expected to live with noise levels of 77 dBA and 78 dBA and more. That is somewhat akin to the count of a tube train reaching peak speed and crossing line junctions. We should remember that the report from the RAF institute of community health produced average readings. Contained within them are some very hig spot readings. Individual planes passing close over people's homes cause real physical pain and distress.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has received many letters from local people which set out very clearly the depth of discomfort that they now experience. Nor should we forget that, in consequence of the change in the flight path, Dr. Radcliffe's school at Steeple Aston is now immediately below the flight path. As the Bishop of Oxford, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, said, the school is
  "now suffering intolerable noise levels."
  If, as expected, the noise levels in Ardley are in excess of 83 dBA, the MOD will be obliged to offer to purchase all the houses—an Oxfordshire village. To the west of the base 13 properties in Upper Heyford are clearly within the 83 dBA contour and I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence will be offering to purchase those homes in due course.
  People do not want their homes bought; they want quieter homes. There has been a village at Ardley since before the Norman conquest, and villagers do not want the village to be purchased. They simply want to see a substantial amelioration in the present noise levels or, as posters in the village now claim, they want "church bells, not decibels."
  Many people experience intolerable levels of noise, and relief must be found. That relief can only come from the MOD. As it is an MOD air base, private individuals have no relief to abate the nuisance in the courts, and the local environmental health authority has no statutory powers to make the nuisance cease. However, let there be no doubt that, had this been a factory or anything other than an installation exempt by statute, local people could have obtained relief by an injunction in the courts and the local environmental health authority would certainly have sought to abate the nuisance by enforcement procedures.
  There is a simple constitutional point. The RAF and the United States air force are answerable to Ministers and Ministers are answerable and accountable to the House. My hon. Friend the Minister will have seen that 75 right hon. and hon. Members have signed early-day motion 22. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and colleague and neighbour the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for sponsoring that motion. The most recent signature to that motion is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) who is in the Chamber tonight. Early-day motion 22 urges the MOD to investigate without delay measures to relieve substantially aircraft noise, including the possible realignment of the runway.
  This issue will not go away until a solution is found. Since early-day motion 22 was tabled, I have been encouraged by the sizeable number of right hon. and hon. Members who have expressed their support for speedy
  852
  action. My hon. Friend the Minister will doubtless tell the House that realigning the runway is a very expensive option. I understand that he estimates that that would cost more than £50 million. If the Ministry feels that in the totality of its budget that is too expensive, the burden of responsibility is on the Minister to come up with a workable and cost-effective solution.
  The MOD has the technical expertise and knowledge. Tonight the House wants to know what the MOD is doing to find a solution. The status quo is clearly not sustainable, and changes need to be made without delay.
  On television, my hon. Friend said that he
  "… will want to see over time what effect this really does have on the local villages."
  I do not believe that there can be any doubt whatsoever about the effect of the changes of flight path on local people and local villages. The effect is devastating. No more time is needed to confirm that. It will be no good for my hon. Friend simply to hold out the vague hope of some uncertain solution at some unspecified date in the future. People living in the proximity of Upper Heyford want to know today what action the Ministry of Defence intends to take to resolve the problem.
  Finally, I express this caution to my hon. Friend. Local people have been very patient. Six months have passed since the change in flight paths was introduced. They have placed their trust in the parliamentary system. If that system does not produce a result, they will feel increasingly antipathetic towards their American neighbours. and in time, I fear, increasingly hostile to their presence. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the United States air force realise that it would be a matter of real concern if the base were to exhaust local support. Thus, I hope that this evening we shall start to hear of some real solutions.
  1.21 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has presented the problem with characteristic clarity. I am aware of the considerable concern of those who live in his constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), which is also affected. I am well aware, through reports in the media and correspondence received from my hon. Friends and from members of the public, of the very deep concerns that they have, and, I understand them.
  The problems of Upper Heyford as a military airfield, and the problems of noise associated with military aircraft, are not unique. I regret that there are no simple solutions. I hope that I shall be able to convey to the House my concern and that of the Ministry of Defence, and outline one or two positive constructive steps that we plan to take.
  The history of RAF Upper Heyford began during world war 1, when the base was used for training purposes. During world war 2, Upper Heyford again played a training role at first, eventually becoming a Royal Air Force bomber station in 1943. In 1969 it was announced that the base would become home to the 20th Tactical Figher Wing of the USAF which was to be re-equipped with the F-111E swing-wing fighter bomber. A large modernisation and construction programme was carried out at the base to enable it to accommodate the F-111E, and the first aircraft of the planned three squadrons arrived in September 1970. The three squadrons of F-111Es were joined in 1983 by one squadron of the EF-111A—ėlectronic counter-measures support aircraft.

  853
  Those aircraft provide long-range, all-weather tactical fighter bomber and electronic combat sorties for NATO and are a vital part of the Alliance's range of deterrent forces.
  The United States air force presence at Upper Heyford therefore goes back more than 30 years, and during that time the base has received the support and the hospitality of the local community. I am very grateful for that support, which continues to this day, despite the current problems, and I know that this gratitude is shared by the United States air force. The base has worked hard to reciprocate that support. One of the ways in which it has done so was the introduction in 1976, as my hon. Friend said, in response to representations from the local community about aircraft noise, of a noise abatement take-off pattern for aircraft departing to the west. That manoeuvre involved the aircraft making a steep banking turn to the right immediately on take-off, followed very shortly by another turn to the left. That procedure aimed successfully, to reduce the noise levels experienced by villages near the end of the runway. In 1984 a noise-abatement pattern was introduced for aircraft departing to the east, with the same aim. However, the F-111 is undoubtedly a noisy aeroplane, and noise levels around the base were still high. Consequently, in 1986, following a noise survey by the RAF's institute of community and occupational medicine, a noise compensation scheme was introduced. That provided for those homes within the 12-hour average 70 dBA noise contour to be given grants for noise insulation work and for the Ministry to purchase homes within the 83 dBA noise contour, of which there was only one at that time.
  Our prime responsibility towards the communities around the base is to ensure that the flying activities there are carried out as safely as possible. To that end, the safety of flying operations at the base, as elsewhere, is kept under constant review. That process led the United States air force to the conclusion, earlier this year, that changes in the thrust-to-weight ratio of the F-111E since the noise abatement patterns were introduced had led to an erosion of the safety margins for those patterns to an unacceptable, though not currently dangerous, degree. Typically, an F-111 E on an operational sortie is some 6 per cent. heavier now than it would have been 10 years ago, consequently reducing the thrust-to-weight ratio, while there has been an associated increase in the drag factor. Those changes did not occur all at once, but step-by-step over the 10-year period.
  Bearing in mind its responsibilities for those over whom it flies as well as the safety of the aircrew themselves, the United States air force prudently requested that it be allowed to revert to the standard direct take-off employed at other military airbases, and, indeed, as previously used at Upper Heyford. I endorsed that request and the changes in take-off patterns were made with effect from 1 June this year.
  We expected that the changes would increase noise levels in several of the villages around the base, notably Steeple Aston and Ardley, but we took into account the fact that Steeple Aston had lived with the straight-ahead pattern from 1970 to 1976, while Ardley had done so from 1970 to 1984, although neither village could be expected to welcome a return to the earlier patterns. In addition, when
  854
  visibility was bad the aircraft had in any case generally used the straight-ahead pattern directly over Steeple Aston or Ardley. I commissioned a full noise survey by scientists of the RAF's institute of community and occupational medicine for this autumn, taking account of the changes to which I have already referred. I also arranged for my officials and officers at the base to brief locally elected representatives of the communities likely to be affected—and indeed my hon. Friend—before the changes took place.
  In the event, it became clear that the increased noise levels had given rise to considerable local concern especially in respect of the Dr. Ratcliffe school in Steeple Aston. I accept that they also affect other residents. Those concerns were ably and forcefully represented by my hon. Friend and, as a result, I visited RAF Upper Heyford and Steeple Aston soon after the change in take-off patterns to assess the situation for myself. During my visit I announced that I had decided to take three steps in the light of my hon. Friend's representations: first, that the Ministry of Defence would, in principle, on an exceptional basis, pay for sound insulation work at the Dr. Ratcliffe school in Steeple Aston; secondly, that the United States air force would carry out an evaluation of alternative operating patterns aimed at identifying a means of reducing the noise levels then being experienced by many local people; and, thirdly, that the full noise survey planned for the autumn would be brought forward to this summer. The work on all three of those areas has been pressed forward as swiftly as practicable and I shall outline where we now stand on each.
  First, the governors of the Dr. Ratcliffe school have commissioned a firm of consultants, for which the Ministry is paying, to advise them on a suitable noise insulation scheme for the school. We shall pay for the necessary work to be carried out and I hope that it will be possible to begin that during the Christmas holidays.
  Secondly, the United States air force tried out a modification whereby the aircraft made a gentle turn to take the aircraft between the villages of Steeple and Middle Aston, coupled with an earlier termination of the aircraft's afterburners. That modified pattern has been employed by the F-111s taking off from the base to the west since mid-August, and the results of the noise survey indicate that it has produced some reduction in the noise level in most of Steeple Aston. For example, the average noise level at the bus stop in the centre of Steeple Aston was 77·5 dBA prior to the introduction of the modified take-off path, and 72·3 subsequently. It has also reduced noise levels in Lower Heyford.
  The modified take-off pattern has a further advantage. The old noise abatement pattern could not be flown in bad weather and so aircraft from the base used to overfly Steeple Aston perhaps as much as 17 per cent. of the time during the winter months. The modified path can be used in bad weather as well as in good, and so aircraft from the base no longer directly overfly the village of Steeple Aston because of bad weather.
  Thirdly, the noise survey for the western end of the airfield has now been completed. The work on the eastern end, in which direction there are significantly fewer departures, is not yet complete because there have not been a sufficient number of flying days for correct observations to be taken. We are not delaying matters. The report for the western end of the runway shows that the noise levels in Steeple Aston and Upper Heyford in

  855
  particular are higher than they were prior to 1 June and recommends the introduction of a revised noise compensation scheme at the base. This revised scheme will include an offer from the Ministry of Defence to purchase 13 properties in Upper Heyford which lie within the 83 dBA 12-hour noise contour.
  I am today able to announce a further step which I hope will be welcome to my hon. Friend, although it is not a complete answer, and I shall come on to further planned steps in a moment. As my hon. Friend is aware, in addition to providing noise insulation grants for residents who are subject to average noise levels in excess of 70 dBA, the Ministry of Defence allows claims for injurious affection compensation where there is evidence to show that there has been an adverse effect on the value of residential property and certain small businesses as a direct result of an increase in noise or other physical effects following the bringing into use of new public works at an airfield. I feel sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that, although strictly speaking there are no new public works, exceptionally my Department will be able to consider claims for injurious affection from those concerned. I shall announce full details when the revised noise compensation scheme at RAF Upper Heyford is introduced.
  My hon. Friend especially mentioned the possibility of realigning the runway at RAF Upper Heyford as a possible solution to the remaining problems. I am aware that I have been talking principally about noise compensation schemes and not, as my hon. Friend said, tackling the fundamental problems. I have to say that there are significant difficulties with this proposal, not least of which is that realigning the runway so that aircraft no longer take-off toward Steeple and Middle Aston can only serve to create problems elsewhere. Although, perhaps, not as severe, they will none the less be unwelcome to the people they affect.
  Such a project would also be extremely costly, because it would involve the demolition and reprovision of expensive support facilities, as well as simply building a new runway. In addition, there would be operational problems caused by the disruption of moving the aircraft to another base while the work was done; and, indeed, the problem of finding another base at which to put them and the large numbers of associated personnel. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that we will, as he asked, carry out a full study of the costs and implications of realigning the runway. We will make the results public and I shall write to my hon. Friend when the work is complete.
  When I visited Upper Heyford some months ago to see and hear for myself the problems involving military
  856
  aircraft, I promised that I would return to the base once the full study had been completed, and I hope that it will be completed not only comprehensively but quickly. I shall then meet my hon. Friend and his constituents to explain the results of the study and to explore what further steps can be taken.
  Mr. Baldry: May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that, while, of course, I am grateful for the fact that he will carry out a full technical survey of the feasibility of realigning the runway, he has made it clear on a number of occasions that there is a cost involved, and he has made it clear publicly that he is worried about that and the technical feasibility of it. However, can one understand that the Ministry of Defence will consider other technical options? The Ministry clearly knows the capabilities of these planes, and it should not just be a question of considering whet her it is possible to realign the runway. Other options that may be available to relieve aircraft noise in this area should also be considered.
  Mr. Freeman: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our minds are certainly not closed. We are sympathetic to the problems. As I said at the outset, there are no simple solutions. If there were, we would have taken them. Certainly my mind is open, and we shall continue to explore with the United States air force and with our own experts possible solutions to the problem.
  To sum up, I very much regret that the change of take-off patterns at RAF Upper Heyford this summer has led to an increase in the levels of disturbance experienced by many of those who live in the vicinity of the airfield. I apologise to those who have experienced distress because of this disturbance. However, I have to say that the changes were necessary because of the need to maximise the safety of flying operations from the base. As such, the changes were in the interests of all concerned, the local community as well as the aircrew, since I believe that one point on which we would all agree is the need to do our utmost to reduce the chances of an accident.
  I hope that I have shown that the concerns that my hon. Friend has so ably presented on behalf of his constituents have been taken very seriously by the Ministry of Defence, by myself and by the US air force, and that we have responded, and will continue to respond, in a constructive and helpful way.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Two o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Nursery Schooling and Child Care
  Nursery Schooling and Child Care
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Schizophrenia
  Schizophrenia
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast
  Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Lobster Stocks
  Lobster Stocks
  Research and Development Budget
  Research and Development Budget
  Warble Fly
  Warble Fly
  Butter
  Butter
  Food Firms
  Food Firms
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Honey (Safety)
  Honey (Safety)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  EC Sheepmeat Regime
  EC Sheepmeat Regime
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
WALES
  Planning Law
  Planning Law
  Council Housing (Rents)
  Council Housing (Rents)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Midwives
  Midwives
HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Dependencies
  British Dependencies
  Fines (Non-payment)
  Fines (Non-payment)
  Cell Toilets
  Cell Toilets
  Women's Prisons
  Women's Prisons
  Police (Leicestershire)
  Police (Leicestershire)
  Fire Safety
  Fire Safety
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Asylum
  Asylum
  Visitors (Entry Refusals)
  Visitors (Entry Refusals)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Car Phones
  Car Phones
PRIME MINISTER
  Poland (Visit)
  Poland (Visit)
  Greenhouse Effect
  Greenhouse Effect
  Arms Control
  Arms Control
TRANSPORT
  Dangerous Substances
  Dangerous Substances
  Sewage Works (Perry Oaks)
  Sewage Works (Perry Oaks)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Satellite Information Services Ltd.
  Satellite Information Services Ltd.
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Scottish and Newcastle Breweries
  Scottish and Newcastle Breweries
  Single European Market
  Single European Market
  Japan
  Japan
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Takeovers
  Takeovers
  Post Office Users Council
  Post Office Users Council
  EEC
  EEC
SCOTLAND
  Health Boards
  Health Boards
  Pacemakers
  Pacemakers
  Whitley Council Procedures (Appeals)
  Whitley Council Procedures (Appeals)
  NHS Ancillary Services (Privatisation)
  NHS Ancillary Services (Privatisation)
  "The Scottish Health Service"
  "The Scottish Health Service"
  Health
  Health
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Blood Tests
  Blood Tests
  Schizophrenia
  Schizophrenia
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid
  Aid
  Lomé Talks
  Lomé Talks
HEALTH
  Home Chiropody Service (Nottingham)
  Home Chiropody Service (Nottingham)
  Eye Tests and Dental Examinations
  Eye Tests and Dental Examinations
  Miss Sharon Campbell
  Miss Sharon Campbell
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Brain Tumours
  Brain Tumours
  Childhood Cancers
  Childhood Cancers
  Nurses (Grading)
  Nurses (Grading)
  Stone Old People's Hospital
  Stone Old People's Hospital
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Retirement Homes
  Retirement Homes
  Seriously Injured Patients (Deaths)
  Seriously Injured Patients (Deaths)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Lone Parents
  Lone Parents
  Retirement Pensions (Australia)
  Retirement Pensions (Australia)
  Benefit Offices
  Benefit Offices
DEFENCE
  President Waldheim (War Record)
  President Waldheim (War Record)
  Anglo-Egyptian Relations
  Anglo-Egyptian Relations
  Tendering Procedures
  Tendering Procedures
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Statistics (Non-Communist Countries)
  Statistics (Non-Communist Countries)
  Soviet Chemical Weapon Capacity
  Soviet Chemical Weapon Capacity
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Warsaw Pact Forces
  Warsaw Pact Forces
  Agency Status
  Agency Status
  Soviet Weapon Capacity
  Soviet Weapon Capacity
  INF Warheads
  INF Warheads
  NATO
  NATO
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Nitroglycerine
  Nitroglycerine
  Royal Ordnance
  Royal Ordnance
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Domestic Spending
  Domestic Spending
  NHS Ancillary Services (VAT)
  NHS Ancillary Services (VAT)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  European Community Grants
  European Community Grants
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Security Service Personnel (Pensions)
  Security Service Personnel (Pensions)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Oil revenue
  Oil revenue
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Local Employer Networks
  Local Employer Networks
  Job Clubs
  Job Clubs
  YTS (Clothing Industry)
  YTS (Clothing Industry)
  Training
  Training
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Age Discrimination
  Age Discrimination
  Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
  Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Self-government
  Local Self-government
  Right to Buy
  Right to Buy
  Football (Arrests)
  Football (Arrests)
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Wildlife (Protection)
  Wildlife (Protection)
  Greenhouse Effect
  Greenhouse Effect
  Vehicle Emissions
  Vehicle Emissions
  Methane
  Methane
  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Carbon Monoxide
  Carbon Monoxide
  Planning Consent
  Planning Consent
  Mrs. Ana Maria Quick
  Mrs. Ana Maria Quick
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Ozone Layer
  Ozone Layer
  Water Supply (Cuts)
  Water Supply (Cuts)
  Fauna, Flora and Habitats
  Fauna, Flora and Habitats
  Emission Controls
  Emission Controls
  Electric Bulbs
  Electric Bulbs
  Brundtland Report
  Brundtland Report
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Local Plans
  Local Plans
  Private Sheltered Housing
  Private Sheltered Housing
  Mersey Basin
  Mersey Basin
  Azores
  Azores
ENERGY
  Magnox
  Magnox
  Energy Efficiency (Housing)
  Energy Efficiency (Housing)
  North Sea Installations
  North Sea Installations
  Nuclear Safety
  Nuclear Safety
  Euratom
  Euratom
  Hinkley Point C
  Hinkley Point C
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Light Bulbs
  Light Bulbs
  Nuclear Fuel (Electricity Reactors)
  Nuclear Fuel (Electricity Reactors)
  Nuclear Accidents (Compensation)
  Nuclear Accidents (Compensation)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Electricity Supply (Privatisation)
  Electricity Supply (Privatisation)
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Fawley B Power Station
  Fawley B Power Station
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  US President-elect
  US President-elect
  EC (Social Cohesion)
  EC (Social Cohesion)
  Dr. Jonas Savimbi
  Dr. Jonas Savimbi
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Chile
  Chile
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Drugs (Caribbean)
  Drugs (Caribbean)
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Kampuchea
  Kampuchea
  Southern Africa
  Southern Africa
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Soviet Union
  Soviet Union
  Italy
  Italy
  Israel
  Israel
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  France
  France
  Fiji
  Fiji
  Africa
  Africa
  Señor Jorge Montes
  Señor Jorge Montes
  Angola
  Angola
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  United States of America
  United States of America
  United Arab Emirates
  United Arab Emirates
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Central America
  Central America
  Palestine National Council
  Palestine National Council
  Gulf States
  Gulf States
  Kurds
  Kurds
  Human Rights Declaration
  Human Rights Declaration
  Iran
  Iran
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Qatar
  Qatar
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Eastern Europe (Human Rights)
  Eastern Europe (Human Rights)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Caribbean (Health Services)
  Caribbean (Health Services)
  Poland
  Poland
  Rain Forests
  Rain Forests
  GCHQ
  GCHQ
  Mr. George Samoilovich
  Mr. George Samoilovich
  Occupied Territories
  Occupied Territories
  Canada
  Canada
  Single European Act
  Single European Act
  Pakistan (Ambassador)
  Pakistan (Ambassador)
  Bombay High Commission
  Bombay High Commission
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Soviet Union (Cultural Agreement)
  Soviet Union (Cultural Agreement)
  EC Internal Market
  EC Internal Market
  Baltic States
  Baltic States
  Esquipulas II Agreement
  Esquipulas II Agreement
  Cuba
  Cuba
  Mr. Adolpho Calero
  Mr. Adolpho Calero
  European Single Market
  European Single Market
  EFTA-EC Relations
  EFTA-EC Relations
  Arms Control
  Arms Control
  Falklands
  Falklands
  South Georgia
  South Georgia
  Exit Visas
  Exit Visas
  Algeria (Riots)
  Algeria (Riots)
  Refusniks
  Refusniks
  Visa Applications
  Visa Applications
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Nuclear Safeguards
  Nuclear Safeguards
  Entry Applications
  Entry Applications
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Political Prisoners (Iran)
  Political Prisoners (Iran)
  Pakistan Foreign Minister
  Pakistan Foreign Minister
  Environment (International Action)
  Environment (International Action)

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

Lord Mackenzie-Stuart
Alexander John Mackenzie Stuart, Esquire (commonly called Lord Mackenzie Stuart), having been created Baron Mackenzie-Stuart of Dean, in the District of the City of Edinburgh, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Keith of Kinkel and the Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.

Gazumping
2.48 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to reduce or eliminate gazumping in England and Wales by means of legislation or the adoption of new procedures.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce legislation to reduce or eliminate gazumping. Such legislation is unnecessary. The delays in procedures which permit gazumping are best dealt with by changes in practice.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that while the Scottish system may not necessarily be the appropriate remedy for England and Wales, some action is needed soon in order to eradicate a practice which has caused much delay and embarrassment and, where a chain of house purchases is concerned, can bring delay and disappointment to several families?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand the nature of the problem. I believe in part that a way of dealing with it is that people should understand fully what the position is when they enter into a preliminary agreement. In most cases, in view of the way it is worded, it really has no legal effect.
As regards the Scottish system, that is a way by which—and it is perfectly open under the law of England and Wales—to create a binding legal bargain at the early stage. The Law Commission documents also suggest another method of dealing with the matter, which is an agreement for a deposit at that stage. A third possibility is a conditional contract; that is, one which is legally binding but which has in it conditions under which in the specified circumstances the parties might be free. I believe that all those are important aspects to be kept in mind, but I certainly do not believe that legislation will assist the situation.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, as the residential property market is starting to decline, is it not appropriate that steps should also be taken against reverse gazumping, so as to protect the unfortunate people who may be forced to sell their homes because of the big increases in mortgage rates?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I very much doubt that there will be any people requiring to sell their houses on that account. So far as concerns reductions in prices which are contrary to the spirit of the initial agreement, the same points that I made in relation to gazumping apply. Provided the agreement is entered into at the early stage, that would be prevented. Therefore these matters operate in both directions according to circumstances.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord be good enough to explain to the House, in view of the popular feeling that there is in regard to the matter of gazumping, why he thinks that legislation is not necessary? Will he also say why he believes that practices which may be highly desirable will in fact be in vogue if legislation does not compel them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have yet to see practicable legislation which would be effective. What is required to prevent gazumping is a legally-binding bargain. It would be unusual to have legislation which forced people into a bargain when they did not want to enter into one. Therefore the answer is that if you want a bargain with the consequences of it, you make one. That seems to be a situation which does not require legislation in order to bring it about.
I feel strongly that a good deal of the difficulty about gazumping is that people have not fully understood the legal position, as a result, perhaps, of fairly complicated documents which they have signed. If they really did understand I think that they might not be so surprised at what happened afterwards.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the case that more than one report of the Law Commission has set out at length the disadvantages of legislation in this field? If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, were to acquaint himself with the content of such reports he would discover what it is that has led a series of Lord Chancellors not to legislate.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend has said, the Law Commission reports contain much wisdom. However, I believe that the essential point is the one I made, which, if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has not read the Law Commission reports, I am sure he is perfectly capable of appreciating now.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, at some convenient moment will the noble and learned Lord inform the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that the latest report from the committee set up by the Law Commission recommends altering the law by doing away with the doctrine of caveat emptor? When

299
informing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, of that fact, will he ask him to read the report?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the latest report to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, refers has nothing to do with gazumping. No doubt that is why my noble and learned friend did not cover it in his question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not possible that the amount of gazumping in England may be due to some defect in the English character?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that it would be wise for me to associate myself in any way with such speculation; neither do I believe it to be true.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that these exchanges have not got us very far? Is it not the case that, although there is a difference in practice in Scotland as compared with England and Wales, solicitors and estate agents in England and Wales do not, for some reason, follow the Scottish practice, which would go a long way towards protecting the potential buyer? What steps will the noble and learned Lord take to acquaint estate agents and solicitors of the fact that there is a better practice, which is the practice followed in his own country? Is he prepared to help English and Welsh people thus far?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have sought on other occasions publicly to air the views that I have been expressing this afternoon. It is unwise to speak of the Scottish system as being in any sense better. It is of course different. It has different effects; but one of the effects may be that a purchaser could find himself with a legally binding bargain when on the whole he would prefer to be without one. What is required, therefore, is that people understand the legal consequences of what they are doing whether in England, Wales or Scotland. If they want to do something different, they should ask their advisers, be they legal advisers or others, to arrange matters in accordance with their wishes.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the problem is that one party may want to enter into a contract when the other party will not, and therefore legislation is required to resolve the problem?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the greatest possible respect, I do not agree that legislation can deal with a situation where one party wants a contract and the other party does not. I do not see why legislation should favour the one against the other.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have been waiting for this opportunity for 25 years. This may interest the right reverend Prelates, and I should declare an interest, in that 25 years ago I was
300
gazumped by the Church Commissioners. Can the noble and learned Lord explain why, although it is possible to make a bargain with an estate agent, it is not possible to make that bargain legally binding? Is it not time that it was?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if one person wants to make a legally binding bargain and can persuade the other side to agree to it, I can see no reason why it should not happen. I do not believe that estate agents, as a class, are incapable of entering into a binding legal bargain. It is a question of what the parties want. The mere fact that I want a legal bargain does not mean that the other side does, and therefore we cannot have one. If both sides want a legally binding bargain —whether one side be an estate agent or not—under the existing system I can see no reason why they cannot have one.

Uranium Imports: Classification and Use
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentages of the 1,100 tons of uranium imported into the United Kingdom from Namibia under the option agreement were classified as "N" (usable for military purposes) and "13" (intended for civil purposes) under the Euratom safeguard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the uranium ore concentrate delivered from Namibia under the option agreement was imported entirely for civil use. It was all placed under Euratom safeguards with code "N" attached. It has not been removed from safeguards since and there are no plans to do so.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while I appreciate the noble Baroness's reply, is it not the case that when uranium is imported under the Euratom protection, that uranium can be removed from code "P" and placed under code "N"? Is not the uranium which was imported—it has taken me nearly 12 months to extract that information from the Government—available for military uses if the Government so want, whatever their present intentions? Is it not the case that the Government can use that uranium for military purposes if they so desire?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the terms of the United Kingdom Euratom IAEA safeguards agreement permit us to withdraw code "N" material from the safeguards with advance notice; but I can once again assure the noble Lord that we have no plans to do so. I repeat that there is and has been no secrecy about the import of uranium from Namibian sources for Britain's civil nuclear programme between 1977 and 1984. That fact has been made public by Ministers on many occasions in both Houses of Parliament.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, we have been into all this before ad nauseam. Can we stop flogging a dead horse and pass on to the next Question?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us whether the uranium referred to in my noble friend's Question is processed at the Springfields laboratory by British Nuclear Fuels? That laboratory is also used by the military, and Euratom inspectors are not allowed access to it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that that is another question. I can give your Lordships the assurance that no uranium ore concentrate has been delivered to the United Kingdom for defence purposes since 1973 from any source, nor has any imported for the civil programme been switched.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, far from it not having been a matter of secrecy, it has taken me six Questions to elicit from the Government that they imported the 1,100 tonnes of uranium from Namibia under the optional agreement, not under the original agreement. Will the noble Baroness tell the House quite clearly whether the 1,100 tons that has been imported and is under the protection of Euratom could in future, if the Government desire it, be used for military purposes? Is the noble Baroness aware that both Australia and Canada have such little faith in Euratom that, when they export uranium, they insist on bilateral agreements because they do not trust the safeguards which at present exist under Euratom?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that that question has already been answered. I repeat that the 1,100 tons of uranium from Namibia were delivered for Britain's civil programme between 1977 and 1984. The Government have no plans for any change in the end use.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Baroness please tell us where this hazardous material is and whether it comes under category "N" or "P"? Then we can keep well clear of it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the material to which the Question on the Order Paper refers is, as I have said, classified with the "N" label. Obviously details of contracts are commercially confidential to the parties concerned. Much of this material is in use in the system in different places.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if it was imported for civil purposes only, why was it imported under code "N" rather than under code "P", which is for peaceful purposes alone?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear once and for all to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that it is not for the receiving country to change the restrictions under which the material is supplied. The Euratom authorities assign the appropriate coding according to the conditions imposed by the government of the supplying country
302
at the time when the contract is signed. Where no conditions are imposed, the material is given an "N" code; so it is not up to us.

Provincial Airports: Policy
3.3 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to encourage the growth of provincial airports in view of the volume of air traffic handled by Heathrow and Gatwick airports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the 1985 Airports Policy White Paper noted that regional airports have a role to play in relieving pressure on the London airports and it expressed the Government's concern to encourage their growth and development. We accordingly provide special borrowing allocations for municipal airports whose expansion is justified; and we continue, both in the EC and in bilateral negotiations, to pursue policies of liberalisation in order to maximise the scope for regional air services.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Since many holidaymakers have to suffer the hassle of crowded airports and then crowded aircraft, what possibility is there of Her Majesty's Government encouraging liaison between travel operators and the airlines on the use of smaller aircraft? Smaller airports could be used, thus relieving congestion both on the ground and in the air traffic around the London area.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is up to the operators to decide whether they can justify services from the regional airports. Many of them are doing so. The regional airports are growing and have grown very strongly over the past few years. Unfortunately, the air traffic control problems affect regional airports as much as the London airports.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that airlines are dismayed and angered by the constant reiteration by Sir Norman Payne that no new runways are necessary in the South-East of England before the next century?
Is he further aware of the belief that BAA is placing shareholders' profits before the public interest'? As that is a serious accusation, will the Minister ask the airlines privately whether what I have said is correct? If it is correct, will the Government, as a matter of urgency, consult the airlines, as an entity, on what they think could and should be done to increase capacity in the whole of the country, in all the regions, as well as in the South-East of England? Finally, is the Minister aware that people are weary of the arrogance of one particular organisation—the BAA—in dominating all these procedures without any protest at all from the Government?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this Question specifically refers to regional airports; therefore it is

303
not related to the BAA airports in the South of England. However, as the noble Baroness knows, we have asked the Civil Aviation Authority for its advice on airport capacity in the future. We have asked for and expect that advice by July next year. The authority is at present consulting the airlines and the regional airports. No doubt it will come up with its proposals on the basis of that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the admirable policy of encouraging provincial airports is no substitute, if British civil aviation is to continue to grow and prosper, for increased capacity in the South and East? In advance of receipt of the formal advice of the Civil Aviation Authority, will the Minister at least keep an open mind on this matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course we shall keep an open mind on the question. As I said, we are expecting advice from the CAA. We asked for it by next July and it will no doubt give us some clues as to what to do.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that tour operators impose a supplement on fares for those who travel abroad from the regional airports? This deters families from travelling from provincial airports and adds to the congestion at Gatwick. For example, a supplement from Manchester to Majorca is between £40 and £50 per person. That is more than £150 per family of four. Apart from that being unfair to the northerners and imposing an extra burden on the provincial airports because it makes it more difficult for them to survive financially, if that deterrent were removed the congestion at Gatwick would be quickly eased.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot answer for the supplements which the tour operators put on these prices. It is possible that the handling charges at the regional airports are more expensive than those at Gatwick and Heathrow.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, some noble Lords say "No", but I dare say they have no figures to give me on the matter. As Manchester is further away from Majorca, there is extra flying time.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware—
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, after the experiences in the recent period of fog, will my noble friend persuade British Rail to improve the railway services to and from Prestwick, which are lamentable? That would quite considerably relieve pressure on Gatwick and Heathrow. Is my noble friend aware that it was long ago planned to move the railway station from its existing site to the airport? When will that happen? Will the Minister persuade the authorities to put on a direct service from Prestwick to Edinburgh? Such a service does not exist at present.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware of the situation regarding the rail link to Prestwick. I shall have to look into it and perhaps write to my noble friend. We should be keen to see more flights using Prestwick airport. At the moment it is very underused.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us in the North, especially in the North-West, get sick and tired of having to come down to Gatwick or Heathrow to take planes going to the Far East and other places, when there is spare capacity at both Manchester and Speke that could deal with a lot of the traffic that is now scheduled to leave Gatwick or Heathrow?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, there has been a large expansion of services from regional airports. I know that Manchester airport now serves more than 50 overseas destinations. As I said in my original Answer, we continue to attempt to negotiate deals with overseas countries in order to increase that number.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it entirely fair to blame the British Airports Authority for the present situation when it took us 15 years to come to a decision that the third London airport at Stansted would be developed? When it is developed surely that will result in some amelioration in services in the South-East of England?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right; these things take a long time to settle. In fact they take far too long to settle. When Stansted comes fully on stream in 1991, in its first stage it will be capable of handling eight million passengers a year. That should relieve the situation in the South-East.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn is correct in that there is already spare capacity at Manchester international airport and Speke, does it not make sense to use that now and relieve some of the pressure in the South-East?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, of course it does. That is why we are keen to encourage flights to Manchester and Liverpool airports. However we cannot force operators to use those airports, if that goes against passengers' will. I remind noble Lords that 75 per cent. of passengers using airports in the South-East emanate from the South-East.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is it impossible to instill any sense of urgency into this Government? Is the Minister aware that I know that the CAA has been asked to report next July? I am long ahead of next July; I am dealing with now. I have asked the Minister whether he will consult, as an entity, the airlines. We have the CAA and the BAA. Will the Minister consult with the airlines as regards what they think could and should be done in all the airports around this country? What noble Lords on all sides are saying about the regional airports is correct. Will the Minister take steps to have a look at the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is exactly what we have asked the CAA to advise us on. The CAA has a statutory duty to advise us on these matters. As I have said, the CAA will be consulting the airlines. It is through that channel that we will receive the advice.

Take-over Bids
3.13 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that take-over bids on borrowed money are in the interests of a healthy capitalist economy.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government believe that it is in the interests of a healthy economy that the managers and shareholders of enterprises should be free to decide on whether or not to mount take-over bids, and, if so, on what financial basis they wish to do so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which I rather expected. Is he aware that there is a great deal of concern in a great many industrial and financial circles on this question and that it appears that if one is a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker one cannot continue butchering, baking or candlestick-making without looking over one's shoulder at some predator from far away who wishes to take over one's business? That predator wishes to take it over on heavily borrowed money with large commissions promised. So much money is borrowed that large portions of the business have to be sold, whether or not that is good for the business. That must be worrying. If the Government really mean to increase productivity, then the managers of businesses should be able to manage.
I add one further point. I accept the argument that there may be firms which are so indolent that they deserve to be taken over. Will the Minister also say whether he is aware that these take-over bidders normally have to promise cash, because investors would be very wary of taking the shares of the company buying the business if that were not the case?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord asked two quite distinct questions. If I may be rather abrupt, I should mention that I detected a slight shade of xenophobia when the noble Lord talked about overseas bids. I think it would be as well to remind all in your Lordships' House that in the year to mid-1988—in other words, to the last set of figures that I have available—United Kingdom companies acquired 557 overseas companies with a value of £14 billion. During that same period overseas companies acquired 62 United Kingdom companies with a value of £3 billion. I think that those overseas should be more concerned about the actions of our companies than we should about the actions of their companies.
306
As regards the other matter about leverage, that was examined with considerable care. My Blue Paper was published in the early part of this year. We concluded that we would not regard leveraging on its own as a ground for reference. The situation becomes extremely difficult if the Government were to set down standards of borrowing. If we set down standards there would always be those who would find ways round them. It is much more important that the banks and the shareholders who have to decide whether or not to accept the terms of the hid should he free to do so. In the long run that is by far the best policy.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that I broadly agree with his reply? On the other hand, in the light of what the Chancellor said in his exhortation to individuals not to borrow so much money, would he care to give some advice both to companies and to individuals on whether borrowing at the present time, despite high interest rates, would be in the best interests of a capitalist economy?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, those are two entirely different questions. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was in the habit of advising companies what to do when he sat on the Front Bench. Alas, I have not picked up that habit.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when a takeover is made largely with borrowed money the risks to the shareholders of both companies, both of the bidding company and of the company being taken over, are increased when the new entity has a very high gearing ratio? Would it not therefore enable the shareholders of both companies to make a better decision if the bidder were required to make a proper statement of his business strategy leading to the take-over bid?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, many business strategies are matters of commercial confidence. Not all bids of course are successful. I am not sure how much that really will change the attitude of shareholders. It seems to me that the economy runs best in a free market. I know there has been considerable concern about leverage bids. Those emanate from practices that have occurred in the United States of America. I have also noticed that sentiment has moved against that practice recently. It may well be that that practice will not occur so frequently in the future.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is it not the case that in a very notable maiden speech in this House yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, explained the attitude and procedures of the Takeover Panel and of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission dealing with such matters? Will the noble Lord commend to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and other noble Lords who are interested, a reading of that particular contribution?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is my recollection that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of

307
Benshie, was in the House yesterday when the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, made his maiden speech. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, listened closely to every word that my noble friend said.

Business
3.18 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should be limited to 12 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

Prisons and Alternatives to Custody
3.19 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to call attention to the state of the prisons in England and Wales, and to alternatives to custody; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate. I know that we are all looking forward, in particular, to the contribution from my neighbour in this House today, my noble friend Lord Tenby. I had the privilege of working with the noble Viscount's father, in part over prisons, and I am especially pleased that he has chosen this occasion to make his maiden speech.
The Motion that we are discussing today—and I shall speak mainly about the first part of it—touches one of the major social problems of our time. I think that the Government and all concerned share the same basic objectives; namely, to improve the state of our prisons and to make sure that rather fewer people go there. There are differences of view as to how those objectives might be achieved but they are not party differences, at any rate away from the conference rooms of Brighton and Blackpool. It is, I think, appropriate that the debate should start from the Cross-Benches.
There is certainly no shortage of material. I think that many of us will have seen a manifesto produced by 11 organisations concerned with penal affairs. From the Government we have two Green Papers, one on punishment, custody and the community and the other on the possible provision of remand accommodation by the private sector. We also have a forthright report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons. Now we have just had the report on parole by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow.
That report contains proposals which would greatly affect the prisons but the Home Office is
308
giving time for comments. It is surely a report which will deserve a debate all of its own in due course. I myself shall not say very much about it, but it will be fascinating to hear what the noble Lord has to tell us about the report when he speaks later in the debate.
Imprisonment as a form of legal punishment is, in historical perspective, a comparatively recent development dating back not more than a century and a half. We have certainly come a long way from the day when it was the job of the assize judge to go round to "deliver the gaols"—that is to empty them, and not to fill them. But those were the days when transportation was available as a penalty. After all, Sydney owes its name to a Home Secretary whose fame might not otherwise be all that widely remembered. There is even a river in New South Wales named after an 18th century Permanent Secretary from the Home Office. I believe that it is quite a small river.
Prisons have to keep going 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. As well as places to eat and sleep, they have to provide workshops, hospitals, libraries, chapels and facilities for education, for association and for visits, all with regard to security. Each month some thousands leave prison and one is bound to consider the effect which imprisonment may have had on them and their families as they re-establish themselves in the community.
In the half century or so since I was first involved with the prison service there have indeed been changes for the better. It is always as well to start on the bright side. We now talk much more about the victims of crime and about crime prevention. The prison administration has been improved and brought more into central policy-making. A good deal has been done through the work of probation officers in the prisons and through pre-release training and employment schemes to prepare prisoners for their discharge. Above all there is much greater public awareness of the issues.
This Government sometimes talk as if nothing at all had happened until they took office. That is not quite so. Between 1958 and 1979 26 new penal establishments, including six security prisons, were, brought into use providing some 8,000 places. All the same, it is perfectly true that there could have been no possibility then of persuading the Treasury to provide the cornucopia from which money is now being lavishly poured for the prison building programme. Nor has there been public criticism of that expenditure. It is, I hope, fair to say that the public conscience has been stirred.
However, there is rather too much to be said on the other side. It is very important that the prison service itself should have a sense of purpose going beyond just humane containment. But the state of the overcrowded prisons has made it extraordinarily difficult to believe that in practice much can be done to enable a prisoner to lead a law-abiding and useful life, although I was delighted to see that the director general of the prison service reaffirmed the other day that that was indeed the aim.
Then there are some special problems which did not seem to arise to such an extent in my time. There are those arising from AIDS and all that that

309
involves, from the ethnic minorities, from the 1,900 or so prisoners who have to be protected from other prisoners, and the 2,500 or so who are serving life sentences. Overshadowing everything there has been the remorseless rise in the numbers sent for custody. When I was appointed a Prison Commissioner in 1950 the population was around 20,000. In spite of a slight easing in recent months it stood on Friday last at 50,429, including 1,157 in police cells. Some 16,000 were housed two or three in a cell designed to take one person and not all that generously designed anyway. Nearly 11,000 were in custody awaiting trial with a substantial and highly undesirable overflow, as I have said, to police cells.
Conditions in some of the closed prisons are pretty appalling. Anyone who has been at the morning "slopping out" at a busy local prison may be forgiven for wondering if we have come all that far since John Howard's campaign two centuries ago. The chief inspector found dirt, slovenliness, litter, poor lighting and general squalor. I need not go on, except to say that persons accused or convicted of crime are still human beings entitled to some degree of dignity.
Following what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said the other day, I should like to ask what the Government's plans are for introducing a code of minimum standards with a timetable for achieving it. We thought that there was some prospect of that a few years ago but it seems to have melted away.
Could I ask, too, what proportion of the moneys available for building will be applied to modernising existing buildings? Do the Government see an end to "slopping out" by the end of this century? We hear a good deal about the number of additional places which the building programme will provide, but that seems to assume that all the present accommodation will be retained. Arc there not plans for taking out of use altogether some of the present buildings which are beyond hope? Touching on a controversial issue, I would not myself oppose plans for accommodation to be provided by the private sector provided that it is strictly limited to remand prisoners, although I know that there are many who are passionately opposed even to that. But may I ask whether those concerned would he put under a firm obligation to meet standards that come up to the very best international practice?
There are some other things which might be done to improve the quality of life in prisons. The chief inspector comments on the inadequate and sometimes insanitary state of the kitchens. One wonders whether, following the hospitals, Crown immunity should be lifted. Is there not room for improving the discipline procedures? There is no shortage of ideas as to how that might be done.
Although I would not go along with merging the prison medical services into the NHS, at present at all events, it looks as though there is plenty of room for improving co-operation. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, is in his place and I cannot help recalling that this was a matter which gave him great concern during his distinguished period of service as Home Secretary. Certainly there are still those in prison who ought to be in hospital.
The complete solution to overcrowding cannot be simply to build more and yet more prisons. However, reducing the number of prisoners cannot be achieved by the prison service itself. It has to look after the people sent to it by the courts for custody or punishment, and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will have a point to make on that topic when he speaks.
It is to the courts that I now turn, not forgetting that the greatest contribution of all would come from a reduction in the amount of crime. The Court of Appeal has given guidance that sentence of imprisonment should be imposed only when truly necessary and if it is necessary the sentence should he as short as is consistent with the need to punish. All the same, in England and Wales a higher proportion of people go to prison than in any other European country, except possibly for Scotland, although apparently we do not have more crime. I am not questioning for a moment the need to pass severe sentences for crimes of violence or drug trafficking, and they have indeed become more severe, but many sentences are for crimes against property and I cannot avoid a lingering doubt that sometimes the courts may overdo things.
I should like to ask the Government whether they are yet satisfied that enough is done to train the judges, whole time and part time, in the art of sentencing. Is enough done by way of guidelines to help what I might describe as the lesser judiciary? I said that I would not discuss the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, but I should like just to rub in the message that the report gives; namely, that to act on the matters covered by its recommendations would necessitate the closest co-operation with the judiciary. I hope that it will be forthcoming.
I know that judges commonly explain why they are passing a particular sentence, but is there not a good deal to be said for imposing a statutory duty on all courts, at any rate for certain types of offences, to explain why they are sending the defendant into custody, just as is now done for those offenders under 21? Would it not be possible to provide that juveniles should no longer be held in prison at all on remand or under sentence and the responsibility instead be given to the social service departments? The numbers of juveniles given custodial sentences have been going down but unless I have misunderstood my figures, as I am quite capable of doing, it seems to me that there were still over 4,000 of them last year.
There is then a clutch of possibilities about remand prisoners. What are the Government doing to encourage greater use of the powers to send an individual for a report on his mental condition to hospital rather than to prison? Do the Government see the time coming when bail information schemes will be established in every large court? Will provision be made in the expanded bail hostel scheme for persons with alcohol and drugs problems? Will we in fact see within the next year or two the extension to the whole country of the fixing of time-limits for trials, with the incidental bonus of reducing the task of the prison service in producing prisoners in court?
I could continue on that theme but I turn now, if only quite briefly, to the second and equally

311
important part of the Motion: ways of dealing with offenders otherwise than by custody. The two halves of the Motion are indeed inseparable. I shall leave to others the main discussion under this head but there are one or two points that I should like to raise.
In this country there is already a wide range of possible alternatives to custody—wider I think than anywhere else. The Green Paper makes suggestions for stepping up some of these present provisions, although there does not seem to be too much in it about providing extra money and resources for the purpose.
However, the Green Paper also canvasses new possibilities. One of them is a new supervision and restriction order. Under that proposal the court would be able to pick from an extensive menu of penalties, as it were, a selection suited to the needs of the particular offender and would then possibly supervise the order itself. Included in that menu might be new items such as curfew or house arrest and tracking, possibly by electronic means. Whether tagging would work and, if it did, whether under the Government's proposals it would be used for offenders who would otherwise be sent to prison, I am not sure. I confess that my present feeling is that I would not be against trying almost anything in our present parlous position.
There is, however, a serious underlying problem: how far these alternatives to custody are accepted by the courts and by the public as a punishment and not just as a soft option and how far it is possible to allay the apprehensions of the probation service and others who fear that too great an emphasis on the punitive aspect cannot easily be reconciled with the positive aspects of what I might call social regeneration. I tend to go along with what I understand to be the Government's view of punishment within the community, but I realise that it is far from straightforward.
I see that my time for speaking is nearly up. I am only too conscious that there are a number of important topics on which I have not touched at all and that I have touched only lightly on some of those I have mentioned. But before I sit down I should just like to say that the treatment of offenders must be one of the criteria by which to judge a mature and caring society. At present we do not pass the test with flying colours but I hope I have shown that the picture is not one of unrelieved gloom. The Government's reply to this wide-ranging debate may hold out a little more hope. We shall see. These are difficult and complex issues. There can be—there must be—no despair of humanity. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the number of noble Lords taking part in this debate makes quite clear the importance of the subject. Speakers include many who have a very long involvement and great expertise in this field. That has been demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who introduced the debate with his usual elegance and competence. We also look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby.
312
I feel that the concern shown in this House is reflected outside it. I believe that the issues relating to prison and penal matters have a very high profile among members of the public. One would have thought that this mounting preoccupation would have acted as a springboard for new initiatives to come from the Government. But here we are disappointed. Instead of taking effective action to bring down our prison population, improve prison conditions and lower reconviction rates, the Government's major response has been to increase their present building programme, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has mentioned. It is a programme which is expected to cost £51 million above the Treasury's Supply Estimates. Secondly, the Government's reaction has been to provide plans for privatising new remand centres. Thirdly, we have the Green Paper entitled Punishment, Custody and the Community, in which there is very little that is new apart from the electronic monitoring idea.
On this side of the House we should like to see the Government give their support to the aim of keeping people out of prison by publicly stating the case for non-custodial and shorter sentences. This is vital in order to counteract the attention given in the media to calls for tougher sentences. We should also like to see a greater emphasis on remedial and therapeutic treatment within prisons and the rehabilitation and after care of ex-offenders. Rule 1 of the Prison Service states that the purpose of the training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall be to encourage and assist them to lead a good and useful life. We should like to see that become a reality.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen has said, we should always ask ourselves why we imprison more people than any other EC country. It must be remembered that at the same time we have more community-based options than any other country. The combination of these two factors would seem to present a paradoxical situation which requires an explanation.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that last July the prison population reached an all-time high of 51,200 people. We have heard that there was a 17 per cent. increase in prisoners serving long sentences while the size of the unsentenced prison population rose by 4 per cent. to more than 10,000. Another very revealing statistic shows that as much as 70 per cent. of detected crime is carried out by as few as 5 per cent. of known offenders.
Propositions for change have come from many different quarters. The National Association of Probation Officers put up a strong argument for greater use of supervision within the community. I quote from a recent publication, which states:
"Many of those in prison should not be there, in particular, the mentally ill, the alcoholic, the homeless and fine defaulters. Many more are there only because they happened to commit their crime in a particular locality. In 1986, the use of custody by magistrates' courts sentencing adult males ranged from 8 per cent. in Rotherham to 39 per cent. in Tower Bridge, London.... Many more need not be there at all because probation and community service orders provide effective and proven alternatives to custody for a wide range of offenders who are currently imprisoned".
Other suggestions as to how to reduce the prison population come from the joint manifesto for penal

313
reform, agreed by the 11 organisations concerned with penal policy mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. Among other things, they state:
"Statutory restrictions on the use of imprisonment for adults should be introduced, similar to those in the 1982 Criminal Justice Act restricting the use of custody for young offenders".
That in itself brought a very great lowering of the number of young offenders in prison.
I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is in his place. On the 60 per cent. re-conviction rate, he had the following to say during the discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill:
"Nothing makes it more likely that a person will go to prison than the fact that he has been there before. For most who undergo it, imprisonment is not a constructive experience. It is not a rehabilitating experience, and it predisposes to reoffending".— [Official Report, 14/7/87; col. 947.]
The same 11 organisations agree on proposals concerning prison conditions, prisoners' rights and prisoners' resettlement. These are organisations such as the Howard League, the Prison Reform Trust, NACRO, New Bridge—of which I am chairman —and organisations with a great wealth of experience and expertise regarding prison affairs. They have agreed that there should be, and have asked for, a code of minimum standards for penal establishments; that Crown immunity should be lifted from prisons; that censorship of letters and restrictions on their number should be ended for all but Category A prisoners and those on the escape list; that a prison ombudsman should be established; that the prison disciplinary system should be reorganised along the lines of the Prior Committee's recommendations; that the prison medical service should be brought under the auspices of the National Health Service; and, finally, that there should be a substantial increase in the number of after care hostels, training schemes and other resettlement facilities for ex-offenders in the community. For these 11 organisations to come to an agreement on such a long list of recommendations is a very strong argument in their favour.
It is always important to consider what is happening in other countries, especially those similar to our own. I should like to give the example of what is happening in West Germany. It is amazing to discover that since 1983 their prison population has fallen by almost 20 per cent., while in the same period ours rose by 12 per cent. The decline encompasses both remand and sentenced prisoners, juveniles as well as adults. The biggest proportionate reduction of 32 per cent. has taken place among juvenile prisoners. Almost as large is the reduction in the number of remand prisoners, which is 28 per cent.
Three major movements seem to have influenced what has happened. First, a growing number of projects have sprung up all over the country offering non-custodial alternatives. But we have those ourselves. Another factor in Germany is a movement for a more sparing use of remand in custody. The reduction in remand prisoners also seems to have contributed directly to the more sparing use of prison sentences. It is felt that the likelihood of a non-custodial sentence is greater when the offender comes to trial as a free person, possibly working, than as a remand prisoner.
314
Finally, the movement against prison construction may have had some influence. With the prison population going down, and the birth rate declining, a number of states have scrapped most of their expensive prison building programmes. It is right that we should look at the experience and the progress in West Germany, from which we might well be able to learn something.
I should like very briefly to ask the Minister whether it is yet possible to comment on the results of Fresh Start. Do the Government have plans to reassess Fresh Start, or do they have any new strategy to cope with the shortage of staff which is clearly suffered by some prisons? There is obviously a problem at Parkhurst. The Chief Inspector of Prisons reported that in the quarter preceding the inspection only 60 per cent. of activities planned for prisoners had taken place. Education classes were often cancelled and workshops frequently closed. This was precisely the anxiety expressed by many of us when the plans for the Fresh Start scheme were first disclosed. Perhaps the Minister will be able to comment on this.
I visited Strangeways in Manchester last week. This is an enormous and very old prison that was built to hold 950 prisoners. At present it holds 1,750. The governor is dealing with a difficult position as effectively and efficiently as he can. He reported a positive development. It was that the relationship between officers and inmates had improved since the beginning of Fresh Start, as the officers were now working in specific parts of the prisons and had time to get to know the prisoners. However, the effect of Fresh Start on the medical and nursing services was not so good because, due to lack of escorting officers, there were cancellations and postponements of outside hospital admissions and out-patient appointments. That worked adversely from the point of view of the discipline of staff. NAPO was also concerned that staffing levels were affecting visits which were having to be restricted to the absolute minimum of 30 minutes, and that official visitors were experiencing difficulties in seeing clients.
The other point that I was anxious about concerned the visitor centre which I know my noble friend Lord Dean will speak about. It looks as though it will run out of funds and that will be a great detriment to the prison.
I end by saying one word about women's prisons. I have spoken about this matter before; but I believe strongly that the effect of a custodial sentence is different for a woman than for a man. That is because a woman is often a mother, and that aspect is not taken into account. Sentencing policies should distinguish between men and women. The number of women in prison is increasing. In 1985 there were 3,348 females in prison. It is felt that there should be a change in the regime of women. One reason in particular is that they should be allowed to keep as close as possible to their children and therefore on release return to being as effective and good mothers as they are able to be.
Finally, I know that other noble Lords will be speaking about alternatives to custody; but most people will agree that little is achieved if measures

315
intended to replace custody displace existing non-custodial options. The danger of the electronic monitoring scheme is exactly that. There is no shortage of options, but the weakness is that they do not have the confidence of the courts. Anything that can be done to create that confidence is what is needed. There is no doubt that by the end of the debate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be left in little uncertainty about the great concern—and in some cases the near panic—felt by some about our prisons. I hope that he will reflect that concern in his response.
We believe that there is an urgency to replace present attitudes towards crime and punishment. Although the Government cannot change everything, they have a duty to give the lead in lifting society's attitudes away from a fundamental and primeval desire for punishment and retribution and more towards a commitment to deal in a more creative, constructive and humane way with those who contravene the laws.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was right to remind us that the problems of the state of our prisons and prison overcrowding are not new. Indeed, I vividly remember that the first submission I received as a junior minister in the Home Office in 1971 (when the noble Lord was Permanent Secretary) was one which had projections of future prison populations which were far more horrific than those which have actually occurred. I believe that the Criminal Justice Act 1972, which introduced community service, added a very useful weapon to the powers available to the courts to deal with people in ways other than imprisonment.
The state of our prisons depends not only on the number of people who are sent there, but upon the length of time which the individuals spend there. As the noble Lord has said, I have just had the honour of chairing a committee reviewing the whole of the parole system in this country. That published its report last week. If I may, I shall address my remarks to that report.
All the members of that committee strongly endorsed the principle of a system of early release for prisoners under supervision as being in the best interests not only of the individual prisoner, but of society as a whole. The fact is that all prisoners on determinate sentences are coming back into society. We believe that it is better that they should come out at a point during their sentences under a degree of supervision rather than at the end of it without any supervision at all. We believe that that is in society's interests because there is clear evidence that in the early years after release, those released on supervision tend to re-offend less than those who have not been released under supervision.
It means also that through the parole system over the past 20 years some 120,000 people have been in society at a time when they would otherwise have been in prison leading to immense saving of resources both in financial and human terms. It also means that at any day of the present year some 6,000 people are
316
out on parole who otherwise would be in prison. If one looks at the figure overall, there is a very small percentage of failures. Therefore we supported and welcomed the system of early release.
Equally, we found that many criticisms of the working of the present system were wholly justified. The fact is that the judicial and political consensus that existed in favour of the parole system has broken down and the combination of parole at a third and remission at two-thirds has led to a situation where the gap between that which the judge sets and that which happens in practice has become too great. The public is then misled as to what is happening to the individual, which undermines the credibility of the sentence that has been passed. It also means, particularly at the lower end, that the differential is eroded between different length sentences passed by a judge and the working of the six months' minimum or one-third release so that many people sentenced to different periods of imprisonment come out on exactly the same day. That in our view cannot be right. It leads to feelings of unfairness among prisoners. We believe the whole attempt to introduce discretionary release for short-term prison sentences is flawed. It means that the Parole Board and the local review committee are looking at the same facts at which the judge looked at an earlier stage, and therefore it becomes merely an exercise in re-sentencing. That is not the task of the Parole Board.
At the upper end we believe that the continuation of review for parole at a third of the sentence—at the same time when one knows in practice that the vast majority of prisoners concerned will not come out until a far later stage in their sentence—has led to total cynicism among prisoners with the working of the parole system. It leads to enormous amounts of totally unnecessary work by the probation service and the prison service in preparing full reports for parole review at a third of the way through the sentence of people whom one knows under the general lines under which parole is being exercised at the moment will not come out until much nearer the two-thirds point.
We were told—and it was brought home to us—that it was positively damaging for many of the individual prisoners because it unrealistically and unfairly raises hopes of release with them and their families which in practice will not be achieved. We believe that both that policy and the bringing of parole down to the shorter end of the sentence have been shown by experience to be both flawed in principle and unworkable in practice. It is for that reason that we recommend wide-ranging changes to the Home Secretary. We have said in our report that we believe that in all sentences up to and including those of four years' imprisonment—that, I remind your Lordships, is the vast majority of sentences passed by the courts—parole and remission as we know it today should be removed.
We recommend that, instead, anyone sentenced to imprisonment should spend the first half of that sentence in custody. Then, subject to his good behaviour, he should be released after serving that 50 per cent. of his sentence. He should then be under supervision in society to the three-quarter point of this sentence and he should remain under conditional

317
relase to the 100 per cent. point. If during the latter half of his sentence he commits any other offence he would be liable to be returned to prison to serve the outstanding part together with any new sentence which may be imposed upon him.
We believe that a system of that kind, which would replace the present parole and remission system, would be far better. We believe that it meets the wholly justifiable criticism of the judiciary about the effect of the erosion of differentials between different lenghts of sentence. We believe that it will be fairer as between individual prisoners and that it will be simple and more readily understandable. In saying that the second half of a sentence should be a release which is conditional upon the person's continuing good behaviour, we are providing additional protection for the public. Above all, we are restoring meaning to the sentence passed by the court in that the length of sentence referred to by the judge will have an effect throughout the whole of the time.
For those who are sentenced to periods of imprisonment beyond four years we believe that different considerations must apply and that a discretionary system of release is right. People sentenced to more than four years' imprisonment will be, by their nature, those who have committed serious crimes. Society should not be expected to accept their return at an early stage of their sentence without an individual assessment of the risk that they continue to present. We believe that the situation which exists half-way through a long sentence may be different from that which faced the judge at the time of passing sentence and that new considerations will be apparent. The Parole Board can act on those without in any way being a re-sentencing body.
We have stated that parole eligibility after one-third of the sentence is too early. For the reasons I have explained it is harmful in practice to all those involved. Instead, we recommend that parole eligibility should start after half the sentence has been served and that the test—and the only test—should be the risk of the person seriously re-offending in society at a time when he may otherwise still be in prison.
Finally, we are strongly of the view that all those poeple sentenced to long terms of imprisonment should be dealt with on the same basis. I suggest that it is wrong in principle to attempt to distinguish between different people who have received the same length of sentence on the basis of the type of crime for which they were convicted. Whether it is a crime of violence, sex or arson, details are taken into account by the court at the time of sentence. We believe that penalty should be a matter for the judge in open court and that people who have received a 10-year sentence should be dealt with on the same basis, whether it is for fraud or some other offence.
It is right that, when one is reviewing the question of whether a person presents a risk of seriously re-offending, the nature of his offence may well be one of the issues which the board must consider. An armed robber may be a much greater risk and therefore may be refused parole, while a man serving a similar sentence for fraud may be granted parole. We believe that it is wrong to attempt to differentiate
318
between different categories of offender, even though they receive the same sentence, as we do at present.
In the last minute available to me I should like to make a final point. The scheme that we have put forward is in many ways tough. However, it is balanced and it aims to restore meaning to the sentence of the court. In our view, it is essential that its implementation—I hope that it will be implemented—should be accompanied by a determined effort by the judiciary and those in politics to reduce the length of sentences that are being passed, particularly in the middle band.
I should like to put the issue to your Lordships in a simple way. Surely it is better to pass a sentence of two years' imprisonment under which a man spends one year inside, six months under supervision and the whole two years under conditional release, rather than to pass a sentence of three years' imprisonment under which he serves one year inside and the sentence as a whole is ended after two years. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said, it is part of the package that our proposals should be accompanied by a review of the tariff of sentencing which has grown up in different conditions. It should take account of the realism which we believe we are returning to the sentencing proposals. I hope that, having had time to review our recommendations, the Home Office will consider them with care.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, in preparing my notes I had written that there are two hopeful developments. However, I now wish to say that there are three. None of us will judge what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, until we have read the report carefully. However, it is an enormous advance on anything that has been proposed in this House by any government for a long time—perhaps since parole was first started by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I am grateful for the clear exposition from the noble Lord. I shall read the report with a much better chance of understanding it than I had before hearing him speak. However, it would be wrong for the House to debate it today. We shall demand a full debate at the proper time.
I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for the way in which he opened the debate. He has laid many threads for us to follow, but I shall follow only one. The breadth of a debate of this kind can destroy its value and I hope that noble Lords will be content to deal with only one or two points contained in the report.
Debates which have taken place in this House about the problems in prisons do not appear to have had much effect. I have looked back through perhaps a dozen debates which have taken place over the past 20 years. Basically they have all stated the same things and made the same recommendations. It is most noticeable that they have not been acted upon. In consequence, the situation has become steadily worse year by year. However, there are three differences (I was going to say one or two) in this debate. First, for the first time the prison department, speaking for the Government, has publicly asked

319
questions which face the main issue. In the Green Paper entitled Punishment, Custody and the Community it asks the questions:
"Are we sending too many people to prison? Is imprisonment the best, or only, way to deal with recidivist burglars and thieves? Can the public he protected effectively by other means?".
If the Green Paper had been dated 1968 instead of 1988 I should have said, "Good, at last the Home Office has asked the questions that we have been asking for the past 10 years". Now, 20 years later, I simply say, "Thank God. Now we can really speak the same language".
There is another difference. Some 11 organisations—and I shall not go into further details because the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, gave a fairly full description of this—have agreed on the immediate measures which they believe not only should but could be brought in immediately in order to make some improvement in the very desperate position of our prison population. When I say, "desperate", it is true that about one-third of prisoners are quite well housed, but two-thirds are housed in a way which is a disgrace to our nation. I believe that that is common ground between the Minister and ourselves. I do not believe that he defends those matters which we attack.
So much agreement on what should be done makes one wonder why so little is done. This is perhaps the moment to repeat what I always say on these occasions. We are not attacking the Home Secretary or the Minister or trying to put the blame on them. We are trying to attack the problem, which we know to be very real and difficult. However, as so many of us agree on the necessary steps, we think it worth presenting them to the Government and asking what the Government have against action along such lines. That is where I bring in the third point expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, which leaves me full of hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, has very forcefully deployed the conditions of which we complain, and I believe that that is common ground between us. The first step we have to take, as suggested in the Home Office question, is not to send as many people to prison in the first place. The prison population is made up from two sources: sentenced prisoners and prisoners on remand. Those are two different categories. I shall not deal with remand prisoners, although other noble Lords will, because the remedies are not exactly the same for the two categories.
As regards sentenced prisoners, some 66,000 were received into prison in 1986—the last figures available. Of those, no fewer than half were sentenced to six months or less. Of those, 19,000 including 1,000 women, were fine defaulters. We must ensure that in future no one is sent to prison for non-payment of a fine. We have to devise ways of dealing with those people in the community and we shall talk about that later.
Secondly, the largest and most difficult category of all are the petty offenders whom we cannot afford to punish through the wildly expensive method of imprisonment which nobody believes does them any
320
good, in most cases does positive harm and fails to stop them reoffending when they come out having served their short sentence, which is all that the court can impose. I agree with the Association of Chief Probation Officers which stated in a recent paper:
"the experience of the probation service and the courts for many years has been that, for persistent offenders who commit relatively minor crimes the tendency for courts to use the penalty of last resort is almost irresistible. The implication of this is that the prison population would only be substantially reduced if the power of imprisonment were to be removed for a range of relatively minor offences".
That is exactly what we are asking for.
However, one asks: how petty and how offensive? As the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle and Lord Allen, said, that would certainly exclude crimes of violence which constitute about 20 per cent. of all prison sentences. There are difficulties in definition but in my view they are manageable. The crucial issue raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, is to convince the courts and the public that coping with petty offenders in the community can be at least as effective and I believe more effective than the ineffective use now made of prison. It must combine an element of reparation to society, of restitution to the victim and of rehabilitation and punishment of the offender. That is no easy task and I shall leave other noble Lords to put forward various ways of solving that problem.
The numbers are guesswork, but of the 33,000 sentenced to under six months imprisonment, it seems to me that probably the greater part would be better off not going to prison at all. Whether we can achieve a figure as high as that remains to be seen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, gave a detailed explanation of what Professor Feest, who is the Professor of Criminology at Bremen, told us at the NACRO AGM a few weeks ago about how in the last five years, 1983–1988, West Germany has reduced its prison population. He explained that it was nothing to do with the population or demographic changes. It seemed not to be connected with economics because unemployment was worse in 1988 than it was in 1983. As the noble Baroness said, the scheme started by dealing with juveniles where there was a strong feeling that they should not be sent to prison; that figure was 32 per cent. The next highest category was remand prisoners—an area where we should like to avoid sending people to prison. That fall was 28 per cent. The average fall was about 20 per cent. overall and concerned about 5,000 people.
The truth of the matter is that if they can do it we can do it. However, Professor Feest thought that the only way he could explain it was through a changing attitude between the prosecution and the legislature. That is really what we are asking for. We are asking the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to accept, if not exactly what we put down in the manifesto, something along those lines and that they should speak to judges and magistrates and ask them to try it. I am sure that they will try it and I am sure that if they did so something remarkable might happen.

321
I believe that without great difficulty or unreasonable expense we could reduce the prison population by 20 per cent. as has Germany. That must be our main objective. One-fifth of 50,000—which is a good round figure—is10,000. If we ban prison as a punishment for fine defaulters and for thefts of articles or money under a certain amount we could expect to remove most of the 33,000 prisoners who have received sentences of less than six months from the daily population. We should then easily achieve the figure of 10,000, which is what we want to do.
That can be done only by spending quite a lot of money. However, we are so lucky because the noble Earl told us the other day that £372 million is earmarked for prison building. Clearly if one has 20 per cent. fewer prisoners one needs 20 per cent. less prison space. Therefore, we could certainly afford to take the last £74 million, which is one-fifth of £372 million, and spend it on alternatives to prison, which is what we have been crying out for over the past 20 years. I sit down looking forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby.
4.19 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships for the first time but I am heartened by your Lordships' well known generosity of spirit and sympathy on these occasions, which I hope may also be extended to me.
There are few more serious or urgent problems today than the state of the prison service and those we commit to its care. Accordingly, my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, whose thoughtful and constructive speech launched this debate and whose experience in this area is very great indeed, deserves our gratitude for raising this subject for discussion at this time.
I am aware of the need for brevity in what is nevertheless a large and complex subject. It strikes me as rather like asking a preacher to cut his sermon to two and a half minutes and omit any mention of the Almighty! However, I will endeavour not to blot my copybook on my first outing. At the outset I declare a personal interest in these matters in that I am a deputy chairman of the third largest Bench in Hampshire, consisting of some 90 magistrates. Of course, as such I have on occasion to send people to prison. However, speaking for this Bench—and, of course, that is all I can do—I can assure your Lordships that that course is only embarked upon with great reluctance and after all other options have been carefully considered and rejected.
I am sure that we all generally agree on two propositions. First, it must be right for the protection of the community that, as a rule, those convicted of serious crimes should be imprisoned. Secondly, there are many in prison who ought not to be there. Of course, some may have been sentenced by Benches who take a more draconian view of punishment than do the majority. It may also be that in some areas not enough attention is paid to the helpful guidelines suggested by the Lord Chancellor's office and by the
322
Magistrates' Association. That is extremely regrettable.
Be that as it may, I must add that I suspect that many cases result in custody because magistrates have simply run out of any other options open to them under the law as it stands today. I give some examples. What can be done with a man who deliberately fails to comply with the provisions of a community service order, bearing in mind that such an order is made originally as an alternative to prison? What of those—I am afraid there are more and more of them nowadays— who persistently drive while they are disqualified? How do we protect the community from them? On a lighter note, what of those who refuse to be bound over to keep the peace—that most venerable of our legal sanctions—when imprisonment, your Lordships may be surprised to hear, is the only alternative? None of us wants the unedifying spectacle, I suggest, of someone being sent down over a dispute with his next door neighbour on the positioning of hedgerow clippings.
What do we do with those who have been fined but deliberately seek to avoid their financial responsibilities? It is difficult to see how the money can be obtained, save by at least the threat of imprisonment which I can assure your Lordships is most salutary in producing the desired result. Indeed, paradoxically, were that sanction to be removed Benches might be tempted to consider an alternative and less appropriate form of sentence in the first place, thereby providing a classic example of shooting oneself through one's own foot.
On the subject of fines, perhaps I may be permitted a small digression on the tariffs imposed. Many offenders are in low paid jobs or may well he unemployed. The tendency in the lower courts is to use Bench norms and to reduce those norms to make allowances for the offender's circumstances. I am sure that none of us quibbles about that. However, perhaps we should consider the reverse side of the coin and increase fines for those who can pay. After all, for some people £100 is a derisory figure but to others it may represent a financial Everest.
What is beyond dispute is that much more should be attempted to improve and expand non-custodial forms of sentencing. There should be a substantial increase in the use of community services orders through which, by constructive work, offenders repay their debt to society and which perhaps should be extended to include some offences for which imprisonment is not at present felt to be appropriate. That could be the foundation of any reform. There could be payment of realistic compensation, direct reparation, attendance at day centres, and restrictions of some kind or another on liberty. All those are initiatives which should be followed up and, if found to be practicable, adopted speedily because time is not on our side.
Nearly all such suggestions inevitably would place an additional burden on the broad shoulders of a dedicated probation service. It is not unrealistic to suppose that any increased injection of funds, which will surely he necessary, will he largely offset by the corresponding reduction in demands on the prison

323
service. In short, the concept of punishment in the community is to be greatly commended as a practical way forward, both in reducing the prison population and in ensuring that offenders make restitution to the community at the same time as they avoid the moral and criminal contamination which I am afraid is always present in prisons, as re-offending statistics prove.
Another matter of great current concern is the number of prisoners awaiting trial and held in remand centres. The majority are kept in local prisons. Those are overcrowded and chiefly relics of the Victorian age. The conditions in them—as the latest report of HM Inspector of Prisons states—are entirely unacceptable. Due to chronic overcrowding, other prisoners are kept in police cells, many of which I have personally visited over the years—entirely innocently, I should like to add. I can assure your Lordships that they are simply not designed for the purpose. Of course, that imposes an additional burden on the already limited resources of the police.
That inevitably brings me to the question of bail. If more bail were to be granted, the problem would be alleviated, because in addition to what I have already said it would reduce the number of prison officers who have to escort prisoners to court for interim hearings and committals. The general rules under which bail is refused are clear. There is a presumption that bail should be granted unless there are specific grounds for not giving it. However, magistrates are often on the horns of a dilemma. Despite the justifiable pressure to reduce the prison population, as magistrates—I must stress this—our prime consideration must be the need to protect the community; in some cases it may even be to protect the defendant as well.
It has been suggested by various interested parties, as recently as last Monday, that much could be accomplished by the additional training of magistrates in this area. The disparity in the bail granting rate between one region and another is quoted in evidence. However, although in any human organisation inconsistencies occur, we would be deceiving ourselves if we accepted that as a quick and—what I believe people hope for—largely cost-free answer. No. the solution must lie in two specific initiatives.
First must be the building of more bail hostels; and, secondly, the adoption of bail information schemes by which greater information about defendants is made available to all interested parties. After present building plans, which are greatly to be welcomed, there will still be only 25 bail hostels in this country. Undoubtedly, more are needed. The debate on whether these might be contracted out to private organisations has already generated much heat, and it has only just begun. I merely say this. Give us these facilities and we will give you bail, provided we do not put the public at risk thereby.
I am aware that I have not been able to refer to the other main strand of the debate—the prison service. I regret that, as magistrates themselves have frequent opportunities to see various features of the prison system which may not be available to others. In that
324
context. I conclude by briefly recounting an experience that I had when visiting Holloway Prison about two years ago.
I came across a woman crouching on the floor of a busy corridor with her hands held protectively over her face. On asking the totally committed and compassionate prison officer what the circumstances were, she replied that those who were mentally ill but had some chance of recovery were sent to Broadmoor and the like. The incurables were returned to Holloway—not, I must add, to mingle with normal prisoners, but returned nevertheless. Therefore it would appear that the world of Dickens lives on in a wealthy and, we are always being told, compassionate society at that. Is this really an acceptable way of dealing with such problems in the last decade of the 20th century? With varying skills and commitments we are all in the front line in the fight against crime.
I should like to leave your Lordships with this thought. Much future crime may be prevented by taking bold and imaginative decisions now over our existing sentencing options, and by making offenders constructively repay their debts to the society that they have damaged by their actions.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Viscount on his maiden speech, and not least on the compassion that he displayed in his penultimate passage. We are all the more grateful that he spoke to us out of an experience of these affairs. The debate has been enriched by his comments and indeed by the attitude behind the comments which, if I may say so without impudence, I found most encouraging. We hope that he will enrich debates in the future as he has done today.
I declare an interest. I approach this question as a professing Christian, a very imperfect one, but nonetheless one who would endeavour to see the relationship of the community to the offender, and particularly to prisons, as one that has a foundation in moral principle. I say without any hesitation therefore that as far as I have had experience in these matters I do not believe that the prison system as such is compatible with the Christian faith either in its redemptive capacity or in its practical effectiveness.
I quite agree that there are many conditions—one has been referred to already by the noble Viscount —where some kind of incarceration is imperative. I began in 1926 when I was appointed the Methodist or Nonconformist chaplain at Pentonville prison. Recently I have paid a number of other visits to prisons. That gave me the opportunity of recovering something that I do not think I ever really lost, that is, the initial sense—if one likes to use an ugly phrase, the gut reaction—of having to do with prison life. Perhaps the most bizarre of all those associations was the conduct of worship. We had the privilege at that time of the organist of one of the premier cathedrals who played the organ with great dispatch and great comfort for those who listen to good music. It was the singing of the hymns that persuaded me of the utter irrelevance of what was being done in the attempt to communicate something that was out of place in the environment in which that service was taken—the

325
choice of hymns, the black comedy of some of it. They were very fond of choosing the hymn "The church's one foundation", which contains the phrase,
"Brothers. we are treading where the saints have trod".
They sang that with great enthusiasm. That could be a rather silly quip unless it gives the impression—I hope that I can share this with the House this afternoon —that the prison system is insufferable in terms of the ideas that are common to all those who profess a truly religious belief in life.
Let me deal first with one or two of the conditions that now prevail. I shall not add to what has been said about slopping out and the whole question of three in a cell. I shall not dilate upon the length of prison sentences. From my experience as a chaplain, after a certain period nothing but hardening follows, and those who suffer long sentences are less capable of turning themselves into responsible citizens when they get out. I should certainly feel that no sentence over four years was supportable.
I am going to say something about one issue that I am sure lurks in the minds of most people but is probably more difficult to describe than any other. Your Lordships will not doubt the fact that we are living today in an age of sexual explosiveness, particularly among young people. The old ideas either are tossed aside or in many cases are tolerated as the prejudices of the few. I wonder how often your Lordships have contemplated the kind of sexual problem that is inseparable from a long sentence suffered by a young man, or a young woman for that matter. Indeed, unless there are ways in which that discipline can be tolerable, then I believe that it is an unwarrantable and quite useless extension of the very punishment which, instead of being creative, becomes progressively more intolerable.
I believe that to extend that problem among married people where the husband or wife happens to be in prison is an even worse extension of this evil. I wish to ask the Government whether they would consider seriously the possibility of conjugal visits. I have no doubt that I shall be told immediately that all kinds of problems and difficulties would follow and that all manner of surreptitious comings and goings would take place. Nevertheless, I believe that if married people who are now in prison had an opportunity of conjugal relationships, however infrequently, that would do something to mitigate the separations that now take place and the almost inevitable consequence of breakdown.
I further suggest that in the present climate there are many ordinary relationships that are not spiritually blessed by the Church or even contracted in a registry office in which such a permission would do something to maintain the unity of such a fellowship and might save the marriage.
I know that this is dangerous, and I say no more about it except to give your Lordships my own experience. It is that this revolution in sexual matters is preserving in a situation that could have been bettered an attitude to the whole sexual function and exercise that I think is one of the great perils of our present society.
I say one other thing only, and it has to do with what has already been ventilated with considerable
326
skill today—fewer people in prison. What are the alternatives to the incarceration of many of those who do not profit by going to prison, but indeed are the worse for having undergone that experience? I have had some experience in bail hostels. I was one of the first Methodist ministers to create one to deal with alcoholism. I will not boast of it except to say that it was one of the primary enterprises in this field. There are a great many people who feel that this is a dangerous alternative to incarceration and that it will present many more difficulties than it will achieve successes. I do not believe that. We could record—I do record, for I have taken the opportunity of looking up the records—that something like 50 per cent. of those who have come to us as alcoholics have had a reasonable chance and have exhibited a new trend in tolerance of the kind of teetotalism that so many people regard as stupid but which is the only alternative for an alcoholic. I do not believe that there is necessarily an insuperable problem in creating many more of these semi-custodial institutions.
Many people today feel that the Christian Churches have not enough to do and do not do very well the things which they do accomplish. That is probably a justifiable criticism. It will be for the infinite benefit of churchmanship in general if the Government made it financially possible for responsible undertakings of this kind to do much more the general social work of the Christian Church. It is in that spirit that I make my final comment.
Prisons are not likely to stimulate faith. I found very little love in them. But any prison, however depleted of ultimate moral values, can engender hope. I do not believe that we are ever justified in preventing the prisoner from seeing a lamp of light, even if it is far away at the end of a long tunnel. We must never say to a prisoner, whatever may be his particular crime, that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. It should be remembered that the light at the end of the tunnel will be dimmed after a period of years even if it is not a life sentence in the mandatory form. The longer he stays in prison the clearer it must be for him to see that light if some kind of redemption and improvement is to be found. I am much encouraged by the spirit and trend of this conversation this afternoon. If the Church is ready, as I believe it is, to play its part in non-custodial improvements, then may God bless it for I am sure that this will bless the nation.
4.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I should like to join in warmly congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on his maiden speech, which was fluent, competent and informative. He spoke of a preacher with two and a half minutes not mentioning the Almighty. I have 12 minutes and I shall mention the Almighty.
Bishops are often urged in many different places, not least in one notable newspaper, to speak out on moral and spiritual matters. I do and I shall. In the complicated problem before us, the management of the prison service can, I suggest, be only a partial

327
solution; an important tool and element in care. But the problem is not a Home Office problem. It is surely a societal problem. The heart of that problem is, I am sure the House will agree, moral and spiritual.
This country is founded on Christian principles, with a belief in justice, yet also of mercy; a belief in mankind's bias to evil yet also mankind's enormous potential for good; a belief in the essential value of every human being. But how far do we apply those principles? Violent crime is an expression of extreme self-interest that devalues other human beings. It does not care about them. However, when Englishmen, whose homes were once called castles but now need to be fortresses, want all criminals locked away regardless of what happens to them, the same principle of self-interest is operating and the same devaluing of other human beings is being expressed. It was Winston Churchill who once remarked that the standards of society can be judged by the standards of its prisons.
It has been said that, compared with most European countries, imprisonment in Britain is nasty, brutish and long, resulting in the devaluing of the prisoner as a human being and the resultant hardening as a criminal to commit more offences when released. How does it devalue? We can quote activities such as slopping out, which is appalling. I shall quote Chuck Colson, the special counsel to President Nixon, who was incarcerated for his part in the Watergate affair. He was in no doubt about how prison devalued him. These are his words:
"You make absolutely no decision for yourself. Everything is decided for you. You have an overwhelming sensation of helplessness. Your individual identity is destroyed".
Some of us have had a slight token of that when we have been in hospital and have been regarded not as a person but as the duodenal ulcer in bed three.
It was Archbishop William Temple who said:
"The supreme mark of a person is that he orders his life by his own deliberate choice".
Of course prisoners cannot be treated as free citizens, but they must not be treated as robots. Imprisonment is necessary in very many cases, but dehumanising is not. Reference has already been made to the fact that 1,157 people are at present in police cells up and down the country. The tragedy is that they are often very far from their own homes, which causes strain on families who do not know where their relatives are. Their exercise is limited and pastoral care is negligible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the recommendations of NACRO. I shall not repeat them but I believe that they are totally in accord with the Christian principles for which this country stands. I hope that they will be warmly received and acted upon. Rather than the new prisons being a way of extending the prison programme, the aim must be to eliminate or renovate the old prisons. Concern is not just for the prisoner but for the prison staff who have to cope with the situation.
The alternatives to custody in the United Kingdom are many. The development of these for youth offenders since 1982 is to be applauded. Organisations such as the Children's Society have
328
done a splendid job in providing effective programmes to supervise work schemes for young offenders, remedial education, reflection on their offences and contact with parents. It has met with remarkable success. The society's scheme began to operate in Knowsley in Merseyside in 1985. In the first six months of 1985, 43 juveniles were sentenced to custody there. In the same six months in 1987, the number fell to seven. Much youth crime is a passing phase unless it becomes hardened criminality in custody. Certainly for 14 and 15 year-olds, and most young offenders, custody ought to become almost as rare as slavery. The aim must he to exercise justice and to endeavour to renew these young human beings.
This must also be our aim with adults convicted of crime. The use of custody for non-violent offences should he reduced, perhaps by sentencing guidelines drawn up by a sentencing council and issued by the Lord Chief Justice. In this respect, electronic tagging has pros and cons. The major con is that it could be too easy an alternative to compensation, probation and community service orders. It is to be hoped that this debate will spur forward the increasing use of good alternatives to custody whenever possible. However, noble Lords may ask about the part the Church is playing in the matter. It is in the vital context of the moral and spiritual aspects of conviction, punishment and imprisonment that everything possible needs to be done to encourage and develop first-rate chaplaincy activities.
It is to be regretted that Fresh Start, to which reference has already been made this afternoon, has been not an enhancement of life in prison but a reduction of it. The Home Office was certainly right to bring cost-led policies to an end. But now in some prisons prisoners often cannot go to chapel services as well as the other activities mentioned earlier in the debate. And more seriously, they cannot go to padre's hours or to classes because staff will not escort them, there being no overtime payment for the task. That has caused cancellation of classes and disruption of public worship. I believe that this is a matter of serious moral and spiritual concern, for moral and spiritual change go hand in hand. God can change the heart of man, as he did for Chuck Colson, and a changed heart means a changed life, which must be our highest objective in the treatment of offenders.
It is urgent that the prison chaplaincy service gets a huge reaffirmation, and not merely as a way of providing an extra social worker. To this end the Church is not sitting down waiting for something to happen. Looking ahead to chaplaincy service in the 1990s is the subject of a conference in January with the bishop in charge of prison chaplains, the Bishop of Lincoln, the senior chaplains of all denominations and the Home Office. Then in July, in Lincoln, a conference between the Church and the Home Office is to be held on the meaning of imprisonment. It will have the ideological, moral and spiritual aspects to the forefront. The conference will be looking at the psychological effects of imprisonment, human values in long-term imprisonment, alternatives to custody and human values in sentencing.

329
The Church hopes that there will be serious conferring and not a conference where involved and concerned Christian opinion is simply patronised. It could give a vital orientation to the involved and complicated issues touched on in today's debate; for, as I said earlier, the heart of the problem is surely moral and spiritual.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I am very lucky to have the opportunity to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. He is known as one of the most humane and caring of all the bishops whom we have the privilege of welcoming into this House. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating the debate. With his wisdom and knowledge he is always worth a guinea a minute. That was the phrase we used to use; so, perhaps, it is two guineas now.
Like everyone else I had a vast postbag prior to the debate. Indeed, it was an enormous pleasure when I occasionally ran across a Christmas card; otherwise, everything was to do with the debate.
Noble Lords ask why crime has increased so much and why there are so many more people in prison. Of course, that is a big debate in itself. I should like to go into the matter in great depth sometime, but I can perhaps briefly comment that the standards of discipline are vastly different today than they were, say, 30 years ago. They are very much lower.
There is a growing lack of parental responsibility. There is frequently a breakdown in family life. And there is more divorce together with an increase in one-parent families. That inevitably leads to young people growing up without sufficient guidance and often without a home base. I, for one—like, I am sure, other noble Lords—look forward to reading the report which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will bring to the Government's notice at the end of the year. I hope that we shall be able to debate the report in due course.
I am very worried about remand centres. I feel most strongly that they should not—I repeat "not"—be part of prisons; they should be separate establishments altogether. Those in remand centres are defendants too unruly to be allowed out, defendants on whom the judiciary needs reports, or defendants who are awaiting trial.
I feel so strongly about the matter that I should like to urge the Home Office to contact the DHSS. We hear that many hospitals are closing. Indeed, a large hospital for the mentally ill, in Epsom, Surrey, has closed. From what I know of that hospital, it would make an excellent remand prison, not only because of the way it is built but also because it is near to London and convenient for the whole of the southern part of the country.
When one realises that 23 per cent. of the prison population are on remand—the figure was only 13 per cent. 10 years ago—one realises not only how many more offences of crime there are, but also how many more of the magistracy and the judiciary are remanding people in custody.
I am told, and indeed I have read, that the main problem of remand centres is boredom. It is also the
330
main problem in the prisons. If people have been bored to tears or bored sometimes, perhaps, to the point of suicide. then something should be done—far more than has so far been attempted—to prevent it happening among people who will not, one hopes, be on remand for long but who might learn something even in the short time that they are remanded.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has confirmed that boredom is one of the problems. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can help me on one particular instance concerning Durham Prison. I understand that in H wing there are only four women in category A. That indicates to me that the four women will not have enough to do. I wonder whether the reports which I have read in the press are correct and that this is so. Perhaps the Minister can assist.
I have referred to suicides in prison. Of course, we do not know why people take their lives. What worries me is that the numbers have increased from 25 to 37 last year. Two were men involved in the Cleveland crimes. Far more must be done to use the time of prisoners on remand.
The first paragraph of Part II of the Green Paper states that the worst part of prison is the lack of liberty. As a rather long-in-the-tooth magistrate, I have always understood that what hurts people more than anything else—even separation from families or being without their football match, television, or whatever—is the loss of liberty. When that aspect is allied to boredom, we have a very difficult situation.
Four out of every five people in prison are convicted of non-violent offences. In England and Wales 86,153 people were in custody in 1986 but only 19 per cent.—that is, 16,371—had committed offences of violence, sex or robbery. Everyone in your Lordships' House will agree that the public must be protected from men who commit violent crime.
However, I suggest that in some cases —I go further than the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle—there should be much more use of suspended sentences. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if a sentence of two years' imprisonment is passed on an offender and he is not known to be a violent criminal, then I believe that two or three weeks in prison, out of the two years, would be sufficient.
We know that prison, and the lack of liberty, is a deterrent. I would go further, as I said, than the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I had the privilege of sitting on the Parole Board for four years and I was a magistrate for 30 years, but I do not believe that that is on on my CV.
If, having been given only three weeks in prison out of two years, the defendant reoffends, he would be brought back to prison to serve the full term. That would be made clear to the defendant when he is given a suspended sentence. If he is allowed his freedom, it will not just save places and money; it will allow the person to contribute to society. If we go along this road, as I strongly advocate, we would have to have more people in the probation service, the social services and the voluntary services. They must all be better trained and better remunerated.
The public must have great confidence in the people who look after those who have been sentenced

331
to prison and are in the community. Such people must be well qualified.
The Government have told us that they are providing more prisons. At one time I thought that that was a good idea. I do not now think so. We should do away with the antiquated prisons and build some new ones in their place, but not with a view to having more places in prisons, for the reasons that I have tried to give this afternoon. I do not believe that that will be necessary. I hope that future generations will be brought up with more discipline and will care more for other people, their neighbours, and all that goes on around them. If they do that, we shall have less crime in our society.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. It was a breath of fresh air from the South-West. I warmly welcome the Prison Reform Trust manifesto, written in admirably clear and simple language. It sets out most of the reforms that we on these Benches have advocated for years. I hope that the Minister will give us his considered views on that manifesto and not avoid the serious issues that it raises.
I also welcome, with more enthusiasm than the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the Government's Green Paper (Cmnd. 424). Ministers at last have the message that it is crime prevention and dealing with offenders in the community which point the way to a successful policy of reducing crime and the prison population.
I wish to concentrate on what I suggest is the key area: the young adult offender of 17 to 21 years of age. The exciting feature of the Green Paper and of the Home Office strategy document Tackling Offending—an Action Plan is that the Government seriously intend to target the young offender; to try, as John Patten has so vividly put it, to divert young people from the three "Cs"—from crime, from court and from custody. It is a commitment that we in the House surely all support.
The under 21s are responsible for 50 per cent. of all indictable offences, and 91 per cent. of those offences do not involve violence. Of the 100,000 young people sentenced for indictable offences last year. no fewer than 20,000 were sent into custody. The Crown courts sentenced a higher proportion of young offenders to custody than they did male adult offenders; and one-third of all custodial remands are young adults.
The result of that oppressive approach to young offenders, most of whom, as the Green Papers says, will grow out of crime, has been a reconviction rate of 66 per cent. at a cost of £250 a week for each of those offenders, in contrast to £15 a week for a community service order or a probation order. That is a crazy system of justice. It is not a system at all. Under the banner of law and order, the state is actively breeding offenders. I fear that at this juncture, unlike my noble friend Lord Donaldson, I intend to attack the Government. What answer can
332
the Minister give to that devastating indictment; that proof of political impotence and incompetence?
I return to young adults. The way forward here is clear. It is the route pioneered by the intermediate treatment initiative for juveniles begun by the DHSS, not the Home Office. Grants amounting to £15 million have spawned 110 schemes organised by voluntary organisations applying for funds through their local authorities. Success has come from the creation of local inter-agency bodies made up of social workers, the police, magistrates, teachers and so on, which formulate agreed policies for their own area.
Whenever a case arises where custody is a likely outcome, the court is presented with a clear, realistic alternative scheme incorporating supervised activity conditions, and arrangements for compensation, with an overall philosophy of causing the offender to face up to the consequences of what he has done. That, for the most part, is a far more demanding process which lasts longer than the negative, time-wasting, corrupting custodial sentence. It is not a soft option.
The agencies come to have confidence in one another; and the public, properly informed, also has confidence. The result, uniquely, is an unequivocal and substantial reduction in juvenile crime and custody. While the figures during the period of this enterprise for young adults have increased along with those for adults in the Crown Courts, there is the difference with 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds which arises merely because of this enterprising approach.
That success has all been brought about by £15 million when we hear that this year £360 million is being poured into the creation of even more prisons. Co-operation therefore is the vital factor. Mr. Patten, fresh from the DHSS and now at the Home Office, wants to apply that remarkable experience to the young offender, and how right he is. He wants to increase the age limit in the juvenile court to 17, and I agree with him entirely. The rigid demarcation between 16 and 17 is quite absurd.
Interagency steering groups of all key agencies should now he set up in targeted areas—perhaps those in the Government's safer cities programme. No doubt the money will have to go in this case to the probation service, but a positive role must surely be found for the voluntary organisations which have shown such flexibility and initiative in the juvenile operation. Indeed, it is the voluntary organisations which have made that enterprise so successful.
The National Association of Probation Officers can be a prickly organisation. I hope that the probation service will be open to new ideas so that the Government will not have to go for a new agency such as they tentatively put forward in the Green Paper. The NAPO briefing note that I and no doubt other noble Lords received was a most depressingly unenthusiastic document.
The CPS and the judiciary must form part of this enterprise. They are the key agencies. They were the key agencies in the successful West German experiment. The success of co-operation gives mutual confidence and respect. The problem will be how to get Crown Court judges to participate and equip

333
themselves expertly. Juvenile court magistrates have done this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, well knows.
I suggest to the noble Earl and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—if only he were here for this debate—that this can be achieved by creating, at no extra expense, a second tier of courts called, say, young adult courts, which would be known, no doubt, as YACs, presided over by an existing but newly trained judge and two experienced juvenile court magistrates. This court would sit physically as it sits at present. All 17 to 20 year-old cases would be sent to it and there would be no resource implications in this idea.
In that way the tribunal, at present in the Crown Courts woefully ignorant and ill-equipped to deal with these cases of the young adult, would become expertly qualified just as the juvenile court of magistrates now is. The judge, specially qualified, would be anxious to participate in interagency co-operation.
I hope that the noble Earl will give my suggestion serious consideration and perhaps make some comment upon it. I hope too that the Government will not overemphasise the use of punitive alternatives. Curfew, refraining conditions, tracking and tagging are all diversions. Experience shows that proficient courts seldom make use of the purely negative punitive measures that they already possess, so often are they counter-productive. We all understand that sops have to be thrown by Home Office Ministers to the Right-wingers in the other place. But let those sops be such as can lie dormant, only to be used at the discretion of the court.
I welcome the presence of two noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches who are taking part in this debate. That is indeed an advance and I look forward to hearing their constructive proposals put forward from the judiciary for reducing the numbers in prison. I should like to hear their explanation of why between 1980 and 1987 the proportion of adult offenders increased from 46 per cent. to 52 per cent. and why the average length of sentence rose from 16 months to 19 months, in spite of the guidelines issued by the Lord Chief Justice.
The presence of these noble and learned Lords is an advance, but it will only be, I suggest, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself attends and participates in these debates on prisons that we shall know that at last we are on the road to progress.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, it is particularly difficult for me to follow the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, both of whom have spoken about the young adult, the subject on which I wish to concentrate. I agree very largely with what both of them have said and I have had to cut a number of matters from my speech in order to avoid tedious repetition. I propose to say nothing more than that I strongly endorse most of what has been said about the penal system. Also, I was delighted that this
334
debate attracted the authoritative voice of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, on parole.
My reason for concentrating on the young adult is partly my horror at the thought that one in a hundred in this age group—that is roughly 16 or 17 to 21 years old—has been given a custodial sentence. Imagine yourself at school; you look around and find that one in a hundred of your fellows will go into custody, not in the future but while still of school age or on youth training schemes, or on post-school study of one sort or another. That is a horrible thought.
It is also true—though I do not wish to multiply the statistics we were given—that one-third of sentences in 1987 were for young people. It cannot be right. We must try to keep those young people from the criminal justice system altogether if we possibly can. To echo the words of Mr. John Patten, we must keep them from the three Cs that have been represented to us recently by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that what I have to say applies solely to those who have not committed offences against the person. For the most part, I am concerned with those who have committed crimes against property. The Green Paper Punishment, Custody and the Community reminds us that those crimes comprise 95 per cent. of all crime.
It is imperative to reduce the prison population. We are all agreed on that, but the question is how. I find it a pleasant duty to congratulate the Home Secretary on his important initiatives in his Green Paper. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I find myself in almost unqualified support of what he is doing and it is a great and novel pleasure to be able to praise the Government for their initiative in this field. It is not only initiative. The Home Secretary has given ample time for views to be expressed on the proposal in the Green Paper. I also welcome the emphasis on the young adult age group of 17 to 20.
One theme that runs through the Green Paper is the need for,
"wide and careful public consideration and debate"
of these proposals in order to gain the confidence of the courts and the public in the concept of punishment in the community. As to the public, I believe it is far more ready than the Government or the courts allow or realise to tolerate and to approve non-custodial disposals for the less serious non-violent offences. No one likes being burgled; I still feel the affront of a burglary in my house in Cumbria almost exactly a year ago. Yet I do not want that offender to go to prison where he would soon learn the tricks of the trade and more sophisticated techniques to use on his release. I certainly would like restitution. I think that there should be an element of reparation to the community. But the main purpose of a sentence should surely be to ensure that, so far as possible, the offender does not offend again.
I believe that that is what most people want. That can most easily be achieved if sentencers do not tear the offender away from his family, his friends and society, but instead make much more frequent use now—I emphasise the word "now"—of the wide choice of non-custodial options that are already available. There is no need to wait for the Green Paper proposals to be translated into legislation. The

335
process should start now to reduce what can only be called an over-use of custody for young adults.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, I welcome the fact that two noble and learned Lords are to speak who represent the sentencers. I urge them and their colleagues in the rarefied upper echelons of the higher judiciary to consider the urgency of the need for practice directions from the Lord Chief Justice or Court of Appeal guidance—I do not know which is more appropriate—on the sentencing of young adults for non-violent offences. It should be emphasised in the guidance that there is a need for all courts of first instance to make repeated use of non-custodial sentences for repeated minor offences. Again I repeat that I am talking about non-violent offences.
The calm and considered words of the Green Paper state:
"Imprisonment is not the most effective punishment for most crime."
I wish to ask the judiciary, or its representatives here today, if they can be content to continue to sentence young people to finish their studies in juvenile delinquency in custody.
I now turn to prevention which is also covered in the Green Paper. Clearly our ultimate aim must be to improve the quality of life. Here I agree most wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. Our aim must be to create a social climate that is not conducive to crime. It is not deterministic to say that poor parenting, poor schooling, poor health care, poverty or lack of employment opportunity breed crime. So much prevention can be achieved in the home and at school with the co-operation of parents and the police and by diversion of young people from crime in locally based IT schemes, as we have recently heard.
I am glad to see favourable mention in the Green Paper of IT schemes and the proposal that such schemes should he extended to cover young adults, in addition to juveniles. Every effort should be made to keep young people from the courts. One way of doing so is to make much greater use of the police caution, especially for young adults. The caution is rather more than the traditional cuff over the ear by the police officer. It is a stern formal warning by a senior police officer in a police station, possibly before the young offender's parents. It is a very important and memorable occasion and not to be lightly dismissed.
There is a very interesting statistic regarding police cautions. High juvenile cautioning rates over the past few years have been accompanied by decreasing juvenile crime, while a low rate of young adult cautioning has been accompanied by rising young adult crime. Cautioning should be used with care. There is no statutory basis for it. It is used only where there is sufficient evidence to support, a prosecution, but it is thought not to be in the public interest to do so.
Unfortunately, there is a very wide variation in the use of the police caution from county to county and from area to area. I urge the Home Secretary to consider sending a Home Office circular to chief police officers drawing their attention to the low
336
incidence of cautioning in some areas, and emphasising the desirability of a greater use of cautioning for young adults in view of the successful use of cautions with juveniles.
If time allowed I should like to talk about the CPS, ethnic sentencing and the special needs of young women who are in trouble with the police. I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs; I think that the subject of young women in trouble with the police should be the subject of a separate debate. I should like to talk about electronic surveillance, which I am glad to see from the Written Answer of Mr. John Patten of yesterday is being treated with appropriate circumspection. I should also like to talk about mental health and the effect of social security changes on young people at risk. However, I shall only say two things in conclusion.
The Home Secretary has rightly placed emphasis in his action plan on the need for a "multi-agency approach", including voluntary agencies, at the local level. I applaud that emphasis. In my turn I should like to place emphasis on the need for a similar approach in Whitehall. As so many departments are involved, would it not be highly desirable to have a standing interdepartmental committee to consider the impact of any legislation or administration changes on those categories of people who are most at risk of offending? The lead department would clearly have to be the Home Office, but I think the interdepartmental committee should include at least the departments of health, social security, employment, housing and the Lord Chancellor's department.
I end by asking the Government to recognise that their proposals will cost money, but that significant savings can be achieved and that the cost can be offset by reducing the use of custody and by the promotion of the prison building programme. Reference has been made to the great DHSS initiative on IT in 1983 at the cost of £15 million. I cannot believe that the Government's present initiatives can cost less than that. In conclusion, I plead with the Government not to be mean and to be certain to earmark the money when they have received it from the Treasury.
5.28 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who succeeded me, amid general relief, as the president of the New Bridge for Ex-Prisoners, of which the noble Baroness is the very forceful chairman.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in yet another distinguished contribution to these debates, took rather a gloomy view of their value. He said that noble Lords had made many excellent speeches over the years, but that the situation had got worse and worse. That may be post hoc, but not I hope propter hoc.
I cannot help remembering an old friend of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the late Evelyn Waugh, who is known to your Lordships as a famous writer. Evelyn Waugh was very acrimonious, or sharp, about people, including his friends. Someone once asked him why he was so nasty about everybody

337
when he was such a great Catholic. Waugh replied that no one had any idea how nasty he would be if he were not a Catholic. I think that is the best way of looking at these debates of ours. One cannot tell how awful the situation would be if we had not been orating over the past 30 years. The situation is bad enough now; but it could have been much worse.
We must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who knows this subject from so many angles and probably better than many of us. He was followed up so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and others.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Soper—not for the first time—in expressing my detestation of the present system. He said that it is quite incompatible with any form of Christianity. I hope that any non-Christians present and all ethical people will agree that it is incompatible with their humanistic principles. That is accepted and we can all agree that there are far too many people in prison and that we want to get them out. I want to concentrate on one topic—namely the Green Paper—which was dealt with so well by the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Henderson.
Before I come to that issue I should like to say a word about the very impressive report on parole produced by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I was very struck by the fact that in the report itself and in the noble Lord's speech today he said that in a sense he regarded it as incomplete. That reminds me of the Beveridge Report. I was a bottle washer to Sir William Beveridge, later Lord Beveridge. He was asked to prepare a report on social insurance. In the event, he produced a report which produced a scheme for universal family allowances and for a national health service of the kind later brought into operation by the Labour Party.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has made it pretty plain that his report will not come up to his expectations in any way unless the Government and judiciary somehow or other bring about a system of much lower sentences. Having said that, perhaps I may say how enormously interested I have been in the report; and I shall return to it with quite a few criticisms on some other occasion.
Incidentally, I am very pleased to notice that quite recently the courts held that the action of a Home Secretary in overriding the Parole Board was unreasonable. The Parole Board had tried to release somebody, the Home Secretary had refused to release him and the courts have now held the action of the Home Secretary to be unreasonable. I have a slight bias in this instance since the junior counsel in the case is engaged to my grand-daughter. Apart from that fact, I am bound to say that it bodes very well for the future—I mean the future for everybody concerned.
So to the Green Paper. I cannot remember an occasion over all the years when I have found myself differing from the probation service, which we all admire. It may be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, hoped, it will think again and that its second thoughts will be wiser than its first. As I understand it, the service is opposed to or has many reservations about the Green Paper. I shall say nothing more about that except that I hope that the
338
probation service will change its mind and develop its attitude later on.
I regard the Green Paper as a very hopeful document. I am not in favour of tagging—it sounds a rather revolting process. I shall not go into the details now; I am concerned with the philosophy. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, would go along with me; but I like the heading, Punishment, Custody and the Community. I like the way the document faces the fact that we intend to punish the people we are concerned with. For many years those of us who call ourselves penal reformers have advocated alternative remedies, ducking the question of whether offenders are to be punished or not. They are to be punished, obviously; they would regard it as punishment. I think that it is just as well that at last the cat is let out of the bag and we face the fact that that is what we are doing. I think that it will be easier for the public to understand, and it is more honest.
Twenty-seven years ago I published a small book called The Idea of Punishment. I believed it is still on the shelves of the Institute of Criminology at Oxford: I do not know about Cambridge. The last time I went there they had very funny ideas. My ideas were defeated by the eloquence of a lady called Madam Cynthia Payne, who some of you may have heard of. I do not know whether their ideas are sound there today. But at Oxford and in some other circles this little book of mine has stood its ground.
In that book I said what was traditional at that time. It was nothing very sensational: that a just punishment should include the elements of deterrence—prevention meaning keeping people out of circulation—retribution, or if you like, fairness, and reform. That is where I shall differ with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—he has fled. I am bound to differ with him whether or not he is here. I consider that when we look at punishment we must not regard it as something which is purely negative: at its best it should contain a constructive element. That is as true now as when I wrote that little book 27 years ago.
Therefore, for once I have a kind word to say for the Government's proposals on penal reform. I actually approve of them. The noble Earl looks understandably sceptical in view of all the unpleasant things that I have said over the years. But this time I believe that the proposals are progressive and look forward.
Let us assume that we all want to see alternative remedies. We have all said for years and years—and will say it again with knobs on—that we have to face the fact that that involves supervision. That supervision has to be carried out by somebody. The question is: who is to carry out the supervision? We assume that it will not be carried out by the prison service or by the police. I would hope that it would be carried out by the probation service, although at the moment that does not seem very probable. I can only say that if that is not so we must fall back on one of the options which is laid down very clearly in the Green Paper—we should organise a new service. After all, the probation service was new once upon a time. It started, so far as I can remember, in my lifetime. So there is no reason why we should not

339
organise a new service, and so far as I am concerned that is to be welcomed. There should by supervision, carried out if possible by the probation service but, if that is not possible, by a new service.
That is all I have to say except to add one point. I must add it because otherwise I may sound as if I had suddenly turned into a punishment man. Recently, I have been writing a book on forgiveness. The more one thinks about forgiveness, the harder it is to reconcile it in theory with punishment in prison. It is all very well to say to a prisoner that we forgive him, but that we shall send him to prison for a number of years where, if he is not protected by the staff, he may have a very bad time. So I think that we have always to think of that, as Christians and humanists. How do we combine the punishment which must be administered in the interests of the community with something approaching love? I raise that question. I think that I had better leave it there.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Henniker: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having initiated this debate, which I have found absolutely fascinating. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington for having made my speech for me. I have served on the Parole Board and been connected with prisons, but my direct concern in this debate stems from the fact that at the moment I am deeply concerned with alternatives to custody and with preventing people from ever being taken into custody. I am president of the Rainer Foundation which was the precursor of the probation service and was the old London police court mission. I am also chairman of the Intermediate Treatment Fund which sprang from the Rainer Foundation.
I am enormously encouraged. This year has been the 10th anniversary of the foundation of the Intermediate Treatment Fund by the DHSS. As it has been the 10th anniversary I have been speeding around the country to see what is happening. Everywhere the situation seems to be very encouraging and progressive. I have been to the North-East (to Sunderland, South Shields, Durham), to the North-West (Cumbria and Liverpool), to the Midlands (Birmingham), to Cambridge, and last week I was in Devon and Cornwall. I have also been to a number of London boroughs.
I take no credit for the system because my noble friend Lord Hunt was the first chairman of the IT Fund. He was also my predecessor at the Rainer Foundation. It started uncertainly, but everywhere this new form of alternative to custody has developed into something firm, with an almost uniform outline but diverse in many ways to deal with local circumstances in different places. It has been said—and some noble Lords have mentioned it in the debate—that it might be regarded as a soft option. I do not think that it is possible to regard it as a soft option any longer. In fact, the programmes drawn up as alternatives to custody are rigorous and becoming more so. In most places that I have visited they have the confidence of magistrates. Sometimes magistrates
340
have not fully understood and in the Intermediate Treatment Fund it is our task gradually to bring intermediate treatment to the notice of everyone concerned and make sure that everybody understands exactly what it is.
There is considerable evidence to show that the young offender finds it very much harder to go through an intermediate treatment programme than to go to prison. In prison he shrugs off his offence and, perhaps in order to survive, joins the gang which looks on society with a hostile eye. He does not have to come to terms with his offence. The Intermediate Treatment Fund makes him come to terms with it and in most cases obliges him to make reparation in one way or another. It is not always in the form of direct restitution to the victim but it is reparation to society, which he has wronged.
We are talking about new systems and I want to stress that everywhere I went I was enormously impressed by the people who are handling the alternatives to custody. They possess quite an extraordinary level of dedication and knowledge and have a real belief in what they are doing. To me, having these two jobs has been perhaps the most satisfying work that I have ever done. I feel that we are on the right track. We are managing to find ways of looking after the young offender in the community.
The Rainer Foundation, which was the father of intermediate treatment, has for many years experimented with many different forms of alternatives to custody. The first intensive IT scheme that I saw was in Southend. The magistrates were wholly behind it. It was a rigorous programme and never took in people with whom it thought it could not deal. In Hampshire, where I have also been, it has given a new look to the whole question of juvenile justice. There are also schemes which deal with specialist problems, some of which have been mentioned today. We have a scheme in Lewisham which has been highly successful in dealing with 16 to 18 year-old young blacks, giving them education and training, which they may have missed, as well as housing and other advice. In Essex we have a scheme which has been very successful in keeping girls out of care. When I last visited it there was a success rate of 100 per cent. Every single girl who had been referred to it had not gone back into care.
The IT Fund deals only with juveniles; the Rainer Foundation deals also with older young adults. The aim and perhaps the chief value of the IT Fund is to encourage and spread its practice throughout the country. With small amounts of money it has managed to get whole communities working together on projects. It is often difficult for statutory services to work together. The fact that there is a neutral non-statutory body starting projects has meant that everybody can meet on neutral ground. The scheme brings together statutory services.
I have been enormously impressed in many cases—in Cumbria, Cornwall and Devon—by the imaginative and leading part taken by the police in developing these new alternatives to custody and new schemes of taking away from crime young people who are at risk, giving them new interests and new

341
skills. The probation service also plays a part, as do a wide variety of voluntary bodies. Behind them all is a large number of volunteers, a fact which has enormously valuable consequences. The fact that the ordinary man in the street is involved in a problem that usually seems remote makes the schemes responsive to local conditions and to the possibility of failure and success. Events can be followed up much better in this way than if done by a distant and remote statutory body.
I think that the schemes are now very effective and have the confidence of those who use them. The figures indicate IT's success. In places where IT is taken on, figures for committals to custody are down by 50 per cent. In places where it is more recent, they are down by 40 per cent. No increase in crime follows from it.
I believe that it is enormously cost-effective. The whole of the IT Fund costs only £500,000 a year, of which £120,000 is from private sources, which is matched by the DHSS. We are able to attract large numbers of volunteers but volunteers do cost a certain amount of money. I sometimes hear it suggested that things can be done for free by volunteers. But volunteers have to be administered. They save a great deal of money but need a central administration, training and direction. However, I think that we have been enormously successful.
I too have very much welcomed the Green Paper of the Home Secretary. No-one could say more clearly or better how corrupting and counterproductive it is for young people to moulder in prison. Often involvement in the community fills one with enthusiasm. One sees young people who have had great troubles brought into their communities and finding everywhere that the community is willing to do its hit. I hope that when the new system comes into effect there will be a place for outfits such as the IT Fund and Rainer because they have skills which are very valuable in this field and which are almost unique.
We have a few worries about the Green Paper but on the whole warmly applaud it. It seems to justify everything that we have tried to do. The way forward must be to bring people into the community so that they can live productive, active lives, instead of being left out. We are a little worried that there is no mention of girls in the Green Paper and little mention of the special problems of young blacks who find their way into custody in disproportionate numbers. Personally, I am a little afraid that the more punitive aspects may defeat some of the objectives. I hope that they will not but I feel that they may divide the young offender from the rest of the community. The important thing, as we have shown, is to bring him into the community even if it is on very rigorous and fairly harsh terms. It is important to bring him into the community. I hope that there will be a place in the new dispensation for the experiments that have been undertaken.
I believe that we have help to offer. In particular, we have the ability as a charitable and informal organisation to attract money from private sources. Many interested private sources and trusts are a little afraid of the penal field because it appears to them
342
too risky without great exploration. They give us money and allow us to spend it on these matters.
Finally, I hope that the scheme will remain local and retain its voluntary element. These are the factors that give the system its freshness, its inventiveness, and have led to its success. I believe that what has been done was a stroke of genius by the DHSS and has been a great success.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I rise significantly as the thirteenth speaker before your Lordships, having come here mainly at the suggestion or the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who thought that there might be some delicate hints during the course of the debate that (a) the judges were sending too many people to prison, and (b) that they were not properly educated in the subject of sentencing. I expected the delicacy from him. I did not expect it from my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. However, he committed himself on paper to The Times newspaper yesterday, and, in case he had not rubbed in his views sufficiently, we heard him on the breakfast programme on the radio this morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, almost at the outset of his address to your Lordships, that there was this remorseless rise in persons sent into custody. He did not refer to the remorseless rise of those committing offences, perhaps because that was mentioned to your Lordships by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones last Thursday. Choosing, for obvious political reasons, 1979, he said:
"In 1979 there were 2,536,700 notifiable cases. In 1987 there were 3,892,200—a rise of 53 per cent".
However, he continued:
"When one examines the breakdown of these offences the grim picture emerges of a considerable increase in some of the gravest categories of crime—those which cause the public the most alarm and, indeed, cause an increasing number of our people not to venture out of their homes at night. Crimes of violence against the person rose from 95,000 in 1979 to 141,000 in 1987. There has been a continuing growth in sexual crimes, in violent crimes and especially in robbery. There were 12,500 robberies in 1979 but 32,600 robberies in 1988".—[Official Report, 24/11/88; col. 108.]
He referred to the very considerable rise in burglary. The point was taken up later in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who referred back to those figures. He emphasised the extent to which the crime of robbery had risen in London—the crime which is most feared by members of the public. He also referred to the robberies on the London Underground more than doubling in the last six months.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, on why the average sentence has increased is simple. I quote from the report on the work of the prison service, April 1987 to March 1988, which states at paragraph 5 that the main growth in the prison population is in prisoners serving long sentences. That is, over four years for men and over three years for women. Their numbers increased by 17 per cent. on average. Between 1985 and 1986—these are the latest prison statistics that I have been able to obtain—there were falls in the population of males under sentence of immediate imprisonment for those

343
offences for which shorter sentences are generally passed. There were falls of 1,250 for burglary, 650 for theft, handling and fraud, and 350 for other offences. By contrast the remaining offence groups were increased from 400 to 500 for violence against the person, for robbery, and for drug offences, and 250 for sexual offences.
A reference has been made to women and the number who are in prison. The same report continues:
"As regards females there were substantial increases in the numbers held for drug offences, violence against the person, and robbery, of 2,100, 1,100 and 1,100 respectively, and substantial decreases in the numbers held for theft, handling, fraud and forgery, and burglary, of 2,700 and 1,400 respectively".
The answer therefore quite simply is this. The average has gone up because there has been a significant increase in the serious offences for which the public require—and this I understand to be common ground—and are entitled to receive protection.
The Home Secretary, speaking in another place this month, said that sentences for serious crimes were now increasingly severe and properly reflect the revulsion that we all feel about such crimes. Sentences for rape had increased by 30 per cent. in the last two years alone. Tougher penalties for drug trafficking had resulted in more women used as inconspicuous couriers by traffickers serving longer sentences. The trend is therefore one of which I imagine your Lordships approve: increased sentences for the very serious offences in order to protect the public and for the lesser, a decrease in the sentences handed out by the courts.
I join in the congratulations that have been uttered by noble Lords on the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. It was an admirable maiden speech, and one which had the courage to say—and it is not said frequently enough—that the reason for sending people to prison is essentially to protect the public from them. The sentencer has the unattractive obligation, all other options having been explored, of coming down finally to a term of imprisonment. At all sentencing conferences there is emphasis laid upon the necessity of ensuring that all the options are considered before the final decision is taken.
There was a reference to guidelines, and the problem facing sentencers as a result of the population explosion in the prisons. It was taken up as long ago as 1980 in the reported case of Bibi. The Lord Chief Justice said:
"This case opens up wider horizons because it is no secret that our prisons at the moment are dangerously overcrowded. So much so that sentencing courts must be particularly careful to examine each case to ensure, if an immediate custodial sentence is necessary, that the sentence is as short as possible consistent only with the duty to protect the interests of the public and to punish and deter the criminal".
In subsequent guidelines cases—in particular one involving breaches of trust by people fraudulently taking advantage of their position as an accountant, a solicitor, a bank employee or a postman—it was stressed that sentences must be significantly shorter than used to be the case when the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson and I were recorders.
The Lord Chief Justice said that it was not long ago that this type of offender might expect to receive a
344
term of imprisonment of three or four years—indeed a great deal more if the sums involved were substantial. More recently, however, the sentencing climate in this area had changed and the Lord Chief Justice went on to explain, having regard to what may be the sums involved, how very much shorter sentences of imprisonment could be imposed.
However, guidelines do not all go one way. The Lord Chief Justice had to remind judges not very long ago that, despite earlier guidelines on sentencing for rape, the sentences which judges were awarding did not appear to reflect the seriousness of those offences. He said in terms that of the 95 per cent. of those who received custodial sentences in 1984. 28 per cent. received sentences of two years or less. Those guidelines stressed the importance of increasing the sentence.
Another example was the offence of causing death by dangerous driving where the public was dissatisfied with the relatively short sentences, if any, of imprisonment which were imposed, and guidelines had to be given. Those stressed the need in the majority of cases for a sentence of imprisonment. Those guidelines are all published. One hears no criticism or comment in their regard: that they are inadequate in stressing the need for longer sentences or in not stressing the need for reducing them.
Finally, in my last minute I make this point. In his article and in his talk the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, seemed to suggest that judges were not receiving appropriate education. That is quite wrong. A judicial studies board was set up 10 years ago. Its function is to ensure that all new assistant recorders attend courses and that there are regular refresher courses attended by all judges. At those courses there are talks not merely from judges but from penologists, academics and the like.
My noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths—if he returns safely from his dental appointment and is still able to address your Lordships—will deal in some detail with the nature of the course which is provided and how the emphasis all along is upon the proposition that imprisonment should be the last resort and that you must be sure that you have exhausted all the other options before resorting to imprisonment. The reason for the aphorism of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the potential candidate for prison is always a person who has gone there, is merely an indication that as it is the act of last resort, its prospects of being successful are remote. But it preserves society from the person who otherwise would prey upon it. It preserves society from the burglar who in a very large proportion of cases has already been convicted on at least six occasions.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has expressed with great eloquence and clarity what I regard as the centre of the philosophy attaching to the sentencing policy and the role of prison in society. I freely give him from my 12 minutes the one minute which he took extra on his speech in recognition of that. The impulse which drew me to my feet two places ahead of my proper place in the list was a reflex instilled in me during the

345
two and a half years when I was the Minister responsible for prisons in the Home Office. That was that I was always put on a spot by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I regret that he is not here now for me to thank him for introducing me to my period of office with a duty to reply to a full dress debate on a Motion in his name on the future of the prison service five days after I took over the prison service.
My learning curve was extremely sharp. I discovered that I had inherited a system which had stood almost completely still as regards the designed secure accommodation from the First World War until the Second and for most of the time after that. There was much other provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred which was creditable and I should like to thank him, with others of your Lordships, for introducing this important subject this afternoon.
Since I replied to that debate, successive programmes have been introduced, each of them the biggest in this century in this country; and the result (if I have not forgotten the figures) is to produce something like 22,000 new places by the middle of the 1990s. But that will not end either overcrowding or poor conditions. Those are the matters which are foremost in my mind since one can only have one matter at the front of one's mind in timed debate such as this.
Before I come to the principal observation that I wish to make, I should very much like to endorse everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, about the hope which resides in the intermediate treatment initiative. It is some time since I have been able closely to watch matters in this sector of our society; and I was very much seized as a junior minister then both by the fact that it offered almost the only alternative with a reduced prospect of recidivism that was available to us, and that it involved other members of society outside the prison and other punitive organisations altogether in the individual welfare of young people, all too many of whom appeared never to have felt themselves to have been the centre of adult care and direction in a structured effort. I thought that that was entirely admirable; and unless the recidivism figures have changed very much since I last saw them, I commend it to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government.
There is only really room for one point in a speech of this length. The point I should like to make is that it is plainly better to defend society and to prevent crime without putting people into prison than by putting them into prison. The Government clearly have that on board as comes through in both the Green Papers. I include that on the Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System. But it was the publication of that paper which drew my attention again to what I see as one of the very few relatively simple and inexpensive initiatives which could be taken to reduce the remand population. The remand population is different from the rest of the prison population in a number of respects. For a start it has privileges. A remand prisoner is entitled to his own clothes, to unlimited visits, to food being sent in—
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: That is not so, my Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am being corrected in some matter, but the principle is nonetheless true that a remand prisoner's extent of privilege requires a greater degree of supervision from prison staff than does a sentenced prisoner. It is costed out at 25 per cent. more, and those resources are taken from the sentenced prisoners who therefore have their conditions that much depleted.
The remand prisoner is therefore a very expensive person and is not always a guilty person. The conditions in the remand wings are notorious, or were certainly when I was last concerned. Therefore it is a matter of concern that there should he so many prisoners detained in prison on remand. I understand that the reason that they are there in such large numbers is that there is a queue to bring their cases to court even when they are ready. I discount the prisoners whose lawyers perceive that the end of the story will be a conviction; that remand has certain attractions; that it will be counted against sentence, and therefore there is no hurry to bring the case. That certainly happens. However, the crown courts are heavily overloaded. In 1986–87 the average waiting for custody cases was over 10 weeks. Since 1981–82 it has risen from just over 9½ weeks in spite of an increase in the numbers of circuit judges and recorders. That was as a result of an enormous increase in the caseload of the crown courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, suggested that crimes against property might be given slightly less priority of punishment over other kinds of more personal crime. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed them out as being crimes of violence against the person which cause the citizen the gravest disquiet and are regarded by the public as being the most serious.
In 1986 a Home Office publication showed that in London 10 per cent. of the crown court caseload and 8·8 per cent. of its time had resulted not only from crimes against property, not the person, but from cases of theft and the handling of goods worth less than £50. For reasons of inflation one can translate that to £100 today, and one will not be far wide of the mark. If those cases were removed from the crown court then in London it would be free to the tune of 8·8 per cent. of its time and 10 per cent. of its caseload to deal expeditiously with other cases for which defendants now languish overlong in gaol.
It is often argued against my proposal that that category of theft must be tried in the crown court because the sentence may be imprisonment and the social stigma of conviction for an imprisonable crime is so severe and indelible that a jury must be involved. I believe that with the current escalation of criminality—and violent criminality to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred—there must be a case for recognising the change in the spectrum of offence with which we are dealing and saying that crimes of the theft of items of relatively small value—at least in the first instance—should not be imprisonable and need not be tried by a jury. Therefore they can be indictable

347
and can give the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby—whom I congratulate on his admirable maiden speech—the added burden of dealing with them.
I accept that there are resource implications for the magistracy; but the crisis is in the prisons. There is a great deal to be said for a step which could, with a short clause in a Criminal Justice Bill, free some of the long queues in the remand wings of prisons; free the resources tied up therein; improve the conditions in both the remand wings and the rest of the prison; and reduce the demand for new places. And all of that at only the administrative and financial cost of increasing the capacity of the magistracy.
I said that as a vote of thanks for the way he expressed what I believe to be the central theme that we should have in our minds, I should give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, a solitary minute. I give him two minutes. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look seriously at taking the opportunity of the next Criminal Justice Bill to introduce this modest but important reform.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful, as are all noble Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He is a caring man and has demonstrated his zeal and zest to get things right in the prison service. He knows that all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and many people outside, are in his debt for having given us the opportunity to do so.
I admired enormously the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I have listened to many sensible speeches made by the noble Lord for many years both in this House and in another place. I look forward to studying with care the proposals which bear his name. His comments certainly sounded sensible.
The debate provides an opportunity to impress the Minister from many parts of the penal estate. I speak with a knowledge of the views and with the authority of prison officers, and I declare that interest. However, it is quite clear from the debate that there is no exclusivity in prison matters. All who are associated with the penal estate are dependent on the good will not only of their colleagues but of many other groups. I am conscious of the fact that the prison situation is dependent on many issues. I do not intend to burden the Minister with the view that there are easy solutions for the prison service.
One of the ways in which the prison service can be improved immeasurably is for the Minister to say that he intends further to increase the number of trained prison officers who will be made available to the system. It is no good being told that many officers are being trained specially for the new prisons. We are concerned with the conditions in the old prisons. Over the past 18 to 20 months I have visited many prisons, including Dartmoor, Ford, Pentonville, Littlehay, Shrewsbury, Strangeways, Brendon, Cookham Wood, Brixton and Full Sutton. I do not need to tell the Minister what I found in those prisons.
348
I should like the House to listen with care to what HM Chief Inspector of Prisons said he and his team found in those prisons. It is right that the record should include his findings. He said:
"Physical conditions in many of the establishments we visited were unsatisfactory. This often resulted largely from overcrowding and the absence of integral sanitation … Poor conditions affect staff as well as inmates, and we found some correlation between shabby surroundings and low morale for both groups … The overcrowded and generally insanitary conditions in many establishments would be more tolerable if inmates could keep clean and had clean clothes, but this was not always the case … Overuse of adequate facilities and lack of proper cleaning maintenance meant that, for many inmates, the weekly bath or shower was taken in washrooms that had cracked and broken tiles, leaks, mould and mildew growth and even bird droppings as a result of infestation in the roof … In a number of establishments, kit changes were possible only once a week, and this again tended to correlate with inadequate sanitation and bathrooms …A great deal of time at all levels has been consumed with the design and introduction of Fresh Start, and it would be damaging and disappointing if its successful implementation were to be seriously threatened by bickering and hesitation over meeting agreed manning levels".
I shall return to the phrase "agreed manning levels".
"The introduction of Fresh Start in many establishments during 1987 appears to us to have been handicapped similarly by a lack of full understanding about the real nature of Fresh Start and a consequent distrust of the Prison Department. The inability to meet the manpower required in many cases has not helped".
Those are not the words of a prejudiced or biased witness; they are the words of someone who has been appointed by the Government and who carries the full authority and integrity of his high office. He is telling not only this House but the whole country that that is the state of our prison service, but not uniformly, because it is not uniform.
I went to the opening of Littlehay prison some weeks ago. That is a first-class penal institution originally budgeted to cost less than £10 million but which, when finally built, cost more than £25 million. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether such close attention is paid to the escalation in the cost of building prisons as the Treasury and the department seem to apply when they are looking at other aspects of the costs of the prison service.
I should like to give some attention to a group which gives its professional skills to those inside our institutions. I refer to those who work in our special hospitals. Nurses who work in special hospitals are in my view being subjected to greater vilification because of their affiliation to a particular trade union; namely, the Prison Officers' Association.
Perhaps I may illustrate what I want to say by quoting from a report in the Nursing Times on a speech made by Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper at the Forensic Psychiatric Nurses' Association conference, which states:
"One big plus (in closing special hospitals) would be that the mentally ill offender would be formally in the realms of the NHS and, moreover, we would say goodbye to the POA".
The report goes on:
"This final, almost throwaway, remark was later expanded when he added, 'Those of us who have had long dealings with the POA know there has not been any development unless the POA consented to it and they have not been agreeable to change and reform'.
Then, to remove any lingering doubts about his views, he added, 'The more we set about professionalising the staff, the better. They (the POA) are the dead hand of Broadmoor'".
On behalf of those officers—and I spoke to some from Broadmoor, Carstairs, Rampton and the Park

349
Lane special hospital—I deeply resent the slur contained in comments of that kind.
One has to realise that nurses who work in special hospitals are special in every sense of the word. They are responsible for the care and treatment of the mentally disturbed—people so certified by eminent psychiatrists and judges. The patients in special hospital are not voluntarily in residence as are patients in NHS psychiatric hospitals. They are assessed as being a danger to themselves and to society. Therefore, nurses working in special hospitals are required to possess an expertise and to take responsibilities which are unique to the requirements of working in those establishments. They have to embrace fundamental considerations relating to security and surveillance which would be alien to their colleagues in NHS psychiatric hospitals.
In that light, Mr. Blom-Cooper's remarks appear rather naive if not irresponsible. He says that normal psychiatric hospitals should house patients from Broadmoor, Rampton, Park Lane and Moss Side and continues with the proviso that normal psychiatric hospitals should have their perimeters strengthened in order that special hospital patients can be housed. Why should psychiatric patients who are voluntary and represent no danger whatever to society be subjected to an oppressive tightening of the regime in which they live? I touch upon this subject because there is a correlation between the policy of the Government in removing patients from psychiatric hospitals and the so-called returning them to care in the community.
I envisage the following scenario of NHS hospitals being pressurised to discharge patients who are ill-prepared for the outside world in order to make space for mental patients transferred from special hospitals. In my view, the consequences would be twofold. First, mentally ill people cast adrift, bereft of the professional care and treatment they require, would be vulnerable to homelessness, illness and crime, be it as offender or victim. Secondly, there will be a destabilisation of the regimes in psychiatric hospitals brought about by the influx of dangerous patients. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could say something which would help to rebut and, I hope, reject the arguments and ideas of the likes of Mr. Blom-Cooper on this matter.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about open prisons. I visited Ford open prison in the past two weeks. I was enormously impressed by what I saw there. Perhaps I may make a generality about my visit to that prison and many others. Almost uniformly, governors and men are united in their desire to improve the regimes in their prisons and they despair at the inability to persuade the Minister and his colleagues to improve staffing levels.
Perhaps I may give an illustration. Maintaining control in an open prison is much more difficult. There are no cells, no locked doors, and only a token fence. The officers who keep order—that is, grade 8 prison officers—are far too few. The prison department at Ford said, in July 1987 that 45 officers were needed to look after the 560 men there. The POA agreed to join Fresh Start on that basis and yet
350
three months later the number was arbitrarily cut to 35.
In February this year, following a most detailed review of conditions at Ford, the chief inspector, Judge Tumim, addressed a special recommendation to the Secretary of State that the number of disciplinary staff should be increased. Yet now, nine months after the special recommendation was made, the complement is still only 35. I ask the Minister what notice he takes of recommendations of that kind from the chief inspector.
At weekends at Ford only eight officers are on duty to control 560 men. Obviously that is far too few. Regrettably my time is up but I ask the Minister to say something about the viability of open prisons because I understand that there are no new open prisons planned and that they do not figure very high in the desires of the prison department. However, I believe that they are very cost-effective and economical and that an extension of the open prison service would be greatly welcomed.
6.27 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this debate. It is with great diffidence in a House filled with experts on the subject that I address your Lordships at all. I am moved to do so because of the deep concern over the state of our prisons recently expressed to me by a friend who, for 15 years, has been a prison chaplain, first at a detention centre and, for the past 10 years, at Parkhurst and Camp Hill prisons.
I shall touch on three points: overcrowding, prison conditions and staffing levels. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, in a splendid maiden speech, has already said most of what has to be said about overcrowding—particularly serious in remand prisons which are often local prisons with no integral sanitation. It is ironic that remand prisoners, many of whom—39 per cent. of men and 58 per cent. of women—are later acquitted or given non-custodial sentences, should be kept in the worst conditions.
The number of remand prisoners has increased drastically in recent years up to about 11,000 in 1987, which is about 23 per cent. of the prison population. I understand that magistrates are sometimes under pressure from the police to remand in custody as that is more convenient for the police. If the Home Secretary could persuade magistrates not to remand in custody unless really necessary, that would be helpful.
Electronic tagging of offenders awaiting trial could also greatly reduce the numbers remanded in custody and assist the police to keep track of those granted bail. I wonder if the noble Earl could comment on that point. The announcement earlier this year of the building of nine new bail hostels was welcomed but I wonder whether or not that number can be increased.
The Home Secretary could use his existing powers to release low risk inmates early until the present gross overcrowding is reduced to an acceptable level. It is understandable that this would not be popular with the judiciary, but the present overcrowding crisis

351
is ample justification for using the power which Parliament has provided. I do not suggest that the Home Secretary makes a habit of doing so—just once to bring the situation under control.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that prison sentences should be reserved for violent and serious non-violent offences and not imposed on petty offenders such as civil prisoners, prostitutes, shoplifters, drunks, vagrants and fine defaulters. A considerable number of fine defaulters have little or no prospect of ever paying their fines owing to unemployment or other financial circumstances. The imposition of unrealistic fines on people with low incomes is to be avoided wherever possible. Much more use needs to be made of community service orders and probation. However, for that to be effective and to keep track of tagged offenders if tagging is to be used, which I hope will be the case, it means speedily recruiting and training many more probation officers or other supervisory persons.
A reduction in the prison population by such methods could enable more old, and particularly local prisons, to be closed temporarily, either in whole or in part, so as to install integral sanitation and improve washing and bathing facilities. I know that there are still people, both inside and outside Parliament, who take the view that if you land up in prison you have only yourself to blame and that the nastier it is the better, so let the slopping out continue. To those people I say this. It is not always their own fault that people land in prison. Often it is the parents' fault for not bringing children up properly. Or it may be due to circumstances outside the prisoner's own or even the parents' control. The causes are legion and can go back for generations.
It is a disgrace that Britain, which once led the world in hygiene and sanitation, should in 1988 still be keeping prisoners in conditions which have not been acceptable outside prison for many decades. To keep people who are in your power in foul conditions is degrading, not only for them but much more so for those who are responsible.
It is not easy to recruit good prison officers when they have to work in such unpleasant conditions. It is unpleasant for judges who have to sentence people, knowing that those are the conditions in which prisoners will be kept. Many offenders going to prison are not, in any case, over-fastidious in their personal habits. Part of their rehabilitation, which is essential if they are not to re-offend and if they are to become acceptable members of society, must be to teach them to be meticulous in matters of personal hygiene. This builds up their self-respect. The rule should be a daily bath or shower—not a weekly one—with clean clothes daily. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has already touched on that aspect; I am most grateful to him for doing so.
I would give the utmost priority to the installation of integral sanitation and showers. That merits far higher priority than the building of new prisons which must be a slow business if only because of the problems of planning permission caused by the "not in my back yard" attitude.
352
Staffing levels, while improving, are in many cases not yet adequate to maintain an approved quality of regime as regards work, association, physical recreation, religious activities and, above all, education. Those are essential to avoid the build-up of tension to the point where rioting becomes inevitable, as happens where prisoners are locked up for long periods of up to 23 hours a day with nothing to do.
My noble friend said to me last year that many prisons were running only by the courtesy of the inmates. The situation is improving and should solve itself in the course of the next two years, but only if recruitment continues to take place as speedily as possible. It must continue until staffing levels are adequate—not just sufficient for day to day survival but providing a good regime in all prisons with special emphasis on education in its broadest sense. Prisoners need educating as citizens, as family members and as individuals if they are to have the remotest chance of avoiding crime in the future. As it is, about 60 per cent. of convicted offenders are reconvicted within two years of release. That situation must be changed.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I first express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this debate on a public service which I believe sometimes receives far too low a profile because, in the general sense, it is not looked at sympathetically by the public at large. It is an extremely timely opportunity to debate the prison service because it has such wideranging facets to it and this House is the best place to give it an airing.
I wish to deal solely with the question of visiting centres. However, before I begin my main comments I should like to place on record my respect for my predecessor who spoke on behalf of the organisation of which I now have the honour to be the president—Selcare—which operates in the Greater Manchester area for the care of people who have been to prison. This organisation seeks to help such people on the road back into society. It covers the complete age spectrum and does an excellent job. I pay tribute to my predecessor, a very distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Rhodes of Saddleworth, who was a personal friend and colleague of mine.
I should like also to express my personal appreciation to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, though he is not in his place, for the assistance he has given to that organisation in its early days, both as Home Secretary and also in his distinguished position as Leader of your Lordships' House. We are delighted that he accepted an invitation to become patron of that organisation and I place on record our appreciation in that respect.
I should like to draw attention to the general problems concerning facilities—or should I say lack of facilities—for prison visitors at the majority of our prisons. This problem is exacerbated in prisons where remand prisoners are kept who are eligible for daily visits. This problem has been highlighted by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in reports such as HM Remand Centre Report of April 1988. He said:
"A visitors' centre should he provided outside the establishment for visitors to inmates."

353
I emphasise the words "should be provided" and "outside" because they are significant if that is to become part of the established prison service.
To illustrate the extent of the problem I dwell on the prison with which I am more familiar than other prisons. I refer to Strangeways, which is in my home town of Manchester, but the same arguments could be deployed for Armley in Leeds or Walton in Liverpool. In 1985, only three years ago, if one travelled past Strangeways prison between 9.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. one could probably see a queue of 200 people waiting to enter the prison to see relatives who were on remand. Many were young women with small children or babes in arms. I did not realise the extent to which society is punishing innocent people, in some respects without the general public being aware of it. These people had to queue in the open in the most inclement of weather; in sleet, snow or rain. Young women with babies had to feed them by the normal, natural process in the open if the child was discomfited and needed feeding. It goes without saying that they also had to change their nappies in the open. Who was society punishing? Quite a number of the husbands and boyfriends that people were going to visit might have been found innocent and so not convicted. The people involved thought that a very raw deal was being meted out to visitors and that something ought to be done. Some of the men and women going to visit their relatives had as much as two hours' travelling time to the prison, and then queued to see their relatives or friends on remand.
In 1985 a group of concerned agencies—the Selcare Trust, Save the Children Fund, the probation service, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the local authority social service, Her Majesty's Prison, Manchester, the area health authorities and the Women's Royal Voluntary Service—joined together. Under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter Barry, and with the participation of the present director and secretary, Mr. Colin Woodall, and a host of people who were completely voluntary, Selcare was set up. By 1st December 1986 they had generated enough funding to purchase a building, staff it and run it for 18 months. The building is only 60 yards from the main gate. It provides somewhere for people visiting to sit in comfort. If they want, they can have a sandwich and a cup of tea or coffee. There are good toilet facilities and—this is very important—a creche with baby-changing facilities. Selcare happened to be one of the first establishments that I called on when I took on what I considered to be this worthwhile responsibility. I was delighted with what I saw.
Quite important was the co-operation with the prison itself. On entering the visitors' centre, visitors were given a numbered place for entering the prison in order of arrival at the centre. It was organised in an orderly fashion, and the prison authorities were very helpful. By November 1988, two years later, the number of visitors through the centre totalled 250,000. That means that 250,000 people wait in a dignified and humane environment, which in itself alleviates the harrowing stress of the visit by being outside the prison and without prison department
354
officialdom. It is some yards from the prison. Therefore, although it is near enough to be convenient, it is far enough away to be detached from the ominous presence of the prison itself.
All this has been done by the agencies that I mentioned with limited funding, none of which came from the prison department. Money is now needed to continue the project. Time is growing very short. It has been stated by many well-known persons from Westminster of all political persuasions that the project is a credit to the organisations involved. The project is said to be of a standard that is necessary for other prisons. Money is now needed to continue the project after 31st March 1989. It must be an adequate amount to allow the centre to carry on with its worthwhile job. I understand that discussions are taking place with the Home Office on the question of funding the centre. I hope that the Home Office will consider sympathetically the request for funding, which in my view should be substantial.
I have been talking about Strangeways, but I hope that this concept will be extended to similar prisons in the United Kingdom which do not have such facilities but should have them. In the Manchester area it is our good fortune to have this dedicated group of people who have set up the project. They have worked hard and they want it to succeed. I believe that they are fully entitled to the financial support that is necessary to keep it going. If not, there will be a reversion to young women queueing in the street and trying to care for children in the street. I am sure that society as a whole and certainly Members of your Lordships' House would not want to see that return.
Beyond Strangeways, Manchester, the standard must be set at all prisons. I am sure that voluntary bodies are willing to help provide and manage the centres. We know this to be a fact. I urge the Government to give them this much-needed non-institutional flavour. They must be funded, and the funding should come from the prison department.
I am delighted to have tried to put the case on behalf of a section of the service that I think has been sadly neglected by everybody in the past. I do not apportion blame to any particular government. When people are visiting men and women in trouble who are not doing custodial sentences—including those remanded in custody awaiting trial—they should not be expected to stand out in the rain, snow and fog. They are worthy of better than that. Society has no right to punish them by allowing such conditions to continue.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, again for giving me the opportunity to present this case to the Minister. I hope that he can respond sympathetically to the request for funding to allow this project to continue for the benefit of those involved.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House and in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I shall be unable to stay throughout the debate. Before I knew that I wanted to take part in it,

355
I had accepted an invitation to undertake something elsewhere this evening.
In a debate of this length and given the time limit, as many noble Lords have said, it is possible to concentrate on one or two major points only. Other noble Lords have dealt at great length and successfully with many of the different aspects involved in keeping people out of prison in the first place, not least the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, in a comprehensive and impressive maiden speech. Under the rules of the House, I know that at this stage in a debate one is not expected to congratulate the maiden speaker. However, I feel that I am in a special position because we on these Benches are very glad to congratulate any member of the noble Viscount's family—even if we may think that for the moment he is not sitting in quite the right place!
I want to make only one or two points in addition to those already made on the question of keeping people out of prison, or to emphasise points that have been made. I wish to stress particularly the question of people held on remand. Other noble Lords have mentioned this, some at considerable length.
I wonder whether the House and indeed the public are aware of the extent to which people are held on remand, and of the numbers involved. I should like to quote from the letter that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, courteously sent to me this week in response to a point raised at Question Time. I asked him what numbers were involved. In this regard numbers are of considerable importance in order to know the scale of the matter and the extent to which overcrowding could be relieved if we dealt with the remand problem. The noble Earl said:
"About 30 per cent. of males and 44 per cent. of females who have been remanded in custody receive non-custodial sentences, including fully suspended sentences and hospital orders".
That amounts to 17,800 males and 1,500 females. Those are very large numbers. In fact 1,500 females is almost the total number of females in prison at any one time.
That gives a measure of the importance of dealing with the remand question; in terms of justice, when we realise how many of these people do not receive custodial sentences; and in terms of prison space and cost. The cost includes not only the actual cost of keeping someone in prison but the consequential and social cost of dealing with the families. These costs have to be taken into account when a woman with children is removed from her home. I cannot underscore too heavily the importance of dealing with the question of people on remand.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, seemed to imply, although I may have misunderstood her, that in some way the sentencing of women should be different from the sentencing of men. Perhaps that is not what she meant to imply. I would not go along with the idea that women as such should be treated differently from men if they have committed the same offences. I am a committed egalitarian in these matters. One cannot claim to be treated differently as a woman if one has been indulging in burglary along with one's boyfriend. That argument would be difficult to sustain.
356
However, I should like to raise one point in connection with women. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—I was about to say "my noble friend" but of course in the technical sense she is not—would have wished to raise this point had she been here although she has not asked me to do it. I refer to the imprisonment of women who are pregnant or have very young children.
Few of us would feel it desirable that women should be in prison with small children or that they should be separated from their young children. I have visited two establishments with women in that condition. The prisons were doing the very best they could and in some ways were giving rather good training to these young mothers. However, this cannot be a desirable way of doing things. Surely there must be some way of dealing with mothers with children. While they must bear the penalties that are imposed upon them, surely prison is not the right place for them. I leave that with a questionmark. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have any ideas about how they might deal more satisfactorily with women who bear children while they are in prison or have very young children when they are going into prison. They should be kept with them, but in satisfactory conditions.
The third group on which I should like to comment are the plainly mentally ill. I had an experience similar to that of a previous speaker when I visited Holloway. I shall not go into the details but it was crystal clear to me—and it was clear to the governor with whom I discussed the case—that it was quite inappropriate for the woman in question, who was plainly not in her right mind, to be in prison. It was quite unsuitable for her and quite unfair to ask women prison officers who had no training for dealing with difficult mental cases to take responsibility for a woman of this kind.
What is required is secure units in hospitals with properly trained nurses. I have discussed the matter with senior nurses. They say that it requires special training and special staffing because looking after such people is exacting work. However, given proper buildings and proper staffing, it can be done in hospital. That must be the right way to do it. Those three points on keeping people out of prison are the only ones I wish to make under that heading.
I should like to deal now with preventing people from going back into prison a second time. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has already referred to this point but I think I am right in saying that 57 per cent. of men and 37 per cent. of women return to prison within two years of coming out. If we could do something in this area the number of people in prison would be reduced. What prisoners coming out of prison want is what all of us want—somewhere to live and some money. Some money normally means a job. Many prisoners have the greatest difficulty in finding somewhere suitable to live and some work. More hostels for after-care may be one solution. However, we know that to some prisoners such hostels are anathema. They do not want to go there. We must be able to find other ways of making accommodation available to people coming out of

357
prison. Otherwise the chance of them staying out of prison will be very slight indeed.
People in prison have a great deal of time on their hands. It is about the one thing they have. Surely we should be doing very much more than we are at present to use the time in prison to train people so that they can he useful and wealth-creating in order that they can keep themselves when they come out. There are training and educational facilities, some of which are very good indeed. Yet one is told that prisoners have not been able to use them because there are not enough people to escort them to the training. That must be wrong. There are workshops where they can be employed on contracts from outside. They can work and learn how to work. However, we need an expansion of training in prison in order that prisoners can know how to get a job when they come out.
I speak as chairman of the Apex Trust whose job it is to help to train and place former offenders. It seems transparently obvious that this is one of the most important ways in which we can stop people going back into prison. But this requires special resources for training and special help and encouragement for people working in this field. The Apex Trust is grateful for the help and support it has had. However, help has to be reliable if the work is to continue. There must be provision for workshops, staff, premises, equipment and for training programmes. These must be a high priority if we want to cut down the prison population and to reduce recidivism. I urge the Government to give every possible help to ensure that this is done.
The probation service does remarkable work in the care and after-care of prisoners. However, the probation service was not set up to deal with employment questions. It needs to be linked into organisations which deal with employment. This is a different area from the one with which the probation service normally deals.
I should like to finish, as other speakers have done, with an anecdote to illustrate my point. I remember one of the Apex training centres in a bad area of Leeds where we have a good record of getting people into jobs and of reducing recidivism. One day three young men were in the lorry that is used by the centre. When driving along they saw smoke coming out of a warehouse. They got out of the lorry and (for all I know drawing on skills they had learnt in their previous occupation) broke into the warehouse and pulled out eight people who otherwise would have been in danger of being burnt. This was done at considerable risk to themselves and aroused the greatest gratitude, needless to say, from the people who had been pulled out.
I cite that incident because it illustrates that among many of our prisoners there are capacities which, with training and opportunity, could be put to very good effect. When I met those young men and heard the story I could not help but reflect that this was the kind of quality among our young paratroopers during the war. Surely among our prisoners there are people who, with training, could be converted to that kind of activity.
7 p.m.
Lord Griffiths: My Lords, I am worried that there may be an impression abroad that judges consider it their duty to pass sentence with a total disregard for the appalling problems of overcrowding in our prisons and that somehow they regard that as someone else's problem which is no concern of theirs and should therefore have no impact on the sentence they pass. There may also be an impression that judges somehow resent the operation of parole reducing the period of incarceration which they have considered to be appropriate.
My purpose in this debate is to try to correct that impression, because it is my belief that there is no section of the community more aware of or more anxious about the problems in our prisons today and of the need to seek every alternative in passing sentence to find some appropriate sentence other than imprisonment; but if imprisonment is inevitable to seek to pass as short a sentence as is consistent with their public duty and with the protection of the public. Further, we are trained to do that.
Professional criminal judges are recruited from the legal profession, from both barristers and solicitors. I suspect that before long there will be more solicitors. They will be men and women who have already spent half their lifetime in the practice of the law, the overwhelming majority of them practising criminal law. They come to the job not as tyros but as men and women with a wealth of experience, and of course a wealth of experience about sentencing because they have spent a great deal of time trying to forecast the likely sentence to be passed on their client and trying to minimise that sentence in their address to the judge.
Nevertheless, before such people are appointed as full-time judges they will first be invited to sit as assistant recorders; that is, part-time judges trying cases of the least gravity in the Crown Court. However, before sitting as an assistant recorder they must complete a study programme to the satisfaction of the presiding judge; that is, the High Court judge who is in overall charge of the administration of justice in their area.
The programme consists, in the first place, of being attached for two weeks to an experienced judge and sitting with him in court all day and every day. The assistant recorders are then required to visit a selection of penal institutions. That is not just a guided trot round the prison, perhaps like a cathedral visit—a 20-minute guided tour. It is not like that at all. They spend the day there and they are taken round the prison. In addition, they will have an interview with the governor. They will also talk to the prison officers and to the prisoners. They continue to do that throughout their careers as judges.
Shortly before I went to the Court of Appeal, I visited a prison in Portsmouth. One of the prison officers said, "Come here, I would like you to meet one of our star prisoners". He mentioned the name of the prisoner, who then came along. He said to him, "I would like you to meet Mr. Justice Griffiths". The prisoner looked at me and said, "Oh, I know Mr. Justice Griffiths". I recognised him then. He was the first man I had ever sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may we ask what he said to the noble and learned Lord?
Lord Griffiths: My Lords, he said nothing more.
Assistant recorders are also required to attend a three and a half day residential induction course. The course is aimed primarily at sentencing. Sentencing exercises, based on actual and hypothetical cases, are studied and discussed in small syndicates in which these new assistant recorders are mixed up with experienced judges. In that way they share views as to the correct sentences and compare them one with another.
When he sits for the first time, the performance of the assistant recorder is very carefully monitored. If he shows any symptoms of that dreaded disease "judgitis", I sincerely trust that he will not get any further. It is only if he proves that he can do the job that the next step will come, which is the offer of an appointment as a recorder. However, a recorder is still a part-time judge and there is a further opportunity for assessment of the man or the woman. It is only after he has served for a period as a recorder that he will finally be appointed as a full-time criminal judge; that is, either a circuit judge or a High Court judge in the Queen's Bench Division.
However, it does not end there. On appointment as full-time trial judges, judges of the Crown Court are expected to attend circuit conferences on sentencing every year. I say "expected" because strictly speaking attendance is voluntary; but it is voluntary in the finest army tradition—in other words, all are expected to volunteer. At the end of three and a half years of their appointment they are required to attend another in-house training session for three and a half days. That is repeated every five years of their appointment.
Again, those seminars concentrate primarily on sentencing, with contributions from academics, from the probation service and from the prison service. I should have said that we also have sessions, when we are assistant recorders, with the social services and with the probation service in order to discuss their problems with them.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the end products of all this training and shared experience in so far as it affects the approach to sentencing. I have with me a document produced by the Judicial Studies Board, a special board headed by a High Court judge that has been set up for this training purpose. The document is issued to all newly appointed assistant recorders.
I should like to use my remaining few minutes to take your Lordships through the way sentencing is now approached. The section I am referring to is headed, "The Current Approach to Sentencing". It says:
"In every case, the following steps must be taken in the order in which they appear below.
Can a non-custodial sentence be passed?
If so, such a sentence must be imposed.
If a non-custodial sentence is out of the question, is it possible to make a Community Service Order as an alternative to a short custodial sentence?
360
If it is not possible to make a Community Service Order, is it possible to suspend the whole of the prison sentence which must inevitably follow?
If so, your must suspend the whole of the sentence you impose, but remember that you must determine the length of the sentence on the merits of the case.
It is wrong to increase the length of the sentence simply because you are suspending it.
If it is not possible to supend the whole sentence, is it possible to pass a very short immediate sentence without any suspension?
This is what is known as the 'clang of the prison gates' sentence"
—a week or so.
"If a short sentence is insufficient to meet the needs of the case, is it possible to suspend part of the longer sentence which must necessarily follow?
If it is possible, then a partially suspended sentence should be imposed and you must decide what proportion of the whole must be served.
If a partially suspended sentence is inappropriate, what is the least possible total sentence which can be imposed bearing in mind the circumstances of the case and the record of the offender?"
That is how we are trained to approach the matter. I assure your Lordships that the criminal judges are not, as it were, trigger happy in sending people to prison. No one wants to send anyone to prison. Furthermore, once one has sent a man to prison for the first time, one has lost the sanction of imprisonment. Judges are well aware of that fact.
I only wish that some logistic arrangement could be made so that if we are forced to send people to prison for the first time they go to a prison which is strictly confined to first offenders. The trouble with sending a man to prison is that he goes into the school of crime and learns quickly. If only we could segregate the "green" from the experienced it would be a great step forward. I appreciate that that may be difficult.
Under the leadership of the present Lord Chief Justice there has been a conscious shift in sentencing policy to reduce sentences for crimes against property, but to increase sentences for rape and other crimes of violence. I believe that to be the right policy and in accord with general public opinion, although I readily concede that it may not receive the support of many unfortunate victims of burglary.
In conclusion, I assure your Lordships that if resources are supplied by Parliament to provide alternatives to imprisonment, judges will be only too willing to use them. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, on his report on the parole service. I am afraid that he did not adopt all the suggestions which I put before him. But, on reflection, I am driven to say that his ideas are in almost all cases better than mine.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, there will be general agreement that we have gained a great deal from the contributions of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Griffiths. We were especially glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, because we understood from his noble and learned friend that he was having a disagreeable visit to a dentist. I can think of no more unattractive preliminary to a speech in your Lordships' House.
I should like to say three things by way of introduction. First, it is normal to pay tribute to the noble Lord who has put down the Motion that we are

361
debating; and I do that. It has been one of the most valuable debates that we have had on the subject. That is quite a statement in itself, given the fact that the House has, with remorseless enthusiasm, debated these issues on many occasions in the 14 years during which I have been a Member. It was especially valuable that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, with his tremendous experience as a prison commissioner and as Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office chose to initiate the debate.
Secondly, I shall repeat the point made by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and give a broad welcome to the Government's Green Paper. It is an encouraging document. I do not have many major disagreements with it. I find it a bit depressing, to give just one example, that the National Association of Probation Officers denounced it in such ill-judged terms. It is a great mistake to go in for almost automatic denunciation of any proposal coming from the Home Office. I hope that on reflection it will change its position.
Lastly, I welcome the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. One of his predecessors, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter took an active role and interest in criminal justice questions. I very much welcome the fact that the right reverend Prelate had said that there is to be a conference at Lincoln between members of the Church and the Home Office. That is admirable, and I am sure that we all welcome it.
The issues that we have debated reveal a sombre situation. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, when Home Secretary, said that it would be unacceptable for the prison population to rise to 42,000. It is now at 50,000 and it is rising at a substantial rate.
Notwithstanding that fact, it is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said in his interesting speech, that on an occasion like this, it is necessary to point to some of the things that have gone right as well as to some of those which are still in something of a mess. Like him, I thought that the introduction of community service, in which we were both involved at different stages, was a most important initiative. As he said, it was a pioneering experiment when he was a Minister. Later of course it was extended to the whole country. I know from the discussions one had at the time with the Ministers of Justice in the European Community how interested they were in what we were doing, and how encouraged they were by it. Without it, the prison situation which we are now debating would be infinitely worse. Many thousands of additional people would be at risk of being in custody.
I shall come in a moment to the parole system to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred. I shall comment upon a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. Fresh Start was an altogether admirable idea. It reflected great credit on the officials involved on working it out. It ended the pernicious system of a prison system which depended almost exclusively on massive overtime in a number of local prisons. It was altogether right for the Government to push ahead with it.
362
I am bound to say that I find it difficult to accept the repeated statements, some of which have been made in the debate today, that the prison system is short of prison officers. I have no doubt that is true in a number of establishments; but the ratio of prisons officers to inmates in 1948—one prison officer to 6·86 in male establishments, with similar figures in women's establishments—improved substantially in 1978 and there was a still further improvement in the autumn of last year when the ratio was not one to nearly seven inmates in male establishments but one to 2·72 inmates. With women prisoners the ratio is even less.
In short, it is not right for the House to assume that there is chronic understaffing in all parts of the prison system. That is untrue. Having said that, it is right to look at how we cope with the present difficult situation.
First, we all, I think, recognise that far too many people are being remanded in custody. That is why we have the alarming situation of 1,100 people still being kept in police cells, some of them not on remand but convicted offenders. Many months ago, I asked how much progress the Government were making on bail information schemes. A great deal of work has been done in a number of areas in which the police and the probation service have been involved. When will we receive some indication of what the Government are going to do about the scheme? We are well aware that a number of offenders are remanded in custody merely because the court has wholly inadequate information about them. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us about that project.
The next point is tagging. I fear, that I do not wholly share the views of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson on this matter. I do not necessarily believe that tagging by itself will have a dramatic effect on prison numbers. If tagging is applied, as I understand there is some suggestion it may be, to people who would otherwise be remanded in custody, we would be making a serious mistake were we to reject it as a matter of principle.
Next I turn to parole. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I think it is encouraging and I agree with most of its principal recommendations. But as the noble Lord will be aware from the evidence that I gave to his committee, on one matter I am afraid I am in total disagreement with the committee. Nevertheless, the report is a most encouraging document; and like the noble Lord I very much hope that we shall have some indication that the Home Secretary is prepared to look at it favourably.
I turn now to an altogether different issue. This is an appropriate day on which to say that I fear that one reason—though not necessarily one of the most important reasons—why the prison numbers are going up so remorselessly is what I may describe as "judge bashing". This is a fashionable sport in which a number of tabloid newspapers join, as do the television organisations. There was a case last night. A number of people raced to the cameras or to members of the parliamentary lobby to denounce the judge who has passed one particular sentence. They

363
had no information on which to do so other than perhaps two or three paragraphs carried on a Press Association tape. I fear that this sport may have some significant effect.
There will inevitably be some judges who at the last moment flinch from giving the sort of sentence they think is necessary in the circumstances of the case. They may decide to edge the sentence up because of the risk of media denunciation. This is a great pity. It does damage to our criminal justice system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, referred to the prison building programme. I have in the past made it quite clear that I agree with the programme. A number of my noble friends do not share that view; but having said that, I agree with the noble Baroness's conclusion that the idea of just building and building and building and not closing prisons is unacceptable. We often talk about Dartmoor. There have been a number of discussions within the Home Office over the past two decades which have been aimed at closing Dartmoor down; but it is by no means the oldest of our prisons. I remember going to Lancaster which has been in use as a prison since the 18th century. The conditions there are outrageous, and I very much hope that when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, replies to this debate he will deal with that issue.
Many of us believe that if prison conditions are to be improved there is clearly the necessity for an adequate prison building programme. The noble Earl must also recognise that we hope that the Government will give the clearest indication that first they are aiming to close some of the worst prisons; and, secondly, that they intend dramatically to improve the conditions in some of our oldest buildings. It is quite deplorable that we still have slopping out in our prisons. At the moment that is unhappily not one of the Government's most urgent spending priorities.
I welcome Mrs. Currie's statement yesterday (at I think a conference of MIND) that the Government are determined to avoid the situation which has arisen in a number of United States cities. There she said that mentally ill people had been discharged from hospital and left on the streets. As the noble Earl will be aware, we have had many debates on this problem in this House. I must admit that the situation with which we are confronted is extremely serious; 23,000 mental hospital places have been scrapped in the last 10 years. The National Schizophrenic Fellowship says that the situation is out of control. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that community services are wholly inadequate. What are the Government going to do about this? If nothing is done, many of these people will be sucked into the prison system. They are being sucked into it now.
During debates in the summer this year we heard that seriously mentally ill people had been sent to police stations in all parts of England and Wales. I hope that the letter which the noble Earl assured me would be sent to the Department of Health on this matter has been sent, and that something is being done by that department.
364
I hope that all of us who have participated in the debate this evening agree with one proposition: that in the past 20 years prison conditions have deteriorated sharply. There still are 16,000 people living either two or three to a cell. Prison sentences in the period of over 20 years have become longer, yet at the same time crime has risen sharply and our streets have become far less safe. That is why many of us believe that the simplistic assumption that longer and longer sentences will make our country safer is less than the full truth. The point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that long deterrent sentences are necessary in serious cases. As regards the drug industry and armed robbery, there is no argument between us. But our prisons are full of hundreds if not thousands of people who could quite easily be dealt with in the community. Those of us who visit prisons regularly know that to be true. I hope that the Government accept that broad view, and that the noble Earl will have some message of hope and encouragement for us this evening.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, we have had a rich and full debate. The House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for bringing this Motion before us. It is a pleasure to wind up a debate of such quality from these Benches. It was heartening to read in the July Green Paper the implicit acknowledgement of what so many of us had been saying for so long, that we send too many people to prison for too long. But this debate has above all focused attention on the question: how do we build on the consensus to keep people out of prison?
I think at the outset I should make the point, only because the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, in his otherwise full and balanced contribution, omitted to make it, that the judiciary are responsible neither for crime nor for the conditions in our prisons. Many noble Lords have called attention to the fact that the courts send too many people to prison for too long. The Government are ready to acknowledge that with a prison population of over 50,000 within a system designed to accommodate about 40,000, parts of the prison system "are miserably and dangerously overcrowded". Those words are not mine; they were spoken by the Home Secretary in another place on 5th May.
The noble Earl, Lord Allen, expressed himself in equally strong language. He asked a number of specific questions which we hope will be answered by the Minister when he comes to reply. Will the Government prescribe a code of minimum standards with a timetable for achieving it? Will slopping out end even by the end of this century? If the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is right that the Minister will not defend what we attack, then that can be judged by the answers which the noble Earl gives to these specific questions from Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
The Home Secretary also acknowledged on 30th March:
"It is certainly true that our courts send more people to prison than is the case in most European countries".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/88; Col. 1096.]

365
The figures show that we are very high in the league table of punitiveness for Council of Europe states; for example, we are well above France and Germany.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who called attention to the important judgment in 1980 of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in which he said:
"It is no secret that our prisons at the moment are dangerously overcrowded. So much so that sentencing Courts must be particularly careful to examine each case to ensure, if an immediate sentence is necessary, that the sentence is as short as possible, consistent only with the duty to protect the interests of the public and to punish and deter the offender."
It is refreshing to read the emphasis put in the Green Paper on this important judgment. But it has to be recorded that since that judgment in 1980, the average length of sentences has increased from 17 months to 18·9 months in 1987. So essentially the problem is due to judicial action as more defendants are brought before the Crown Courts where sentencing is higher. There are higher sentences there for some more serious crimes and there is the increase in the remand population.
The proportion of adult male indictable offenders sentenced to immediate custody has increased from 16 per cent. to 21 per cent. between 1976 and 1986. As I have said, the average length of sentences imposed in the Crown Court has increased from 17 months in 1980 to 18·9 months in 1987. So the problem is acknowledged, but the question is: should the state step in and give a new direction to sentencing policy? The Government's basic position, as I understand it, is "hands off" sentencing policy. The Government consider that sentencing policy is for the judges, apart from a very few exceptional cases such as the statutory restrictions on custodial sentences for offenders under 21. The result is, therefore, that the prison problem has deepened, although it is recognised that in the public interest changes in sentencing policy should be brought about.
The Government's position is clear enough. It is that the Government's duty is to maintain the best balance achievable in the difficult equation between an ever-rising prison population—the open ended demand side—and the space available in prisons—the supply side. But what that involves is that it is for the courts, and not the Home Office, to decide how many convicted offenders should be sent to prison and for how long. The courts determine the demand side.
We on these Benches are ready to give the Government credit for their commitment to a prison building programme, while inviting the Minister to assist us in replying by telling us how much will be spent to replace old with new and how much will be spent on modernising the old. Can the Minister give us some information, in however broad terms? But while giving credit for the building programme, I am ready to predict that we are unlikely to build ourselves out of overcrowding unless we see major changes.
An important question concerns what action is required on the demand side—that is, the court side. In a graphic sentence the Home Secretary in another place, no doubt presaging the Green Paper, said on 30th March:
366
"I want to build up for the courts a wider menu or set of alternatives to custody for the non-violent offenders."—[Official Report, Commons, 30.3.88; col. 1092.]
So the Government's position, which is reflected in the Green Paper, is that the courts' role in sentencing is such that the Government can do no more than provide sentencers with more persuasive options outside prison.
I wish to give a cautious welcome to the Green Paper because it gives a limited prod in the right direction. But, when all is said and done, and when such legislation as is envisaged by the Green Paper, if it comes, is carried into effect, I must say that I fear we may still be left with an imbalance between a rising prison population and the available space in prisons. After all, we already have a battery of non-custodial punishments and far too many people in prison. Time will tell, but is it not time to think seriously whether direct action should be taken on the sentencing policy of the courts?
Plainly the Home Office will have to consider closely the effect on the size of the prison population that acceptance of the report published by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, which has been generally welcomed, would have. Unless the judiciary revises its sentencing tariffs to take account of the changes in parole—a consideration which as I understood the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, he himself contemplated as necessary—the undesirable consequence of the acceptance of the report would be to increase the problem of prison overcrowding.
I wish to make one thing absolutely plain from these Benches. Judicial independence must never be compromised. The courts must have their sentencing discretion in every individual case, subject to the statutory rules. That is not in issue, but surely judicial independence does not in principle require that sentencing policy is exclusively for the courts? I invite your Lordships to consider the following question. Is there any sound reason why the whole of sentencing policy and the role of imprisonment should not be rethought by the judiciary, higher and lower, together with those many others who have expertise in the administration of justice?
We should ask ourselves why the courts sentence as they do. Perhaps they believe they are at the sharp end of the war against crime. But here they must have a sense of proportion. At most it is only 7 per cent. of crimes actually committed that come before them. Some estimates put that even as low as 3 per cent. I do not deny some deterrence from sentencing, but it must be kept in proportion. We are in the area of the unprovable, but in the past few years there have been more and longer custodial sentences with no noticeable effect on the crime rate.
With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, whose notable contribution I enjoyed as ever, that fact does not support the proposition that longer sentences are especially deterrent. It must ever be remembered that sentences are but one of the many means of protecting the public from crime.
We on these Benches accept that really serious offences require severe punishment. The Government recognise that and we recognise that. At the same time the Government accept, as we accept, that:

367
"Imprisonment is not the most effective punishment for most crime."
The Green Paper states that. The Green Paper also states:
"Most of those now in prison have not been convicted of violent offences."
Let us take the case of repeat offenders. They should of course in general have longer sentences than first offenders, but here too a sense of proportion is required. A substantial proportion of the prison population consists of property offenders with three or more previous convictions serving between six months and three years. Where these offences are non-violent and non-frightening, surely the sentences being handed out are disproportionately high.
To the very important question posed by the Green Paper and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, as regards whether imprisonment is the best, or only, way to deal with recidivist burglars and thieves, I answer emphatically that it is not. The pat argument that society deserves a rest from them must be evaluated against the facts: the length of time that they actually spend inside and the fact that the great majority reconvict within two years. Non-custodial measures of the kind canvassed in the Green Paper have a good reconviction record and should be tried out on the more difficult offenders.
I do not believe that those questions should be questions about whether one is soft or tough on crime or on what side of the "macho" divide one falls. What is required is to consider rationally what is most likely to promise better social protection overall.
In our view the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, accurately described a burgeoning public opinion that is ready to tolerate, as he said, more punishment in the community. It is for serious consideration whether we should not now introduce by legislation a sentencing commission consisting of judges and magistrates at all levels and all the others who are experts in the field, for example, prison governors and officers, probation officers and representatives of the interested bodies. Canada has done it with great success. The commission would examine the aims of sentencing and the proper use of imprisonment. It would fashion guidelines and principles for the courts, which would retain their discretion when applying them.
When inviting consideration of that proposal, which is gaining increasing support, I do not diminish the impressive development of guideline judgments by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. Their impact has been beneficial but necessarily limited. The guidelines are of the greatest assistance to sentencers. They promote uniformity in the cases to which they apply and it is no criticism of much that has been achieved by them to note that they cover only a small proportion of Crown Court cases and hardly any in the magistrates courts. They cover only a small proportion of the cases sentenced by English courts and a minority of custodial offences.
I should like to take the opportunity of saying that I endorse what has been said by the noble and learned
368
Lord, Lord Griffiths, about the quality of the education for judges provided under the auspices of the Judicial Studies Board. I endorse what he said about the quality of the training programme for judges, the residential courses devoted to sentencing, and the assessment techniques for new judges. However, the suggestion that I put forward of a sentencing commission is intended to promote a critical evaluation of the view that sentencing is exclusively for self-regulation by the judges. The acceptance of the idea of a sentencing commission would do no more than involve the judiciary in rethinking sentencing policy along with others with expertise in the administration of criminal justice while maintaining their independence, which must never be questioned, in the actual sentences handed down.
I would welcome the Minister's reaction to that proposal. It may be that he will say that it falls to be rejected today under the law of unripe time. But its time will surely come if the aspirations of the Green Paper, when tried fail to produce the result—a very substantially reduced prison population—for which the Green Paper and this debate in this House clearly shows that there is now a national concensus, which is demanding results, not words.
7.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing this debate. It is fashionable to use such phrases, but I mean that with great sincerity.
I believe that this afternoon's debate has been one of enormous interest and of great authority. A great many Members of your Lordships' House have taken part in the debate, and that alone signifies the interest in the subject. Those who have taken part have been very largely noble Lords who have great expertise in these matters. I felt great sympathy with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, when she said that it was very difficult for her as a non-expert to take part in such a debate. I know how she feels.
The debate was also significant for the fact that the Government received praise from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, prefaced his remarks by saying that it was a novel pleasure to be able to praise the Government. If I may say so, it is a novel experience to receive it. I hope that the noble Lord will continue in that happy frame of mind.
An interjection from a sedentary position and of an unparliamentary nature by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, momentarily throws me off balance because I cannot understand why he should not wish the noble Lord, Lord Henderson to be in accord with the Government.
I find myself in some difficulty in trying to reply to the debate. Some noble Lords have bleated that they are sorry to have been limited to 12 minutes. I must say that I am rather glad that they were so limited; I should have found it easier to reply to the debate had the limit been five minutes. However, I shall do my best. I find it a great advantage that I do not feel that

369
your Lordships consider the Home Office, of which I have the privilege of being an ornament, to be in the dock. As I understand it, we are not in the position of being a cockshy at which noble Lords can throw complaints. That has not been the tenor of the debate. It has been one in which your Lordships have seen a problem and together we have tried to find ways of getting over it. What I should like to do is try and explain what we in the Home Office are endeavouring to do as well as answer the points raised by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred very rightly to the fact that judicial independence must not be compromised. Of course it must never be compromised. He went on to refer to a sentencing commission. I find that an interesting subject. I take note of what he said and I shall give it consideration.
The problem throughout the debate has been trying to find a balance between retribution and society's abhorrence of crime. After all there is nothing wrong with the atonement or expiation of crime. On the other hand there is the individual person's life, indeed, I believe the right reverend Prelate said, a person's soul. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that there are remarkable examples of good people in prison. Of course there are because they are human beings. To lock people up in prison can be regarded by some as wrong. But to allow out into society those who have offended in some terrible ways can also be regarded as wrong. Where is the balance between the rights of the individual and the protection of society?
One might ask: what value is prison if, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester put it, it destroys a person? What value is a lack of prison if, as a result, society is in peril? I think that what one might call a squiggling snake of conscience has been prevalent throughout the debate.
I am glad that we have had the privilege of two law Lords participating in the debate. I am glad too that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, was not deterred by his visitation to the dentist from taking part. I felt that they were in the unusual position of being to some extent in the dock themselves this evening. Perhaps I may make the observation that they acquitted themselves magnificently, as one would expect.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to the problem of the sexual explosion in prisons. He told me that he would be unable to be here at this point but I can assure him that I know that he has touched on a very important and serious matter. He said, I think, that it was essential that prisoners should have hope and that there should be a lamp of light at the end of the tunnel. That is absolutely right.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said that dehumanisation is not a part of prison and indeed it should not be. We must see that it is not. My noble friend Lady Macleod pointed out that hope for the future should lie in more discipline and more caring. I believe that she is right. Crime and action against crime as well as action for the individual and against imprisonment start in the home and in schools. I had to say that the other day and it was reported in a newspaper that I had given the
370
customary Home Office lecture. I do not believe it t be a lecture; it is a fact.
That is why the Government are putting so much effort into crime prevention. Last year we spent £4.6 million on crime prevention publicity, £600,000 on the Home Office crime prevention police training centre in Stafford, and £340,000 on crime prevention research. Those are merely figures but they indicate that the whole philosophy is moving much more toward crime prevention.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester told us that prisoners were stopped from attending church services. I acknowledge that there have been difficulties. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary endorses the role of the prison chaplain. I hope that when Fresh Start has settled down, disruption will be avoided.
The House was lucky enough to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, make his maiden speech today. We are all grateful to him for his remarks. He spoke with great knowledge and experience. He said that the world of Dickens lives on, which is a rather frightening thought. It was a graphic phrase. We must ensure that in that respect the world of Dickens is not perpetuated.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to his report. I do not wish to discuss the interesting and valuable proposals that he made because I know that there will be another opportunity to do so. I just mention that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it perfectly clear that he wishes to have a proper opportunity to consider the report and any comments that may be made upon it before he comes to any decision on the future of parole in England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, told us that in what he said he was not attacking the Home Secretary. I am grateful to him for saying that. It was useful to have his views on the matters on which he addressed your Lordships.
I should like to try to sketch out the strategy on prisons as we see it and the alternatives to custody. I should like to look forward, as your Lordships have done this evening. That does not mean that I shall ignore the present conditions of our prisons, to which many noble Lords have referred. Quite the opposite; no one could have been a Home Office Minister and not be only too well aware of the state of our prisons. A lot is being done. Some of our establishments are in an unacceptable condition. We all know that. However, the prison service is addressing its efforts to the huge problem which is posed by the two factors of high population levels and long-neglected buildings.
I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, reminded us why the prisons are so full; namely, because crime has been on the increase. If crime were not on the increase maybe the problem of prisons would not he so uppermost in our minds. Looking to the future we have to hold firmly to a basic principle that—and I think that almost every noble Lord said this, including both the noble and learned Lords who spoke—prison should be used only where necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that we cannot just build prisons. He

371
is right. That is not a solution. However, it may be a necessity until we overcome the problems.
I agree with many noble Lords who said that we need to find the best deterrent and the most appropriate sentences especially for those who are less serious offenders. Parliament's responsibility is to ensure that the courts have available to them a range of penalties. The courts will wish to consider first whether a non-custodial sentence is appropriate, and only when the courts have ruled out such a sentence will they decide upon a custodial sentence. That was re-emphasised by both the noble and learned Lords. To limit the scope to decide upon a custodial sentence would be a sound recipe for undermining the confidence of the public in the rule of law. I do not think that any of us should underestimate the importance of that.
Almost every speaker said that too many people are sent to prison. Perhaps it is because prison is considered as the normal punishment for the criminal. However, as noble Lords have said, it should be the last resort for those for whom no other, better alternative can be found. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said—I think these were his words—that the Government were politically inept and incompetent to rely upon custody rather than non-custodial sentences. I see that the noble Lord is shaking his head. I am sorry if I misinterpret him.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, my remark was made entirely in regard to the remand situation, which has grown worse over 10 years.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the moment the noble Lord made that remark I was considering his earlier observations. That particular Exocet shot over my shoulder. I am sorry if I did not quite meet the right mark. Perhaps I may just say in that respect that a great deal is happening. The noble Lord asked me in particular to comment on the NACRO report. We have found it interesting. It is being studied at the moment within the Home Office. He referred to the need for sentencing guidelines, as did the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Within the powers given by Parliament, sentencing is a matter for the courts and not for the Government. The question of sentencing guidelines is one for the higher judiciary.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked about the training of judges. The judiciary is committed to training and constantly reviews its methods. Sentencing practices receive particular attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. Great notice is taken of the recommendations which are made by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and all the recommendations receive full consideration by the prison department, where necessary action being taken on their implementation. The noble Lord also referred to the staff complement at Ford. The chief inspector acknowledged that some of the staffing problems were transitional. Since the inspection the numbers of discipline officers and civilian instructors in the
372
workshop have been increased. That will continue until they are back up to complement.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, referred to Manchester visitors' centre. I endorse what he said. The centre has greatly improved the conditions for visitors. I am aware of the financial difficulties faced by the centre. We received a request from it for a grant and that request is at present being considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to mentally disturbed offenders. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health is aware of the concern that has been expressed on the care in the community policy. I apologise to the noble Lord for the fact that he did not receive, as he should have received, an earlier reply, but work is in hand to determine whether that concern is justified.
Violent and serious offenders must have long prison sentences. Society has to be protected from them, even if punishment is disregarded. Less serious offences should be dealt with so far as possible within and by the community, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and others said. We should not be afraid to call that punishment in the community; but it must be punishment and it should not be, as the noble Lord. Lord Henniker, said, a soft option.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that we ought to get away from the primeval view of punishment and retribution. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that prison should include retribution and punishment. That is part of the regime of prison life; there is nothing wrong with that. But punishment should be seen as retribution and as a discharge of what one might call iniquity against society as well as rehabilitation.
We have all been concerned with the growth of the number of remand prisoners. A number of noble Lords referred to bail hostels. In his Autumn Statement, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced finance for a provision of 500 extra bail hostel places for people who have no fixed address and who might otherwise be remanded in custody. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked whether these will be throughout the country. That is our intention. There will also be 20 bail information schemes. The number of people who were given custodial sentences in magistrates' courts in 1987 was the lowest since 1980. We agree that the use of custody should be reduced still further, in particular for 17 to 20 year-olds, and also for offenders of all ages who can safely be dealt with in the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to young adult courts. This idea was addressed in the Green Paper, Punishment, Custody and the Community. It floated the idea of increasing the age limit of juvenile courts to include 17 year-olds and of introducing flexibility of sentencing of 16 to 20 year-olds. We are looking forward to receiving responses to this and will bear in mind the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has put forward.
More use can be made of existing non-custodial penalties. We have set out policies on these issues in our recent Green Paper. I was glad that so many noble Lords paid tribute to that and found it of

373
value—the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson, Lord Henderson, Lord Henniker and Lord Harris, to mention but a few. The Green Paper recognises that offenders must be punished for what they have done. But it makes clear that prison is not the only, nor necessarily always the best, form of punishment. Many offenders can receive their punishment and can be adequately controlled in the community. Many noble Lords have said so.
I was interested in the proposals that my noble friend Lord Elton made about how to relieve congestion in the courts. I shall certainly take note of what he has said and will see that it is studied.
It is a sad fact that when they are in custody, some offenders may learn criminal skills and may acquire confirmed criminal attitudes. To describe prisons as schools of crime is not novel, nor is it attractive. Unfortunately, it is often true. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the remark of my noble friend Lord Elton to the effect that nothing is more likely to get a person into prison than the experience of having been there already. That is a terrible thought. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, in his maiden speech, referred to the moral and criminal contamination which takes place in prisons. Prisons ought not to do that but it is a fact that they do. It is a fact with which we all have to wrestle.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked about abolishing custody for juveniles. The Government agree that the use of custody for juveniles should be reduced so far as possible. Indeed, over the past six years it has halved from 8,000 in 1981 to 4,000 in 1987. But some juveniles commit offences that are so serious that the possibility for custodial sentence must remain available.
He also referred to the use of remands in custody for juveniles. Only 15 year-old and 16 year-old boys may be remanded in custody. Earlier this year the Government issued a consultation paper proposing tighter criteria for juvenile boys in custody. There was a good response but conflicting views. The Government are considering in the light of that how best to proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Henniker, referred to the Rainer Foundation and the Intermediate Treatment Fund. The Government very much welcome the contribution which the Rainer Foundation and the Intermediate Treatment Fund have made in providing and encouraging community-based facilities for juvenile offenders. As the noble Lord will know, the Home Office is considering an application from the Rainer Foundation for funding for an experimental project, using a similar approval with young adult offenders.
We are trying to encourage the probation services and the courts to make the best possible use of the probation order and the community service order. In August we issued an action plan which would promote the better use of different methods of the treatment of offenders that are available in the local communities. The action plan calls on local statutory and non-statutory agencies to co-operate together to draw up local action plans. The idea of that is to tackle in the community offending which is done by the 17 to 20 year-olds about which the noble Lord,
374
Lord Hutchinson, was concerned. The probation service is initially responsible but cannot be effective without the co-operation of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and the voluntary sector. We have a solid basis of experience upon which we can build.
Intensive community-based work with juvenile offenders under 17 has contributed to a reduction of almost 50 per cent. since 1981 in the number of juveniles who are receiving custodial sentences. It is significant that this drop in the use of custody has not resulted in a rise in recorded juvenile crime rates.
Like all noble Lords, we should like to see more use of community service orders for offenders who at the moment are receiving custodial sentences. Community service is a penalty that makes the offender pay back something to the community against which he has offended.
For the longer term, the Green Paper seeks views on a possible new order which will enable the courts to combine together some elements of the existing and different orders. The idea is that this could be used repeatedly for persistent non-violent offenders. It would enable those sorts of people to be dealt with in the community rather than ending up in custody.
We need to provide decent accommodation for all those whom the courts send to prison. Overcrowding, and the poor condition of much of the prison estate, hamper us from achieving that objective. We have therefore committed unprecedented resources to building new prison places and to improving the existing stock. The scale of the Government's commitment to the prison service is substantial. Financial provision was made for the prison service in this financial year of £802 million. In addition to that a further £922 million was announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Autumn Statement some four weeks ago which is to be spent over the next three years. This will allow for an expansion of the prison building programme to provide a further 3,000 places by 1992.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, questioned whether we should continue building. I think that there is no other alternative. It is much better to stop crime; but until that happens prison places need to be there.
A number of noble Lords asked specifically whether the money was being spent on new prisons or resuscitating old ones. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to this. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he wants old prisons closed. We cannot close old prisons until there is a satisfactory number of places available elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked how much money was being spent on rehabilitating old prisons. The sum of £24 million was spent on the repair and maintenance of existing buildings during the year 1987–88. That is quite a substantial amount. With regard to slopping out, it is anticipated that by 1995 some 75 per cent. of all prison places will have integral sanitation compared with only 43 per cent. in 1979. The new schemes for buildings include integral sanitation.

375
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to vacating old buildings. Our present need is to make use of every available space and we shall also refurbish those where that is possible. The building programme now provides for 28 prisons, of which eight have been opened and 20 more are in various stages of construction. Between 1980 and the mid-1990s we shall have provided about 25,000 new prison places.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to prisoners in hospital. During 1987–88 there were 39,607 prisoners admitted to prison hospitals, an average of 4,440 reported sick each day. On 31st March 1988, 116 prisoners were considered by medical officers to meet the criteria for detention in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1963. In 1983, 198 were so considered. In 1987–88, 8,006 prisoners attended NHS hospitals as out-patients and 1,964 were treated as in-patients.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the future of open prisons. They are a well established part of the prison system and play an important part. We are committed to their continuing use for suitable prisoners. He also asked how many prison officers there were. In 1979 to 1987 the number of uniformed officers increased by 22 per cent., the number of prisoners has increased by 15 per cent.; and 1,863 prison officers were recruited in 1987–88 and 2,500 will be recruited in 1988–89.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to Fresh Start. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his welcome for that. We are taking stock of it at present and the evaluation report which was provided earlier this year showed that Fresh Start was on the right tracks, but it also showed that regimes had held steady in 1987–88 with an efficiency gain of 12 per cent. When Fresh Start has settled in it should provide a stable basis for regimes.
I am deeply conscious of the fact that many of your Lordships have taken part in the debate, and I do not wish to overstay my welcome at this Box, even though there are a few more minutes left to me. Now that the prison management systems are in place, we can consider the shape and the purpose of tomorrow's prison system. It cannot be run on containment alone. If we rely on those concepts to the exclusion of others, then prisons become negative places in which to live and work. There is an alternative. There is the prison where activity which has a purpose is the norm, a prison in which the prisoner's days are taken up with work other than regime activities. That kind of establishment offers the best hope for security and rehabilitation.
Today your Lordships have expressed—as you have on many occasions—concern about the plight of our prisons and those who are contained within them. Many of your Lordships are deeply knowledgeable and anxious about them. I appreciate that. Even though I may not have been able to reply to all the questions which your Lordships have asked and the remarks which you have made, I shall see that they are considered with great care. If there are
376
matters to which I ought to reply—I am sure that there are many—I cannot guarantee to reply to them all, but I shall do my best to reply to some.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I shall try not to occupy the whole of the five minutes generously left to me. I said what now seems a very long time ago that this would not be a party debate, and that point has been borne out. We have had a fascinating and constructive debate with suggestions coming from all sides of the House; a debate enriched—to use Lord Soper's word—by an outstanding maiden speech and by two extremely interesting contributions from law Lords.
There is a great deal in the debate to be thought about and studied both by those who took part and by the Government. I cannot help ending with comparatively gloomy thoughts. First, from what the Minister said, slopping out will not be ended this century. Secondly, the fact remains that we send more prisoners to prison than any other European country in spite of all the training that we have heard about. Thirdly, although we are told about the extra places to be provided, the £922 million that the noble Earl referred to will still leave a gap in 1992 of over 3,000 on present estimates between the population and the approved prison places. There is still a great deal to be thought about. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Brent
8.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take as a result of the crisis in the London borough of Brent.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships may perhaps feel that moving from prisons to Brent is moving out of the frying pan into the fire. Nevertheless, I believe it is possible that the topics are not entirely unconnected. Any connection between crime and deprivation is very far from being a linear matter. It is not simple. Nevertheless, some connection possibly exists and money saved in local government might end up in the future as money spent on prisons.
I must express my regret to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in putting yet a further burden upon him at the end of the positively Stakhanovite output of legislation for which he was responsible in the Session that we have just completed. Nevertheless, I am very glad that he is answering the debate tonight. The noble Earl has made me think when I did not want to more times than anyone else on the Government Front Bench and I hope tonight that I just may be able to return the compliment.
I must also answer the question: why was this debate not conducted in another place? In many ways it might have been much better conducted there. I understand that it is entirely out of order for me to discuss the conduct of individual Members of another place. I confine myself to saying that they did

377
not raise the matter. As they did not, and as it raises a number of issues of general importance, I took the chance to do it here.
First, I should draw attention to how deep the cuts in Brent are—£17 million, attempted well into the financial year and therefore biting the more seriously. One of the local hospital doctors at the Central Middlesex Hospital has complained of the knock-on effect of this saving. It may not surprise your Lordships to learn that he is in geriatric medicine. He complains that he cannot discharge patients from hospital because the social services back-up no longer exists. That is a particularly clear case, but there are many others.
They have closed the only Braille unit in Brent. They nearly closed Crawford Home, which is a place for parents of children with special needs which allows someone to look after a child for a little while while parents have a break—very necessary for a great many people's sanity. That was saved after a long battle. Students at the Royal College of Music could have their grants cut off in mid course. More seriously, children at risk are unsupervised. The council has been forced to dismiss 233 teachers, a considerable number in one borough.
When a catastrophe—I choose that word advisedly—of this magnitude happens I believe that it is incumbent on all parties to do something a little more than sling mud, and to stop and think about why it has happened and what we can do to ensure that it does not happen again. Obviously the primary responsibility for that rests with the council. Obviously competence is not the prime characteristic of this council. I fear that it may disappoint some noble Lords a little to note that it is not the business of this House to conduct a discussion which ought more properly to be addressed to the electors of Brent. Therefore I shall not spend a great length of time dwelling upon the incompetence of the council.
I shall make one or two points merely to save the noble Earl the trouble of making them for me. There are examples of what one would classify as loony-Left behaviour: for example, libraries insisting on taking the Gay News instead of the Spectator. Before your Lordships misinterpret me, I should say that if it were the Gay News as well as the Spectator I should make no complaint provided that the purchase was within the budget. I believe that the council's recent decision to spend £31,000 a year on a salary for a new director of public relations is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.
The major inefficiency is the scandalous management of its housing revenue account, including in the past week such triumphs as paying large sums in housing benefit to landlords for tenants who had recently been evicted and rehoused by Brent council unbeknown to Brent council.
The issue of refuse, which the noble Earl and I have already discussed, is one on which I regret to tell him there has been no significant improvement. There has been a slight improvement in that we are almost back to the state of incompetence in which we were before.
The closure of all public lavatories in the London borough of Brent is causing considerable offence to
378
both the eyes and the noses of a good many local residents. I shall be extremely grateful if the noble Earl can tell me whether there is any statutory obligation of which the council is in breach in that respect. I have not found one but I should be surprised if there were not such an obligation.
There is also a considerable problem of trade union relations in the borough. I say that as a trade unionist who has spent a considerable part of this afternoon attending a union meeting. But when I find that in Brent the office responsible for dispensing student grants has decided that it is not willing to see anybody with any case, however urgent, before the afternoon I wonder whether unions are entirely concerned with helping to get the job done. There is a considerable problem in that area.
Those matters are, in the end, for the electors of Brent. I have mentioned them in order to indicate my awareness and to prevent the Minister from having to do so for me.
I should like the Minister to consider carefully and quietly whether in this matter there is any contributory negligence on the part of the Government. I should not necessarily insist that it would be a major part of the problem but if there is any it should be avoided for the future.
Clearly it is no coincidence that apart from Liverpool, the first council to reach this position is an incompetent council. I also wonder whether it is a coincidence that the first council to reach this position is an inner London council. Government limits on local authority spending are most precise and rigorous, and therefore I also wonder whether the Government have always given Brent the degree of predictability in budget which is necessary to stick so carefully within such exact limits.
I should like to cite an example of a case where the London borough of Brent has carried out a thoroughly good job—and there are not very many. It is the clearance after the great storm. It believed that it was likely to receive £750,000 under the Bellwin scheme. Noble Lords may be aware that dissatisfaction with the operation of the scheme is by no means confined to the London borough of Brent. As a result of a long series of technical reasons—with which I shall not bore your Lordships—it did not receive a penny.
It believed that it had arranged a deal for leasing hotels for placing the homeless. As a result of a government announcement whch came into effect at midnight the same night it lost £3·5 million which it had confidently and, I believe, reasonably budgeted that it would receive.
In the recently completed Rate Support Grant Bill it lost £8·8 million as a result of a retroactive decision for delay in submitting its accounts. Of course it should have submitted its accounts and it is absolutely typical of it not to have done so. I wonder whether the operation of that penalty makes the situation better. I also wonder whether the discharge of statutory obligations in local authorities in inner London is now entirely compatible with staying within their spending limits.
On one occasion I wrote an indignant letter to the local newspaper complaining about Brent's standards in disposing of rubbish and comparing them with the much higher standards achieved across the road in Camden. The next article that I read in the "Ham and High" said that Camden council had been censured by the district auditor for spending too many pence per mile on cleaning its streets. That really did give me to wonder.
That is not the only case. The problem of homelessness in inner London is one which your Lordships have previously discussed and one on which I know the noble Earl is conducting a review. The problem affects Camden as well as Brent. There are 21,000 homeless families in London—the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—of which 833 are in Brent. In that connection there is an open-ended legal obligation under which Brent must pay not only for the economic policies of Mrs. Thatcher but also for those of Mr. Haughey, over which it has no control.
There are many more such examples. The obligation to provide an adequate library service sits uneasily with the rapidly rising cost of books combined with government spending limits. However, the more important question is: where do we go from here?
On the last occasion the House discussed the subject the noble Earl said that we go to the 1990 election. That is fair enough. However, the question arises—and I hope that the noble Earl will consult his friends on Brent council about it—can any council, however frugal, having the present position of Brent's debts, combine discharge of its statutory obligations with keeping its legal spending limits? Among other items there are lease-back payments for an arrangement reached by the present council which will amount to £3.2 million in the present year and will rise. Inside the borough there is a general collapse of the habit of obedience. Whether an abrupt change of regime and policy will improve the situation in the near future I beg leave to doubt.
If we are to correct such matters it is important that we bring forward candidates for councils in considerable numbers and thereby have a choice. I can speak only for myself but I have considered the possibility that I might be asked to become a candidate for the council. It is not enough for me to say that I have two jobs and that I do not want three. If I were free I would not do it. The relevant point is not only whether it actually is the case that one cannot manage within the spending limits but whether I believe that that is the case—which I do. Believing that, I would find it rather harsh to let my name go forward and choose between being surcharged for overspending or censured for breach of my statutory obligations.
For example, I should like to ask the noble Earl to consult his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education about whether it will ever be possible to deliver the national curriculum in the London borough of Brent. At best I would feel, if I were a councillor within present local authority spending limits, that I was being asked to slog my
380
guts out to implement Conservative policy. I can think of a good many better reasons to slog my guts out.
I believe the noble Earl will tell us that the residents of Brent should be held accountable for their decisions; in other words, he will tell us that the borough should be punished because a minority of us voted Labour. Forty six per cent. voted Labour at the last election. So he might achieve all the effects he seeks by accountability through the very much simpler method of PR.
That doctrine of accountability creates problems. I accept that financial improvidence cannot be unduly encouraged. But why punish the children, particularly primary school children, many of whom were not born when these spending decisions were taken? I know of the text that the sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children. But does the Prime Minister have to play God with quite such relentless determination?
Why punish newcomers to the borough? They did not vote to put the present council in office. They did not even belong to the minority which voted to do so. Following a debate on prisons, I am entitled to say that even within the limits of accountability one should consider the possibility of remission for good conduct. There is improvement. I would not yet say that I can tell the noble Earl of good conduct. However, if in the future, possibly within a revised combination of parties, there were an administration which the noble Earl could recognise as financially responsible, I ask him to consider some sort of negotiation over the burden of back debt facing Brent which would allow a responsible administration to rule responsibly and would allow my next door neighbour to say, as he does, "This was once a respectable borough".
8.37 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, we must all he extremely grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this debate. He, probably more than any of us, knows the problems that prevail in the London borough of Brent; he lives there. My noble friend Lady Cox lives there, but unfortunately she is unable to be here this evening. Many, however, will be unaware of the enormity of the problem and of the fact that in a mere 15-minute drive from this great Palace of Westminster and this salubrious City of Westminster on a trafficless evening it is possible to arrive at a veritable island of poverty and despair. It is a place divided against itself by the profligacy and extravagance of a few people who were elected to run the borough of Brent but who have failed dismally in their duty to do so.
It has become a sort of mini-Berlin where the North Circular Road divides the more and less prosperous and those whose ancestors were born in England, many of them in the borough, and those whose ancestors came to the borough mostly from the new Commonwealth or Ireland. Of course, the place is also divided on political lines in a most acute and polarised fashion. There are those who believe in free enterprise, mainly living north of the North Circular Road, and those who believe in socialism,

381
including in particular those who believe in its most extreme tenets.
Very sadly for those who live there, like the noble Earl and others, Brent has become something of a music hall joke. It is referred to in the Evening Standard and the local press as the people's socialist republic or as Britain's barmiest borough. It is treated as something of a sad and wretched "Brigadoon". Little do people realise how close it is to the centre of our great capital city. However, it is no joke to those who live in the borough.
Many facts about the borough have been ably adumbrated by the noble Earl. However, I believe that it would be appropriate to mention a few others. One remembers how the terrible tragedy occurred in Brent of Jasmine Beckford and the disgraceful persecution of Maureen McGoldrick. Brent is a place where, of the majority ruling group of 41 councillors, 13 have jobs with other local authorities—jobs indeed for the boys and girls. Many others are in arrears of payments of their rates or council rent.
These days in Brent most council meetings are a travesty of democracy. Anyone who attends a meeting will find that there is intimidation of' the grossest and most deplorable type. At the last meeting on 9th November the police took 90 minutes to clear the gallery, blows having been struck and blood spilled on the floor. Physical assault and obscene verbal abuse are the rule rather than the exception at council meetings in Brent.
The whole edifice is kept going by the most imaginative of creative accounting; in particular the old device of the lease-back with the town hall, schools, libraries and homes sold or mortgaged and an enormous bill of interest having to be paid by the wretched ratepayer.
There are two problems above all. I shall call them schools and dustbins and refer to them later. First, I should like to mention a few other items which have been brought to my attention as the person who has the honour—and it is an honour—to represent the borough of Brent in its entirety in the European Parliament. Although it is not my duty to represent those local matters in Europe, nevertheless in my personal capacity in your Lordships' House I feel impelled to mention them this evening.
One has only to walk or drive round the borough these days to see what a parlous state things have come to. One finds a large number of street lights turned off at night and probably a similar number turned on during the day. If one telephones the town hall there is no answer. Because of redundancies or firings it became necessary recently to employ a new director of education. A front runner was a person whose main qualification was that he was a teacher of limbo dancing. Classes are given on the rates on the writing of graffiti. Also on the rates, a playwright was employed for £3,500 on a contract of six months.
Community relations are an extremely important part of Brent community care and should be handled with the greatest delicacy. Under this administration there has been a ham-handed and clumsy policy. There has been a tendency to move racial groups into separate categories, to provide privileges for some
382
and to put others down the scale. In its way that creates a form of apartheid which is extremely damaging to relations between the different ethnic groups with the risk, unless one is very careful, of friction. In that respect I have in mind public expenditure of £4,000 on a party given by the borough for an employee who had the good fortune—perhaps it is appropriate that I should mention this in your Lordships' House—to inherit a chieftainship in an African country.
The majority of people who live in Brent are also disturbed by the borough's policy of adoption or fostering of children by homosexuals and, as mentioned by the noble Earl, the encouragement of homosexuals to enter the teaching profession.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon but I do not think I said that.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. I think he mentioned Gay News in which there are many advertisements placed by the London Borough of Brent as there are in many of the ethnic newspapers, but not in the Murdoch press; not in The Times or The Sunday Times.
The noble Earl referred to libraries. These have become a great problem for people who used to consult them. The hours are being reduced more and more tightly, with many libraries being closed or about to be closed. The central library at Willesden Green is housed in Portakabins and is under threat. All that councillor Mick Woods can say is that libraries are not important because they are used only by the middle classes. I should like my noble friend Lord Caithness to say whether he believes that it would be appropriate at this stage, under Section 10 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act, to give power to the Secretary of State to take action regarding libraries in the borough of Brent.
More important to residents of Brent as a whole are the schools. A few years ago there was a campaign to recruit teachers to Brent. There had been an outflux of teachers because of allegations concerning the quality of teaching and exam performances. Great efforts were put into the recruitment of teachers. I am advised that each teacher recruited cost the ratepayer £30,000 in advertising and promotion. No sooner had most of those teachers been recruited than very many were let go at enormous cost to the ratepayers. I believe the noble Earl said the figure was 233. Out they went, many fired before they had even taken up their appointments.
The result is that there are now hardly any supply teachers in the borough. Teachers being more prone to colds and minor illnesses than most of us, in many schools classes have to be amalgamated and turned into little more than child-minding sessions. Of course, it goes without saying that there is no money available for such luxuries as mending the roofs, with the result that the water is dripping into many Brent schools.
It is of deep concern to many of us that refuse disposal and the whole health of the borough is now in jeopardy because of the reduction in the staff

383
dealing with refuse disposal and the considerable delays which are now imposed on those who wish to dispose of the contents of their dustbins or plastic bags full of refuse. One hears various estimates as to the average time it takes to get one's dustbin emptied. It has been suggested to me that for political reasons dustbins in the south of the borough are emptied more frequently than those in the north. It was fortunate for those who live in Preston to have their dustbins emptied on 16th October—the day before a local by-election!
One wonders how long that situation will be allowed to continue. Anyone who drives through Brent will be appalled at the mountains of plastic bags stacked up throughout the streets. Pictures have been published of bags piled up outside the town hall. Is this situation to continue until the summer? Perhaps the hazard to health is not so serious during the winter months, but will this be allowed to continue during May, June and July?
I do not believe that such a problem at Brent can easily be solved by the Government waving a magic wand, but we may get to the point where the public health of the residents of Brent. and beyond, is jeopardised, with rodents, pests and other hazards to health being let loose arising from the abundance of refuse in the streets and parks. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell the House whether be believes that it would be appropriate to take default action at this stage under the Control of Pollution Act or, if he does not think that stage has yet been reached, when it might be appropriate to invoke that Act to ensure that the health of the people in that part of London is not put at risk.
At this point I should mention that, while money does not seem to be available in the municipal exchequer for schools or for refuse disposal, there is money for the police committee, for the nuclear-free zone committee, for the women's committee and to promote homosexuality as a lifestyle equal to that of the married state. Therefore, I wonder whether the majority party in Brent has its priorities right. Has it considered whether these priorities on the spending of the municipality's money are in the interests of the people who voted the party into office in 1986?
I should like to pay special tribute to the staff of Brent council who have had a very difficult run. They have been tossed about like corks on a stormy sea of political in-fighting and racial tension. Many of the staff have been allowed to go after years, often decades, of faithful service to the borough, working well beyond their statutory hours. They have been fired because of these cuts, so-called, in recent months and unceremoniously had their services dispensed with. Those who remain are frequently accused of bias, both political and racial, and it is hardly surprising that the borough of Brent has such difficulty in obtaining good recruits and people to work for it in the council, as teachers, or in the care centres and the rest of the public services. I think it is extremely understandable, regrettable though it is, that recruits are not coming forward to work in this borough. Of course, it is the people who live in Brent who suffer the most.
384
The situation suits only one category of person —those who default on their payments of rents and rates. It suits the many people who have decided that there is no need for them to pay their rent and rates. They are having a free ride at the expense of the rest of the borough. That applies to many of those who have purchased keys to council flats in Brent through advertisements in local post-offices or in airline shops in Lagos.
They have been able to move into flat's and take up residence for the payment of a few hundred pounds because the borough appears to have taken no proper record of its council tenants and is unable to say from one day to the next whether the right person is living in a council flat, let alone whether that person has paid his rent or rates.
As to those who have suggested that the Government ought to move in and provide a great sum of money for the relief of Brent's sufferings, before the fairy godmother is invited to descend, wave her wand and bestow great largesse, surely the answer is first to collect the arrears in rent and rates. Brent might then be in a position to try to balance its budget. I have to advise my noble friend that it would be inappropriate at present for the Government to provide large sums of central government money to bail out this council for its extravagances just as it would be inappropriate for us to bail out a country like Poland, which the Prime Minister recently visited, for its extravagances and the mistakes of its political system.
I fully realise the sadness that this will impose upon those who live in Brent. I hope that my noble friend will be able to indicate some ways in which it can be mitigated on this side of the 1990 elections. I have the question of the health hazard at the front of my mind in particular.
In passing, I should mention that we have been able to obtain for Brent in the current year just over £250,000 through European Community funding out of the European social fund. I wish it could be more. This part of London, the north west, is considered to be a prosperous area in the community. It is one of the richer parts of the community. However, Brent in itself is an island of poverty so it is difficult for it to qualify for the kind of European Community aid that I should like it to get. I wish that I could do better.
I can only hope that wiser counsels will prevail in 1990. In the meantime I hope that my noble friend will indicate that he is able to give some help. In two years' time I pray that an administration and a majority group will appear that will embark on the long road towards reform and a proper balancing of the books, and will have the strength of Hercules in order to cleanse the Augean stables of the terrible mess created by the London Borough of Brent.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russsell, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethel!, have cloaked what they have said in a veneer of friendship for the people of Brent and have wrung their hands. I think that I have listened to the greatest demonstration of hypocrisy, of bile, of venom and of spite that I have heard in this House or in the other

385
place for many a long day. In respect of their protestations that they are really friends of the people of Brent, I assure the noble Earl and the noble Lord that, with friends like them, Brent and the people of Brent do not need enemies.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have been told that my professions of friendship for my next-door neighbours are a veneer. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, all that I have to go on is what the noble Earl said earlier. If he cares to withdraw what he said, of course I shall withdraw my impression of what he said. In the meantime, the record will speak for itself.
What we have heard from the noble Earl and from the noble Lord is a catalogue of problems on which they can speak with greater authority than I can because they live in the London Borough of Brent and I do not. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey and I can speak from a different perspective. We both happen to have been leaders of London local authorities in our time. Having been involved at the sharp end in attempting to manage local government, we are perhaps able to see things differently from the noble Earl and the noble Lord.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, what the noble Lord said just then is fair comment. I urge him to follow the advice of the noble Earl a moment ago and to withdraw what he said about a veneer of sympathy and about hypocrisy. Bearing in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, may disagree with the noble Earl and myself, I do not think that he should accuse us of speaking with insincerity. That is not correct.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on the basis that I have been requested twice to withdraw a charge of hypocrisy which has caused so much offence to the noble Earl and the noble Lord, of course I withdraw that unreservedly.
That makes it all the more sad because what the noble Earl and the noble Lord are demonstrating is that they genuinely believe that there are no political overtones in what they have said, that they are not motivated by any political advantage in future and that they are doing this solely for the purpose of trying to help the people of Brent.
The first words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, led me to wonder why on earth we are having the debate. He said that the debate should have taken place in another place. The noble Earl and the noble Lord have decided to use this opportunity, as they are entitled to. I welcome the opportunity that they are giving me to rebut some of the—as I consider them to be—scurrilous charges that they have made against the present leadership in the London Borough of Brent. I speak as president of the Association of London Authorities. I speak also as a resident of greater London for more than 35 years and at one time proud leader of the London Borough of Enfield. I could give a catalogue of matters that caused the people of Enfield great anguish by virtue of the
386
actions of the present council—different, but I could find groups of people who are incensed. I could go to Westminster, a Tory-led council, and find a lot of people who are angry about the disgraceful way in which the council has dealt with the issue of cemeteries. I could go to the London Borough of Merton, Conservative controlled, where only six months ago the idea of flogging off the town hall and other council properties was being considered to raise money as part of creative accounting. There is no borough in London that would not earn the title of "crisis".
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, have decided to highlight the crisis in the London Borough of Brent. There is a crisis in every London borough caused partly by virtue of what the noble Earl and the noble Lord have said—particularly the noble Earl, Lord Russell—about the actions of the Government. It is conveniently forgotten that they represent the two parties which between them controlled the activities of the London Borough of Brent until 1986. As the progenitors of the policies, how did those parties decide to face the electorate in 1986? They proceeded over a period of time to run down and run out the accumulated balances of the borough. They spent £39 million in election year and earlier years to keep down the rates. It does not need a genius to work out why they decided to do that in the pre-election year. Let us have the whole record. Let us have the basis on which the incoming Labour council faced enormous problems.
I cannot speak on the effect and consequences with as much authority as the noble Earl and the noble Lord. I am not here to defend what they would say are outrageous matters of management. However, I say this. The incoming council was faced with no reserves and a steady depletion over the years in the amount of money that was anticipated. The noble Earl referred earlier to the assumptions that were made about money for the homeless. In 1979 the basis on which the Government made money available to local authorities was changed dramatically. In 1978–79 the proportion of grant-aided local expenditure was 65 per cent. In 1988–89 it is down to 38 per cent. That is the enormity of the impact on the London Borough of Brent of the actions of the two parties represented in this House by the noble Lords. One party was ejected from office and the Government decided that this was the way to cut expenditure.
There have been problems. No mention was made by either of the two noble Lords of the efforts made by the Labour controlled council to take advice and guidance. They will know, although they did not mention it, that the council has sought the advice of the treasurers of Newcastle and Sheffield, two large metropolitan areas. I say with all candour that the present leadership of Brent council well-recognises that it is in trouble and has real problems, some of which were inherited and some of which have perhaps been created by their own endeavours to remedy the situation.
What did the treasurers report? This is a matter of public knowledge. First, they said that the leadership

387
of the council has grasped the nettle in regard to the problems. They said that the council has made tremendous progress in all areas of budgeting and budgetary control during the past year. No reference was made to that. The report also acknowledged that the council had little choice but to make reductions in the budget for the current year and has confirmed that the council has no hidden reserves. The report commended the action taken so far in terms of improved financial control and justified the leadership's proposals for planning for future years on a structured basis. The report clearly showed that the administration from 1983 to 1986—the administration of the parties of the two noble Lords—are in large measure responsible for the council's current financial problems.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh will expand on a number of these matters. We have heard what I can only describe as a grossly unfair Sun-type treatment of some of the problems. On a previous occasion I spoke in the House to defend local councils from a catalogue of newspaper stories such as Baa Baa Black Sheep. They were given currency but they were lies. I said then that they were lies. They were printed in the knowledge that they were not true and they were given currency. The noble Lord has sought tonight to give even more currency to such stories. I doubt very much whether there is a base to any such remarks. He will have an opportunity outside the House to give chapter and verse to the local people and also to the local press where I am certain he will be warmly welcomed.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I hesitate to ask the noble Lord again, but I should like him to confirm that what he is alleging is that I am mistaken. He is not alleging, I trust, that I am being deliberately deceitful or misleading.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Of course not, my Lords. I am saying that the noble Lord is retailing stories which appear in the press and which I allege have no or little foundation. It is easy to pick a phrase and then to categorise and to damn an activity of the council on that basis. When last I had an opportunity to investigate these matters, they were proven to be completely untrue. They could not be traced back to a person. They could not be traced back to an incident. They simply disappeared. I can see a shadow looming on my right.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I can confirm as an eye witness everything the noble Lord said about the rubbish save only the proposition that the council favours the south of the borough where I live. It does not.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I repeat that the actual problems are more in the knowledge of the noble Earl himself. I understand the point about the rubbish. I also take fully on board the points that were made about problems with the trade unions and workers. The reality has to be faced. There has been a traumatic revolution in relationships between the council and the workers
388
over the past period. There have been problems. They are being tackled and are in the process of being resolved. However, I do not think that either of the noble Lords has served the interests of the London Borough of Brent. I very much resent the slur which they have cast upon the integrity of the present council in its desire to get rid of what was left to it by the parties of the two noble Lords.
9.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this debate. I confess that when he put down his Unstarred Question a week or so ago I was not particularly grateful. I read the press as well. I read the kind of anguished protest which was the substance of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I read the kind of tabloid vituperation which was the substance of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I must confess that I was tempted to think that there was something in this. I made it my business to find out the true facts about the financial position of the council.
I am disappointed that neither noble Lord felt it appropriate to go into this matter or to look beyond the surface of what is happening in Brent. Therefore they did not really challenge the Government in the way that I thought they would. The Government and the Minister who is to reply to the debate face a challenge. Will the Government continue to allow the kind of abuse we have had of the London Borough of Brent? What will they do about it? If we are to hear at the end of the day, as I suspect we shall, that it is not appropriate for the Government to take direct action to put in commissioners, then I think that the Government should—as I said earlier in response to a Starred Question on a similar matter— put up, or shut up. We should not hear the kind of abuse that is going around about the London Borough of Brent, unless those responsible are prepared to do something about it.
Unlike my noble friend, I do not accuse noble Lords of a veneer of sympathy. I am sure that what they said was, in one case out of personal knowledge and, in another case, in a representational capacity—although a rather remote one. However, I do accuse them of a veneer of understanding. I do not think that they have even attempted to get to the essence of what the matter is all about. The issue of what is happening in the London Borough of Brent goes much further than Brent; it covers the whole range of problems of our inner cities and the whole range of problems of government policies towards local government throughout the country.
I am sorry to say that I have 15 points to put to your Lordships, but I shall try to put them as quickly as I possibly can. However, unless I put those points, I do not think that the record will be put straight about the Government and the London Borough of Brent.
The first point concerns rate support grant. Rate support grant was 65 per cent. of Brent's expenditure in 1979 and in 1988 it is 38 per cent. That is the context in which we are talking about the financing of

389
the London Borough of Brent. Further, as my noble friend Lord Graham said, up until May 1986 we had a Conservative-controlled council in the London Borough of Brent, maintained by Liberal support. We must look at the record of that council in order to understand the financial crisis in which the Labour council, when it won the election in 1986, found itself.
Point two: as my noble friend said, balances of £39 million were exhausted by the time the Conservative/ Liberal administration left office.
Point three: in 1985 it was already recognised that the staffing and recruitment in the finance department—which is responsible for many of the things which I am sure the noble Earl will be saying in response—was seriously defective. There were these real problems with the finance department, under the Conservative/Liberal administration, which account for many of the confused messages which have come out of the borough.
Point four: the Conservative/Liberal administration budgeted in its election budget— the Conservative election budget for 1986–87—for a rate support grant and GLC grant of £45 million. In the event, the actual rate support grant and GLC grant was £38 million. That was not because, as under 1988 legislation, the Government made up their mind later; it was because the Conservative/Liberal council got it wrong—and almost certainly chose to get it wrong in order to deceive the electorate about the true financial situation of the borough.
Point five: just before the 1986 election the Conservative/Liberal administration budgeted for interest on its balances of £1·5 million. In fact, because those balances had been used up, there was a £1·8 million interest payment on overdraft. That is more than a £3 million turnaround, which could have been identified if the Conservative/Liberal administration had been in any way financially responsible.
I turn now to the Labour council which was elected in 1986. We hear about extravagance. In point of fact, the overspending on the 1986–87 budget was the grotesque figure of 1·6 per cent. That is not what you would read in the public press, not what you would hear from the noble Lords opposite, from Members of another place, or councillors of the Conservative Party. It was 1·6 per cent. Virtually all of that overspending was caused by the additional needs for homelessness—which are a statutory obligation on London boroughs and which happened all over London—and by the fact that the Conservative/Liberal administration had run down the number of teachers to such a level that they were in danger of being accused of failing to meet their legal responsibilities in the provision of education.
Point seven: despite what your Lordships might gather from noble Lords who have spoken so far, the London Borough of Brent was not rate-capped in 1988. It was not considered that the expenditure of the London Borough of Brent was so excessive that the penalties of rate-capping should be imposed.
Point eight: noble Lords who know more about the detail of the borough than I do—I worked there for many years, but I do not live there—gave examples of
390
excessive expenditure. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was especially fond of this one. If I remind him that the total expenditure of the borough on race relations was £200,000, and that that expenditure was agreed by all parties on the council, perhaps that will put the matter into some perspective.
We are in danger of getting back to the sort of accusations which appeared in the tabloid press about blackboards not being able to be called blackboards. That is the kind of level to which I fear we nearly sank in this House and it is not worthy of us.
Point nine: this is another example of expenditure which caused a great deal of notoriety in the press and which confused me until I understood it. It was what Brent council calls the development programme for racial equality in the schools. Teachers with particular experience of racial problems were appointed to the schools. That was denounced as being a wicked Left-wing perversion. I read that the whole project is financed by the Home Office, and the accusation rather faded away.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. In the noble Lord's comprehensive defence of Brent council's race relations policy does he include the appointment of Mr. Kuba Assegai as a governor of a Brent school?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am unaware of Mr. Kuba Assegai. I shall not be drawn into that type of accusation. I am not issuing a blanket defence of Brent council's current policies, and I never claimed to do so. I am sorry that any noble Lord should believe it necessary to engage in blanket attacks on any council's policies.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to contribute again, but I believe that Mr. Kuba Assegai is no longer a governor of a Brent school.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am grateful for that intelligence and I am sure that the House will also be grateful.
Point 10: both noble Lords made considerable reference to the refuse and street cleaning problems. I agree that if one drives through Brent, as I have recently, one sees far too much refuse on the streets. As I understand it, there are far too many complaints about the inadequacy of home refuse collections.
The London Borough of Brent is one of the last councils to have broken away from the industrial relations policies with regard to street sweeping and refuse collection which were acceptable in the 1960s but are no longer acceptable in the 1980s. Collusion in failing to deal with that problem has been part of the policies of Labour, Conservative and Liberal-controlled administrations over the past 10 years or more. It is only the Labour-controlled council which has now grasped that nettle and has insisted that the Brent refuse and street sweeping departments should move themselves to a greater level of efficiency; has had an industrial dispute which went on for many months but which has now been settled; and is now proceeding to put its house in order.

391
The Tory/Liberal administration did not do that. It was necessary for it to be done and the borough's physical appearance is because the Labour-controlled council has not been as irresponsible as its Conservative and Liberal-controlled predecessors.
Point 11: I turn now to much more serious matters to which the noble Earl and the noble Lord should have referred; that is, the Government's policies in 1988. In April this year the housing benefit review took place. As a result of that review, Brent lost £4 million in housing benefit. I believe your Lordships will agree that is a not insubstantial amount.
Point 12: as a result of the Rate Support Grant Bill, to which, because it was a money Bill, your Lordships had to agree without a Division, and because it was the Labour-controlled Brent council which had been imposing cuts and living within its means, the Government cut £8·8 million from the finances of the London Borough of Brent.
I expect to hear protestations from the Minister about the late submission by the London Borough of Brent. I have read what Mr. Gummer said in another place. I only hope that the Minister will be able to convince the House that that is something unique to the wicked Left-wing borough. The debate that took place in another place and the debate which took place here in which my noble friend Lord Callaghan took part showed that it was Conservative-controlled authorities such as West Somerset and authorities without any overall political control, such as Cardiff, that were also deceived by the Government into thinking that they had more time to submit their accounts than they did and therefore fell foul of the Rate Support Grant Act which pulled down the curtain retrospectively at midnight on 6th July.
It is easy enough to pick out the London Borough of Brent, but let us be fair. Let us also pick out the boroughs which were trying to save money and grant by reducing their expenditure and failed to anticipate a retrospective deadline in the Rate Support Grant Act. It is not good enough to blame the London Borough of Brent alone.
Point 13: in another place Mr. Gummer referred to the benefit the borough would gain from the £9.4 million of what he called supplementary reports. It would be interesting to know what was meant by supplementary reports. I suspect that it was a slip of the tongue. His implication was that somehow the Government were giving the London Borough of Brent £9·4 million which it did not expect and which would benefit its finances. The fact of the matter is that that £9·4 million had already been budgeted for. It was in the accounts of the council and was not in any way the windfall that the Minister in another place claimed.
Point 14: Mr. Gummer also said that the expenditure of the borough was 11·5 per cent. above the needs assessment. A needs assessment is an arbitrary figure and a range of 10 to 15 per cent. above or below the needs assessment is not uncommon in local government. When we think of the problems of the people of the London Borough of Brent—and to be fair they were eloquently urged
392
both by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—we can see that a difference in judgment about the needs of the borough of approximately 11·5 per cent. is not too surprising. I suggest to your Lordships that the judgment of the council of the London Borough of Brent is rather better than the judgment of Marsham Street.
Finally we come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. That is the independent review conducted by Mr. Newman, the city treasurer of Sheffield and Mr. Wilcox, the city treasurer of Newcastle. They said, as my noble friend remarked, that the borough council was acting on the best financial information available to it and that it had grasped the nettle of financial responsibility. That has been enormously painful. Examples have been given of cuts in the services which no one, certainly not the councillors responsible for implementing them, can possibly be happy about.
However, in view of what I have said about the responsibility first of the Conservative and Liberal administration and secondly of the Conservative Government, can anybody say that the London Borough of Brent is the only body to be attacked in this way in your Lordships' House? I suggest that in his reply the Minister will have to do a good deal better than Ministers have done in another place, if he is to convince your Lordships that there is the kind of party political advantage which is sought from this debate in the subject matter and the facts which have been exposed.
9.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I do not think that there is any party political advantage to he sought. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising this very important matter. I am afraid I tend to disagree with what the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, have just said. I think much of the comment from all round the House and the tone of my speech are more in concern and sorrow rather than in anger or political point scoring.
First, let us be clear about one thing. In so far as there is a crisis in Brent, there can be no doubt on whose shoulders responsibility lies. It is not the Government who have consistently and wilfully mismanaged the affairs of Brent Borough Council over the past two and a half years. It is the council itself. Let me make it clear that it is the council that must take action to resolve the problems now faced by the people of Brent.
It is to the council that Parliament has given the duty of providing a wide range of important local services, and it is the council which must ensure that it is able to undertake those statutory duties. The council also has a wider obligation to the ratepayers of the borough to use their money wisely, economically and efficiently, and to account to them properly for its stewardship of that money. What can the councillors of Brent say to those householders who, despite paying a borough rate of nearly 249 pence in the pound this year (the second highest for an outer London borough and 38 per cent. above the

393
average), did not have their dustbins emptied for six weeks or so this autumn? Or to those parents with children in Brent schools who have been uncertain whether there would still be teachers there to take the classes by the end of term? Or top students who do not know whether they will be able to complete the courses they have begun?
I know that your Lordships will not misunderstand the point I am making. I am not criticising Brent for taking steps to cut its costs, to reduce its workforce, to organise its services more efficiently. These are themselves right and proper things to do. What I take issue with is the nature and timing of those actions. The present administration in Brent has had two and a half years, since it took office in May 1986, to bring about necessary changes in an orderly fashion. But for far too long councillors took refuge in a series of disreputable special financing deals rather than face up to reality and bring their budget properly under control. It was only when they could not ignore the need for change any longer that they began to take action. That action was the more drastic because it was so long delayed. It has left both the workforce and the public confused and antagonised.
What I am saying, therefore, is that the problems in Brent are problems not of money but of management. I must say that it is quite wrong to speak, as is so often the case, of government spending limits on Brent. There are no such limits. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, pointed out, Brent was not selected for rate limitation this year or next. The only limits on the rates it can raise to finance its services are the limits of what its long suffering ratepayers will put up with.
I must say to the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that Brent cannot claim to be disadvantaged by the grant system. Of course there are difficult and intractable social problems in parts of the borough, and these put their own pressures on the local authority's expenditure. But these pressures are fully recognised by the Government and taken into account not only through the urban programme but also in the block grant system. Brent's assessed need to spend (or GRE) is £684 per head, the third highest in outer London, after only Newham and Haringey. It is nearly half as much again as neighbouring Barnet's. And on our latest calculations Brent, despite its high spending, stands to receive some £74 million in block grant, 38 per cent. of its total expenditure compared with an average for England of 33 per cent.
For next year the picture is no less favourable. Under the proposed rate support grant settlement, on which we are now consulting, Brent would receive some £86 million in block grant, nearly £19 million more than this year, after allowing for the changed treatment of polytechnics. Its GRE would increase by nearly £18 million, or 10·7 per cent. compared with an average for England of 9·8 per cent. Moreover, we are offering the borough £375,000 in specific grant towards the cost of implementing the community charge.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, claimed that the Government had cut £8 million from Brent because
394
of the July statement. I think it is opportune that I should give a factual account of what happened. First I must correct something that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. Only two authorities failed to submit their RERs of 1989, that is their return of expenditure and rates, by 7th July. Those two authorities were Brent and Haringey.
The Rate Support Grant Act provides in general for the block grant for 1987 to 1988 to be calculated using revised estimates of total expenditure which should have been submitted to my department by 31st March 1988. We did not receive this form by the due date, and on 12th May Brent was reminded by telephone. Brent gave some information by telephone, and later promised to send the overdue form by the Whitsun weekend. No form was received. On 7th June, having been telephoned again, Brent said it hoped to send it by 17th June. After a number of further telephone calls, the council gave us some more figures orally for another year, but no form was forthcoming for 1987 to 1988.
On 21st June we wrote asking for the missing form to be returned as soon as possible. The form was finally received on 9th September, five months late and five months into the financial year to which it principally related.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the chronology which his right honourable friend Mr. Gummer gave in another place. I was aware of that. But does not the Minister recognise that the Rate Support Grant Act not only covered the current expenditure, but also past expenditure? The furious indignation that occurred in many local authorities throughout the country at the retrospective legislation which was put through this House earlier on this month came not only from Labour authorities, but also from Conservative authorities and those without any political control. So to restrict the accusation to Brent and Haringey, and to restrict it only to one year, is not telling the whole story.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was giving a perfectly factual account relating to the RER for the year 1987 to 1988. Under the rules in that Act we used information submitted by Brent earlier. It is clear to me that Brent was given every opportunity to reply and that its failure to do so before close down is its responsibility.
I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He made his concerns clear when the Bill was discussed by your Lordships, but as my noble friend Lord Hesketh explained at that time it was right that we introduced an orderly close down at an appropriate time.
We do not believe that the unfortunate situation in Brent has any repercussions for local government as a whole. It does not lead us to think that we have in some way got it wrong, either in aggregate levels of funding or in the share of total resources that Brent is now receiving. It does, however, confirm to us that the pressures for accountability that the community charge will bring can do nothing but good in bringing home to councillors their responsibilities and

395
encouraging them to improve their management of their authorities.
Brent cannot then claim to be uniquely hard up. The question is much more one of how it manages the resources it has. One thing is clear: the people of Brent do not see much value for money in the council's expenditure. That may have something to do with the fact that Brent employs 47·7 staff per thousand of population—nearly 13 per cent. above the average for outer London boroughs.
Let me turn at this point to some of the more specific issues which have been raised. I shall deal first with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell concerning homelessness and the question of whether Brent is adequately resourced to carry out its duties in that area. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also touched on that issue. The alleviation of homelessness is one of the most important housing functions funded by local authorities from the rate fund, and I must assure the House that the Government share the concern about the rising cost and numbers of households in temporary accommodation. I remind your Lordships that we have, since last December, allocated £74 million of additional resources to those authorities with the most acute homelessness pressures. Brent Borough Council has received over £3 million in additional allocations for 1988–89 and 1989–90.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the Government regard the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless families as a last resort. It was never intended that councils should be able to dress up the letting of hotel rooms as leases and so qualify for Exchequer subsidy.
Nevertheless, I agree with my noble friend Lord Bethell that the answer does not lie in simply throwing money at the problem. In any event, it is difficult to justify local authorities' claims for more funds when last year rent arrears of almost £200 million were outstanding and over 100,000 council dwellings are now standing empty. Brent informs us that its rent arrears stand at nearly £17 million. If that figure is to be believed it represents nearly 96 per cent. of the annual rent roll. Sadly, the authority appears moreover to have virtually lost control of who occupies its housing. Unauthorised sub-letting appears to be rife in places. Improved management is the key to bringing those problems under control, and the council should take urgent and positive action to tackle them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Earl give way? I am grateful to him for doing so. Will he agree that there is probably not a borough in the whole of England in which some council properties are not occupied by people who are not those whom the council understands to be the tenants? For example, when the issue became current it was acknowledged by the housing officials in the London Borough of Enfield that it was more than likely that that problem existed in the borough. The problem also exists in the London boroughs of Barnet and Croydon and elsewhere. Will the Minister
396
recognise that it is not a Brent problem but one of housing shortage throughout the country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the point on which I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is that there is a housing shortage problem throughout the country. That is not the case. There are areas of housing shortage. In some areas the problem is quite significant. Overall there probably are enough houses, but as the noble Lord is fully aware the trouble is that we have a lot of houses in the wrong places serving the wrong people. That is why there are shortages in certain areas.
I seek to bring out one point. It relates to other London boroughs also. I know that action is being taken and indeed that is something I seek to encourage. I also suggest that the London borough should tackle the backlog of repairs to bring its empty stock into use, thus releasing additional dwellings for the homeless.
We are of course considering these matters as part of the review on homelessness legislation. But I would remind your Lordships that in the Autumn Statement substantial extra resources, totalling £441 million, were announced for next year. Action now must lie with the local authorities themselves.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister just one question. He has given the House a nice, global figure by which the grants to local authorities are increased. There are certain local authorities obviously having difficulties. Is it not possible—I put it no higher—that the distribution of those grants is defective? Is the Minister not prepared to accept that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that of course the annual distribution of the grant is carefully assessed every year. There is the needs assessment and there are opportunities for representations to be made when it comes to allocating the resources that are made available.
In helping the council to tackle the problems on its worst estates, the Government have approved over £3·8 million expenditure on estate action projects in 1986–87 and 1987–88. Over £1 million has been, or is likely to be, approved for the current year, and an application for £1·6 million for 1989–90 has been received and is being considered. This is additional expenditure over and above that provided in the council's housing investment programme allocation and it will qualify for housing subsidy to the extent that the costs are admissible. The projects include concierges for blocks on the South Kilburn, Stonebridge and Chalkhill estates and other measures to improve tenants' security and to introduce local management. We regard action of this sort to be most important if conditions on such problem estates are to be improved. Such initiatives can count on a ready response from the Government, subject, as always, to competing claims for finite resources.

397
I turn to the question of storm damage raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He suggested that Brent had not received any government assistance with the costs of clearing up to which it was entitled. I have to say to the noble Earl that this again illustrates some of the present weaknesses in Brent's handling of its affairs.
The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies lies with local authorities, but we recognise that in exceptional cases it is appropriate for the Government to offer financial assistance when the burden on local ratepayers would otherwise be excessive. On 21st October we announced accordingly a scheme of special financial assistance in respect of emergency works arising from the storm and completed before 1st March 1988.
Ninety-one authorities, including 12 London boroughs, have submitted claims under this scheme. The total amount of grant due on these claims is about £23 million, of which about £21 million has been paid out. The London boroughs which have claimed stand to receive some £3·8 million. Brent, however, although it has corresponded with us about the time limit on the eligibility of works, has so far submitted no claim. I cannot say how much it might stand to receive were it to do so. We will certainly consider any application it submits. Let me stress that the deadline for the submission of final audited claims is 31st December; so time is now quite tight. It is for the council to decide whether or not it wishes to claim.
Brent is one of the 13 boroughs in London, and 57 in England, which benefit from additional financial support through the urban programme. This year, the citizens of Brent are benefiting from an additional £3·75 million of economic, environmental and social schemes aimed at reducing inner city deprivation. Government grant is available to meet 75 per cent. of the cost. However, the council is failing to secure the full benefit for the Brent ratepayer, again because of its inefficiency.
In normal circumstances, my department makes advances during the year, against which audited claims must be made by the borough. Brent has submitted no such claims since 1984 and audited claims for £6·6 million of advances are outstanding. In these circumstances, my department had no choice but to discontinue making advances in 1987–88. As a result, the ratepayers of Brent have had to bear the full burden of a further £6·5 million of expenditure. Three-quarters of the burden could be avoided if only Brent were to put its house in order and submit the necessary claims.
Finally, on the question of refuse collection and street cleaning, I can say this to my noble friend Lord Bethell. I too have been disturbed to hear recently that these services are still seriously disrupted in some parts of the borough. I can assure the House that if, after seeking independent advice on the public health aspects of this problem, my right honourable friend
398
the Secretary of State were satisfied both that there was a health hazard and that the council have explored all possible means of satisfying the problem, he would take action under Section 97 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. We are of course keeping the situation under very careful review.
The situation that I have described is one of a local authority with an admittedly difficult job to do, but with adequate resources to do the job, that has run itself into considerable problems simply by its failure, first, to act promptly and thereafter by its failure to act sensibly. It is clear that these difficulties cannot be solved by throwing more money at them because they arise from the style of management—or lack of it—exercised by the council. It is less easy to see what the root causes of this management weakness are. I believe however that they have much to do with a lack of seriousness—an approach on the part of councillors which places political game-playing before the serious business of running the complicated undertaking that is a modern local authority.
This approach probably has much to do also with the breakdown in trust and partnership between councillors and officers that sometimes appears to have taken place in Brent over the past several months. But I should like to pay tribute here to the very many sensible people who are coping with the situation in Brent, both ordinary citizens and officers of the council, struggling to get on with their jobs in the most difficult circumstances.
It is to the council, then, that we must look first and foremost to put its house in order. Its weaknesses are of the kind that only it itself can remedy. However, let me give this assurance. We in government will offer what advice and guidance we can; but simply to try to buy a solution with taxpayers' money would not address the central problem at all. Of course we view what has been happening in Brent in recent months with grave concern; and of course we shall, if necessary, take appropriate action at once if a threat to public health or safety arises which demands such intervention. But I sincerely hope that it will not come to that, and that the councillors of Brent will respond to the serious obligations that have been placed upon them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, in view of the respect that I have for him personally, I hope he will accept from me that I do not hold him personally responsible for the appalling complacency of the answer that he has felt it necessary to give.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that I gave the House no hint of any complacency whatsoever. I tried to put a factual account in .a serious and considered manner before your Lordships.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before ten o'clock.

  SUBMARINES: COLLISIONS WITH SURFACE VESSELS
  SUBMARINES: COLLISIONS WITH SURFACE VESSELS
  SUBMARINES: CRUISING DEPTH
  SUBMARINES: CRUISING DEPTH
  BODILY SAMPLES: USE IN SCOTTISH COURT CASES
  BODILY SAMPLES: USE IN SCOTTISH COURT CASES
  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPALOPATHY
  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPALOPATHY