Sitting of 1 March 1989

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

    Business Premises (Valuations)
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to make a statement on the progress being made by the Scottish assessors in their talks with the Inland Revenue valuers about harmonisation of valuation practices for business premises.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Good progress is being made in the discussions between the Scottish Assessors Association and the Inland Revenue valuation office on harmonisation of valuation practice. These discussions are expected to result in significant progress towards harmonisation for the vast majority of subjects in 1990.
    Mr. Worthington: That is the sort of waffle that we have had for months on end when we ought to have a statement about the progress being made. Does the Minister agree that there will be a widening difference in business rates between Scotland and northern England after 1990 and that we shall continue to have a situation in which a marina at Largs pays five times as much as a similar marina in Hampshire? Does the Minister agree that the uniform business rate for Great Britain, which includes Scotland, will not be implemented until 1996 or after?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman calls it waffle because he does not like the fact that we are making progress on this. The Labour party contributed to the situation through high local government spending and when the Labour Government were in office they did nothing to put it right. We are making progress step by step. I have already said that a large measure of harmonisation will be introduced in 1990. Further progress will be achieved thereafter and we expect to achieve close harmony within a short time.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Can my hon. Friend offer any comfort to those with business premises, including farmers, food processors and other small businesses in relation to water charges in the coming financial year? Is he aware that in Grampian the charges are increasing by nearly 100 per cent. and are a heavy burden on industry in the area?
    Mr. Lang: As my right hon. Friend knows, these are matters for the regional councils, which have decided on the formula to apply. We have sought to ensure that the
    260
    cost of water is borne more directly by users in relation to the cost of its delivery. That has meant substantial savings to many small businesses around the country.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister now able to make a positive response to the recent representations that he received from the Chemical Industries Association about industrial valuations?
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, most of the plants are valued on the contractor's principle. As a result of an appeal, the decapitalisation rate has been reduced for many such subjects. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have taken powers to prescribe a common decapitalisation rate if they so wish. If that is done, it will also be an advantage to the chemical industry.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of indexation, the business rates for the coming year will be substantially less than they would have been in normal circumstances, bearing in mind that local authorities have increased expenditure by vast amounts—perhaps up to 30 per cent.—which would have made business rates exorbitantly high this year?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The average increase in spending planned by regional councils is 14 per cent. for next year and it is much higher for district councils. We have given the business community the protection that it needs from the depredations of high-spending local authorities. It would have been a considerable advantage if it had had that protection over the past five or six years.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. McTaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has had concerning persons with Alzheimer's disease paying the poll tax.
    Mr. Lang: I have received a number of representations about this issue, including a letter from the director of Alzheimer's Scotland.
    Mr. McTaggart: I note what the Minister says, but does he agree that people suffering from Alzheimer's disease who wish to rebuild their lives in the community should be given every encouragement to do so? The additional pressure to find extra money to pay the poll tax from their already meagre and stretched resources will mean that many of them will end up returning in desperation to the hospitals that they recently left. Would it not be a small price to pay for that already vulnerable group to be exempt from this immoral and unfair tax?
    Mr. Lang: Because of the gradual onset of the disease, many people suffering from degenerative disorders seek to play a full part in the community, which includes contributing to the cost of local government. If they are entitled to a rebate on financial grounds, they will be eligible to claim that rebate and I expect that many of them will do so.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Minister defends his decision not to grant exemption on the ground that there are difficult medical choices to make, is he aware that there

    261
    are two principal benefits for which medical and clinical judgments are the only criteria? I refer to mobility and attendance allowance. If such criteria are good enough there, why cannot the Minister show at least some compassion for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease?
    Mr. Lang: I have great compassion for people suffering from that disease. That is why I do not seek to make political capital out of it. The disease has a gradual onset, leading to a progressive decline in all aspects of mental functioning. The difficulty is one of diagnosis to establish precisely at which point any exemption should be made. During their last five years in office, the Labour Government made no attempt to exempt people in that condition from domestic rates.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that many people such as those in the Alzheimer's Disease Society regard it as offensive that an arbitrary distinction is being made between patients who, in practical terms, present the same level of disability, some of whom are being excluded simply because in their case the root cause is Alzheimer's disease? If the Minister is arguing, as I understand that he is, that general practitioners cannot be expected to assess the degree of impairment in patients with Alzheimer's disease, will he at least consult general practitioners or their representatives before slamming and locking the door in such an inhuman way?
    Mr. Lang: Our attitude is not just to Alzheimer's disease but to all degenerative brain disorders of that kind. We have given careful consideration to representations from several sources, including medical interests. The balance of medical advice that we have received is that it is impossible to establish a method of assessing precisely at which point an exemption could be granted without creating more anomalies than would be removed.

    COSLA
    Mr. Andrew WelshTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the president of the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities; and what matters he intends to discuss.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I hope next to meet representatives of COSLA on Friday 28 April, to start consultations on the revenue support grant settlement for 1990–91.
    Mr. Welsh: Given that today is the tenth anniversary of the referendum on devolution, will the Minister, through COSLA, organise a genuine referendum giving people a choice between the status quo, devolution, or independence within Europe? Why is he afraid to offer the Scottish people any real choice in their constitutional future?
    Mr. Rifkind: One thing that COSLA has not wished to discuss with me or with my hon. Friend the Minister of State at any previous meeting has been the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Robertson: When the Secretary of State next meets the president of COSLA, will he ask Councillor Milligan about the recent trip to Brussels and the European Community institutions and what was the reaction to the idea of an independent Scotland? Is he aware that the temporary attractiveness of that deluded scenario has been caused only by the Government damaging the real needs
    262
    of Scotland and that credence for that pantomime will continue only if the Government continue their high-handed indifference to the real needs of the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am indifferent to the second, and I disagree with the third.
    Mr. John Marshall: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets representatives of COSLA, will he talk to them about the benefits of competitive tendering in local government services? Will he remind them that that process offers the opportunity to provide better local government services at less cost to the community charge payer, and that it is an opportunity that they should grasp firmly?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The whole point of competitive tendering, whether in local authorities or in the National Health Service, is that it enables the same quality of service to be provided to the public and releases resources for other services. I believe that that is why people are increasingly seeing the validity of that approach.
    Mr. Maxton: When the Secretary of State meets the president of COSLA, will he explain why he has failed to ensure a debate in the House on the order that he laid some weeks ago about exemptions from poll tax, or is he afraid to allow us to discuss it in view of his uncaring and unfeeling attitude to people suffering from Alzheimer's disease?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, debates in this House are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and for the usual channels to discuss.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman is unwilling to accept this, but the Government's position on Alzheimer's disease is based on the medical advice that we have received. Had the medical advice been that it would be a straightforward matter to create a specific exemption, as the Opposition have suggested, we should not have been insensitive to such an approach.

    Forestry (Conservation)
    Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many conservation projects are currently being promoted by the Forestry Commission.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The Forestry Commission is currently promoting more than 170 major conservation projects on its own land. In addition, each of the 65 forest districts has a conservation plan which tyically indentifies a wide range of sites where smaller conservation projects are in hand.
    Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Forestry Commission plays a vital role in the conservation of our wildlife and should be wholeheartedly encouraged in that role?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. He may be interested to know that projects which the Forestry Commission is currently supporting include regenerating native pine woods,

    263
    constructing ponds, erecting bat boxes, managing rides for butterflies, creating clearings for lizards, planting broad-leaves for diversification and even building homes for otters.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If a mere commoner may be allowed to interpose himself in this somewhat aristocratic exchange, may I ask the Minister to give the House a categorical assurance that the Government have no plans to privatise the Forestry Commission during this Parliament?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government have no plans to privatise the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Forestry Commission owns large tracts of land in my constituency, much of which is in an area constantly eyed by property developers who seem to have cash registers in place of eyes? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in future when the Forestry Commission is approached directly by property developers seeking to buy land he will instruct the Forestry Commission to make the relevant local authority aware of the approach and give it the opportunity to acquire the land in the first instance?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Sales of Forestry Commission land are governed by guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State in a letter to the chairman of the Forestry Commission on 28 May 1981. That letter was published in the Forestry Commission annual report, which is available in the Library. Planting must be carried out in an environmentally sensitive way. Contentious planning cases are ultimately referred to Ministers for decision.

    Scottish Assembly
    Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to introduce a Bill to create a Scottish assembly.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government believe that the present constitutional arrangements provide for Scotland's interests to be fully respected and recognised. The Government therefore have no plans to introduce legislation to create a Scottish assembly.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government cannot continue to introduce legislation which is plainly contrary to the wishes of the people of Scotland and that if he replies by saying that Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom he will be inviting dissolution?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, but he sits in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in which there is a majority in support of the Government elected by the electorate of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Secretary of State recall his excellent speech in the House in December 1976 in support of a Scottish assembly? What facts in that speech have altered since then?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have always believed that any system of devolution or decentralised Government which does not apply throughout Great Britain is bound to weaken rather than strengthen the Union. What has changed in the past 10 years is that I and many others allowed ourselves to believe that there was an irresistible demand from the
    264
    people of Scotland for a devolved system of government whereas the referendum showed that the people of Scotland were as divided on the issue as the House of Commons is and always has been.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the long-standing farce surrounding the so-called "constitutional convention" has been a joy and a delight to all those who like a good free laugh on a continuing basis? Does he further agree that those shenanigans have shown merely—and overwhelmingly— that there is no consensus against the Government on constitutional reform?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. We had always assumed that the so-called "constitutional convention" would end in tears, but we never expected that it would begin in tears.
    Mr. Canavan: Given that in the referendum 10 years ago the proposals for a Scottish assembly were supported by a majority of those who voted—including, we are led to believe, the Secretary of State himself—what has happened since then to buy him off?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will recall that two thirds of the people in Scotland did not vote in favour of the Scotland Bill. I recall saying in public on the day after the referendum that I believed that there was not sufficient support in Scotland for devolution, given that two thirds of the people of Scotland had either voted against or abstained. That was my view the day after the referendum and it has remained my view ever since.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware that what has changed in the past 10 years has been the Scottish people's 10-year experience of what "unionism" really means and of what the price of unionism really is? May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the legal definition of Scotland independent within Europe that he gave in 1984 and refer him for legal reading to the 1978 Geneva convention on the succession of "states"—in the plural?
    Mr. Rifkind: What has changed in the past 10 years is that the hon. Gentleman has moved from his second party to his third. The hon. Gentleman chose to refer to my remarks about Greenland's status some years ago. I am somewhat astonished at the comfort that the hon. Gentleman takes from that incident as on that occasion Greenland was involved in three years of difficult negotiations with the Community, and the end result was not independence in Europe but independence outside Europe. If that is of comfort to the hon. Gentleman, it shows that he is easily satisfied.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given the confusion between the Socialists in the Labour party and the Scottish National party on this issue, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that only the Conservative and Unionist party offers the people of Scotland a sensible and coherent policy and delivers the results?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct but it is not only the Conservative party that describes itself as "unionist". The Labour party, the Democrats and the Social Democrats are all unionist parties. The nationalist party is

    265
    outside the Scottish consensus, which overwhelmingly believes that Scotland's interests are best served by full participation within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dewar: May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his concern and assure him that my cheeks, at least, are not tear-stained?
    Mr. Rifkind: I bet they are not.
    Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that dinners have been arranged in London and Edinburgh to celebrate—if that is the right word—the fact that 10 years ago, despite a majority "yes" vote, the Scotland Bill was not implemented. May I congratulate him on not attending those functions, which is a welcome sign of grace on his part?
    If it were established beyond reasonable doubt that public opinion in Scotland wanted a constitutional change and that there was an irresistible demand for that, is not ministerial opposition now so entrenched that, irrespective of what Scotland says, there would be no move towards an assembly so long as the present Government have an overall majority in the House?
    Mr. Rifkind: I believe strongly that if those who are unionists, like the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, want constitutional change in the United Kingdom, that matter is of common interest to all parts of the United Kingdom. Such a decision cannot simply be based on a diktat from any one part of the kingdom, be it England, Scotland or Wales—[Interruption.] I am sure that there are no tears on the hon. Gentleman's face as a result of the ending of the prospects for an all-party constitutional convention. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman could barely suppress his delight at that outcome.
    The hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that I shall not be attending tonight's dinners in London and Edinburgh, the main reason being that I have not been invited.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that throughout the United Kingdom—in the regions of England, in Wales and in Scotland—there is no demand for an additional tier of government? In fact the move is towards single-tier local government rather than regional government. It would be a disgrace if we spent even more money on even more levels of government which would end up being subsidised by the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rifkind: Although some interest in constitutional change is evident in certain parts of the United Kingdom, my hon. Friend is right that it is impossible to point to any strength of opinion which would justify the constitutional upheaval implied by the proposals.

    Scottish TUC
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss employment prospects in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am due to meet the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and a number of his colleagues on 13 March.
    Mr. Eadie: When Scottish Labour Members met the Secretary of State this morning to discuss the coal-burn
    266
    dispute and the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made optimistic noises suggesting that the matter was likely to be resolved in the boardrooms rather than in the courts. As he is aware, the STUC is taking a lead in the issue because up to 6,000 jobs in Scotland could be lost if the deep-mining part of the coal industry were obliterated.
    Is there any significance in the fact that the Secretary of State is meeting the STUC on 14 March, which is Budget day? Is there any significance in that? Shall we then hear an announcement of more employment prospects for the Scottish people?
    Mr. Rifkind: There is no significance in the date, as it is on 13 March and not 14 March that I am meeting the STUC. The meeting is taking place at the request of Mr. Campbell Christie, general secretary of the STUC, and I look forward with interest to hearing the points that he wishes to raise.
    Mr. Hind: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the general secretary of the STUC, will he point out that 16 major Japanese firms now in Scotland plan to create 2,500 jobs there? It was interesting to note that in the last quarter of 1988 4,160 new jobs were planned by a large number of firms in Scotland. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the general secretary that the reason for those jobs being planned is that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and a member state of the EEC, and that any withdrawal from the United Kingdom would put the jobs in danger?
    Mr. Rifkind: There is no doubt that Scotland is seen as a prime location for inward investment by both the United States and Japan, and that that choice has been made because of the market that is available throughout the European Community for products manufactured in Scotland. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I should point out to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who is shouting at me—which in any case is unmannerly—that he reserves the right to be called at Defence Question Time and on other questions as well.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: When the Secretary of State meets the general secretary of the STUC, will he discuss his concept of—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House is interested in Scotland.
    Mr. Douglas: This is a farce.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself, please?
    Mr. Douglas: It is a farce, and you know it.
    Mr. Hind: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. It is bad manners of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) to insult Conservative Members such as myself who are interested in Scotland and take the trouble to attend Scottish Question Time.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has been insulted; if anyone has been insulted it is me.
    Mr. Hogg: I think that I have forgotten my question—[Laughter.] When the Secretary of State meets the

    267
    general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress will he try to explain his concept of competition by comparison with the electricity supply industry? Does he believe that that council is likely to agree with me that that is as daft a concept as an independent Scotland in Europe?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am rather sorry that the hon. Gentleman remembered his question. It is clearly desirable in any system of near monopoly that the industry in question should he exposed to comparisons, which enable the consumer and the regulator in the public interest to be satisfied that either the tariffs being levied or other practices of the industry are fair and acceptable in the circumstances.

    CBI
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am in frequent touch with the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland on a range of matters affecting the Scottish economy. I look forward to a continuing exchange of views.
    Mr. King: I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the state of the Scottish economy is such that, in the past two years, there has been a 84,000 reduction in unemployment and that, in the past 10 years, the rate of productivity in the Scottish economy has been the highest of seven major OECD countries? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although it is pleasant for the Scottish people to bask in some kind of Socialist ideals, it is great to have the strength of Tory economics behind them?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is so. It is interesting that the CBI's latest survey shows that business optimism in Scotland remains firm although it has diminished elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is a mark of the growing strength of the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: The CBI may talk about business optimism, but will the Secretary of State discuss with it its attitude and his attitude to Shell's proposal to construct a pipeline from Grangemouth to the midlands of England to export the ethylene manufactured at Mossmorran? If Scottish jobs go down that pipeline are we not entitled to expect that the first Scottish job to go should be the Secretary of State's?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful observation. As I understand it, there is a pipeline from Grangemouth to England already and the proposal is for a second pipeline. That proposal will involve a planning application and therefore it will be for the planning authorities to consider the merits of it.
    Mr. Graham: When will the Secretary of State discuss with the CBI how many jobs it thinks will be lost as a result of the declared redundancies at the Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory? When will the Secretary of State offer a genuine lifeline to those folk who are desperate to work and who have sent letters to him asking for work? Will he ask the CBI to find out how many jobs will be lost as a spin-off from those redundancies?
    Mr. Rifkind: We all share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the loss of jobs in Bishopton. The Scottish Office stands ready to make available the normal support in an area of high unemployment to assist those who wish to create new employment or to seek alternative employment in that locality.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Has my right hon. and learned Friend discussed with the Scottish CBI what would happen were there ever to be another Labour Government who implemented their alternative to rates—that is, a property tax and a local income tax—and how damaging that would be to Scottish industry?
    Mr. Rifkind: Only the Labour party would propose to replace domestic rates, which is one unpopular tax, with two unpopular taxes.
    Mr. McLeish: Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr. Bill Hughes, chairman of the CBI in Scotland and one of the Government's industrial advisers, who said at a recent meeting of Conservative students in Edinburgh that the Scottish Development Agency had failed to do anything about Scottish business?
    Mr. Rifkind: During the past few years I believe that the SDA has made an important contribution to the Scottish economy and I believe that it has a continuing role to play in line with the Government's proposals in the recent White Paper.

    Scottish Firms (Contracts)
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish firms have gained contracts from (a) the Channel tunnel project and (b) recent Scottish public works contracts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: Twenty Scottish companies have so far been successful in gaining contracts worth about £65 million from Translink, the contracting consortium for the Channel tunnel. Information is not held centrally on Scottish public sector contracts.
    Mr. Brown: I understand from members of the Neath and Edinburgh chambers of commerce—august members of the capitalist system—that, in the main, Scottish contractors have been ignored for both the main and the smaller contracts. Is that not a disgrace? I say that not because I am anti-English but because clearly Scottish jobs are involved. If the tunnel is to mean anything, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the contracts should have been made available to Scottish contractors on a competitive basis? There has been discrimination in this matter and the Scots people have a right to be annoyed. Once the tunnel is completed it will have a hoover effect on enterprise, business and companies. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only Scottish companies but companies in the north of England will suffer?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman must have framed his supplementary question before he heard my answer, in which I told him that 20 Scottish companies have so far been succesful and secured contracts to the value of £65 million. That is a higher proportion of companies than from any other part of the United Kingdom. Howdens, for example, gained the contract for the four boring machines and, as a result of that, has gained another contract for

    269
    tunnelling machines in Denmark. As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on the capitalist private sector, I must point out that the Channel tunnel is being built and funded by the private sector.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is it not to the credit of Scottish enterprise that so many contracts have been gained— [Interruption] Is it not to the credit of Scottish enterprise that it has won these contracts, which will be of enormous benefit to the Scottish economy in the short-term? Will the Minister also consider the longer-term benefits? Does he agree that it is essential that we have the best possible transport links, in particular rail links, between Scotland and the Channel tunnel? Will he put pressure on British Rail to continue the electrification of the east coast line beyond Edinburgh to Dundee and Aberdeen?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole of Scotland benefits from the contracts. The north of Scotland benefits in the form of Brown and Roots Survey and R. B. Farquhar Ltd., PSS Ltd., Racal Survey UK Ltd., and others. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of rail transport. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I had a meeting with the chairman of British Rail and I have also had meetings with the general manager of ScotRail to underline that important point.

    Civil Service (Dispersal)
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the progress made since 1979 in transferring Civil Service posts from London and the south-east to Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: Since 1979, 1,930 Civil Service jobs have been relocated from the south-east to Scotland, which represents 35 per cent. of the jobs moved. Six weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that a further 430 jobs would be relocated to Glasgow.
    Mr. Ingram: At least the Secretary of State appears to support the idea of moving Civil Service jobs to Scotland, unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) who said that London can keep its civil servants. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the past 10 years, less than 6 per cent. of jobs above executive officer level have been located outwith London? Does he agree that one way to redress the imbalance between the south-east and Scotland would be to move 600 policy posts out of the 700 posts in the Overseas Development Administration in London to the administration offices in East Kilbride?
    Mr. Rifkind: Specific proposals are obviously a matter for the individual Departments concerned. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that more than 34,000 posts in various Government Departments are being reviewed for location or relocation away from the south-east. Clearly, Scotland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom, hopes to obtain a proportion of those posts. I believe strongly that jobs that do not need to be in the centre of London should be moved outside it. Scotland, particularly East Kilbride, is an attractive and suitable place in which to establish a new post.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State for Scotland gives us the impression that he favours a regional
    270
    policy. Does he agree with the recent speech at Chatham house by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that there was no place for regional policy, either in the European Community or domestically?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am not aware of the Chancellor having made such a remark. The Government have a regional policy and intend to continue having one.

    Child Care
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with outside bodies and their representatives since June 1987 on child care provision in the public and private sectors.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Scottish Office officials have undertaken extensive consultations with external interests on a wide range of issues relating to the provision of services for children, including child care law and measures to protect children from abuse.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Minister any plans to ask the Scottish Office to pay an agency to conduct a telephone survey of Scots women in their homes to ask them whether they have ever had any experience of child care provision in the public sector, or is he frightened of the answer that those women might give him?
    Mr. Forsyth: No, we have no such plans. The provision of services for children under five is a matter for local authorities. If the hon. Lady is criticising the conduct of Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland, I suggest that she takes that up with them.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Did the Minister take the opportunity while visiting Hungary to study its child care provision? Did he note that Hungrary provides significant child care services for children aged up to three, that it allows mothers to stay at home with substantial child care allowances and that it provides five months' maternity leave for women who want to return to work? Does he know that 78 per cent. of three to five-year-old children in that country attend kindergarten and that 80 per cent. of the creches are state-run? What does he intend to do to help the women of Scotland to be provided with that sort of service?
    Mr. Forsyth: I took the opportunity while I was in Hungary to discuss developments in education there. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Hungarians expressed considerable admiration for the emphasis that we place on increasing competition in our education system, and that their plans include greater emphasis on provision by the private sector and on competition.
    The hon. Gentleman may know the Hungarian statistics, but he does not seem to be aware of those in Scotland, where 80 per cent. of children under five are given some sort of pre-school provision.

    South of Scotland Electricity Board
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board on 6 February and discussed progress on the Electricity Bill and other matters relevant to the Scottish electricity industry.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Minister acknowledge that the remarkable expansion of profitable opencast mining in Scotland in recent years has been facilitated not only by the Government but by the Labour party, whose councillors—often in the face of strong local opposition —have facilitated planning permissions on the basis that opencast mining will help to sustain the deep-mining industry? Does he recognise that the optimism on this subject that Ministers—and the Secretary of State only this morning—have encouraged will be justified only if the coal-burn contract provides for the continuation of the Bilston/Monktonhall complex and the Longannet complex? That must surely be the irreducible minimum requirement for deep-mine coal in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: lf Labour councillors are responsible for the growth of opencast mining in Scotland I am glad that they recognise the valuable contribution that it can make. If coal is to have a substantial future in Scotland it must be competitive, and opencast mining helps towards that end.
    I too want deep mines to have a long and secure future. But that depends on improving their output and productivity and achieving a competitiveness that enables coal to be marketed successfully.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Would the Government have allowed the SSEB to put thousands of jobs at power stations and pits in Scotland at risk and to threaten the future of a vital sector of the Scottish economy if a directly elected Scottish Parliament with the authority to speak for the people of Scotland had existed?
    Mr. Lang: What worries me is that such a Parliament might have taken up the suggestion of the Scottish Nationalist party, which was that Torness, one of the most important generating stations in Scotland, should be sold to an English company, with the result that Scottish industry might have had to buy back from England electricity generated in Scotland.
    Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of electricity gives the Scottish electricity industry a real commercial opportunity to export power to England and Wales? Does he further agree that it gives Scottish industry more control over its own affairs, instead of control being exercised from London?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It reverses the decentralisation which nationalisation always creates. In the 1940s, when Scottish electricity enterprises were nationalised, a whole raft of decision-making was removed from Scotland to the south. We are reversing that process to help regenerate enterprise in Scotland.

    Dementia
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek further medical advice on the nature and course of dementia, particularly in relation to Alzheimer's disease.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: No, but my right hon. and learned Friend keeps in touch with a wide range of medical
    272
    opinion. We give financial assistance to Alzheimer's Scotland and Scottish Action on Dementia, which provide help and support for people with dementia. We are also supporting the establishment of the dementia studies development centre at Stirling university and are funding research into care in the community of the elderly with dementia.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the hon. Gentleman share the view expressed in, or feel any sense of shame at, the statement made by the Minister of State that Alzheimer's disease is of a fluctuating nature? What consideration has the Minister given to the view of Dr. Robert Hill, consultant neurologist at Edinburgh western general hospital, that Alzheimer's disease is progressive and that remission does not occur? In view of the fluctuating nature of medical opinion on this matter, the whole issue should be re-examined. It is a shame and a disgrace that 'fie Government are forcing the tragic people who suffer from these conditions to pay the poll tax.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will see, if he looks at what my hon. Friend said, that his account is wrong. The hon. Gentleman talks about shame and the need for sympathy for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease. I suggest that he contacts his friends in the Labour party in councils such as Stirling who are refusing, out of spite and to make a political point, to provide a collection service for the community charge. If Labour Members are concerned to provide help for the handicapped and others in meeting their obligations to pay the community charge, they should show that concern by arranging for collections, as they have done in the past in respect of rates.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I deplore the cheap political points that the Under-Secretary made. Is he aware that for thousands of people who discover that their spouse, husband or wife, is suffering from Alzheimer's disease or senile dementia, that is a terrible discovery and that they have to live with it? The Government should not inflict the full force of the poll tax—of £200, £300 or more—on these disabled people. The Government should, even at this eleventh hour, recant and ensure that they do not have to pay the poll tax.
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, people on low incomes will benefit from rebates. We are indeed showing concern for people suffering from Alzheimer's and other disabling conditions. We are increasing the benefits payable to the disabled by no less than 90 per cent. or £7·3 billion. That is in stark contrast to what Labour Members did when they were in Government.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Government's behaviour in this matter is disgraceful and callous. We are talking about a very disadvantaged group of the population. The Government continue to hide behind medical advice. I put it to them that their medical advice in this matter is wrong and should be reconsidered—[Interruption.] I have had some experience of this. The Minister of State talked about Alzheimer's disease being a disease of gradual onset and progressive decline. Patients suffering from this condition are no different from others suffering from dementia. The advice that the Government have on this is wrong and should be reconsidered. In other words, the Government should get a second opinion.
    Mr. Forsyth: In all of that the hon. Gentleman did not ask me a question—[Interruption.] The Government's advice has come from the Chief Medical Officer and others and it has been carefully considered. I note that the hon. Gentleman did not offer to ask Labour-controlled councils to help the disabled with a house-to-house collection in respect of the community charge. I also note that when his party was in power it had no proposals to exempt from the payment of rates people suffering from Alzheimer's and other disabling conditions. I also note that as part of their policy review, Opposition Members plan to force people who suffer from Alzheimer's and other conditions to pay towards local government by assessing the capital value of their houses.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will know that I first raised the subject of Alzheimer's disease on an Adjournment debate five years ago. Since then there has been greater public awareness of the disease, and that is manifestly clear from my hon. Friend's reply outlining the research that is taking place. Nonetheless, does my hon. Friend concede that those who are responsible for caring for those with that debilitating disease do not receive sufficient consideration? Will he at least give thought to the idea that the Government should give more consideration to the carers, who are bound in honour and love to people with whom they have lived for many years, and who suffer from Alzheimer's disease?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is asking me to stray outside my sphere of responsibility. However, I am very much aware of his concern for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease. If he heard my answer to the original question, he will be aware of the considerable support that we have given to organisations such as Scottish Action on Dementia and Alzheimer's Scotland which are providing help and support to the families who have to cope with that difficult and debilitating disease.

    Constitution
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last made a speech outlining the Government's position on the constitutional status of Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I last commented on constitutional matters in a speech to Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale Conservative Association on Friday 10 February.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State elaborate on his speech at Melrose and explain why he argued that whereas independence was a matter for the Scottish people to decide, devolution was a matter for the United Kingdom and for Parliament? What is his reaction to the point made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in last month's Radical Scotland that
    "To all intents and purposes, Scotland is an occupied country in which the ruling power depends for its support on a power base which is outside the country."
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman's Budget proposals, which we were told about last Friday, are anything to go by, that seems to be the view of the SNP. When we heard about the hon. Gentleman's Budget proposals, my officials contacted the headquarters of the SNP, but were told that nothing was known about them. When we examined the details, we discovered that according to the hon. Gentleman, the defence expenditure of an independent
    274
    Scotland would represent about 5 per cent. of current United Kingdom expenditure to defend some 35 per cent. of the land mass of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it seems that the Scottish Nationalist party either would want to leave an independent Scotland defenceless, or would wish to depend upon the English Government to defend Scotland after independence. What price independence then?
    Mr. Galloway: Is it not a breathtaking effrontery for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to ask the Government such a question when the SNP is conspiring with the Government to paralyse any possibility of constitutional progress in Scotland? Is it not the case that the Government and the Scottish Nationalist party are two sides of the same coin and that Scottish constitutional progress is caught between the hammer of Thatcher unionism and the anvil of SNP sectarianism?
    Mr. Rifkind: Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first invite to join the SNP.

    "Working for Patients"
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in response to the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients".
    Mr. Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of positive responses to the White Paper "Working for Patients". We will shortly be publishing six working papers setting out in detail how the White Paper proposals are to be implemented in Scotland.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that a White Paper which will give patients more choice and a faster service should be opposed by Opposition Members? Does he agree that their only vision for the future of the Health Service is a Health Service run by COHSE and NUPE for the benefit of COHSE and NUPE?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he is not being entirely fair to Opposition Members. I note that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) has offered to abandon his political convictions and to favour the idea of the Falkirk district infirmary becoming a self-governing hospital if proposals for its closure were ever implemented. As neither the health board nor the Government have any such proposals, it is an interesting response to our White Paper.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Minister appreciate that at the time when I considered the proposals from the consultants I was unaware of another option—closure, as the Minister himself says, over his dead body? If that option is still available, we will take it.
    Mr. Forsyth: Even if the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to defend the interests of his local hospital in Falkirk, we certainly are, which is why we have invested so heavily in it with new maternity and geriatric facilities. I am not sure that my dead body in exchange for the hospital would be a good deal for his constituents.
    Dr. Godman: Is it not the case that many general practitioners are deeply concerned about the inadequacies of the White Paper? Is it not the case that many general practitioners fear a diminution in the quality of the

    275
    treatment given to patients if these proposals are implemented? Does the Minister agree that, where Scotland is concerned, the authors of the White Paper know little or nothing about medical practice in general and nothing at all about general practice in particular?
    Mr. Forsyth: I think I can follow that question.
    The only general practitioners who will be concerned will be those who listen to the misrepresentation coming from the Opposition Benches. There is no question of patient care being anything other than enhanced as a result of these proposals; and it is particularly perverse to argue that giving general practitioners more responsibility and an opportunity to control their own affairs as practising family doctors will be to the disbenefit of patients. It is true that particular aspects of the delivery of primary health care services in Scotland need to he considered, and we are currently discussing with doctors' representatives how we can implement our proposals in Scotland in the most satisfactory way. I am delighted to say that we are having a very responsible and positive response from the medical profession.

    Constitutional Convention
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to accept the invitation to attend the Scottish constitutional convention.
    Mr. Rifkind: No, Sir.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Secretary of State not realise that he is doing a grave disservice to the ordinary people of Scotland? Is he aware that they are crying out for democracy and that the only relief that they can get from the social injustice thrust upon them by Thatcherism is by some kind of directly elected assembly, even if it has only limited powers? Does he not recognise that the poor and the elderly who suffer from social injustices need a voice at the convention to argue for such a directly elected assembly?
    Mr. Rifkind: The individual citizen in Scotland has exactly the same democratic rights as individuals elsewhere in the United Kingdom. All live in a democratic society.
    Dr. Reid: Can the Secretary of State tell us any other issue on which in the past 10 years he has done such a complete and utter U-turn as on the question of the Scottish assembly? Is it not the simple and sad fact that he has abandoned his principles for his promotion prospects? Does the Secretary of State really believe that the people of Scotland have so readily abandoned their principles, or been bought and sold for Treasury gold? If he does, why does he not put their principles to the test by having a referendum on devolution as soon as possible?
    Mr. Rifkind: My views remain exactly as I have explained. Any system of devolution for one part of the United Kingdom that does not apply elsewhere is likely to weaken rather than strengthen the union in which the Labour party also believes.
    Mr. Harris: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that some of us on the Government Benches think that perhaps he ought to go to such a conference. if only to remind the Labour party of the total opposition of its leader to the whole concept of devolution when it was last on the agenda, and also to stress that if, by chance, a devolved assembly were set up, many of us on the Government Benches would want to see drastic changes in the composition of the House so as to reduce the current gross over-representation on a numerical basis of Scotland at Westminster?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly the case that the leader of the Conservative party pays more attention to the subject of devolution when she is in Scotland than does the leader of the Opposition when he is there.
    Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has said yet again that he thinks that devolution in any one part of the United Kingdom without devolution all round would weaken our unity. Is that a definitive statement of policy on behalf of the Government with particular reference to the future government of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rifkind: In terms of Scotland, England and Wales, Scotland continues to benefit from the existing structure of government. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Northern Ireland example is sui generis and that it would be unwise for anyone on either side of the argument to draw conclusions from that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the period of the Stormont Government there was a substantial reduction in the number of Irish Members in the House of Commons and that the United Kingdom Cabinet did not contain a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McAllion: I would not go so far as to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be sorely missed when. the convention first meets at the end of the month. If he did turn up at least he could explain to the convention why he has introduced the poll tax in Scotland to make local councillors more accountable to Scottish voters while he plans to do nothing whatever to make Scottish Ministers in any way accountable to Scottish voters.
    Mr. Rifkind: If I turned up at the proposed convention I would have no difficulty about finding a seat because it appears that very few people will be there. This is a spurious attempt to try to generate interest in a subject when such interest has not otherwise been forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the constitutional convention was invented by an organisation that produced a document with a blatantly nationalist tone. If he and his hon. Friends are as unionist as they claim to be they should have nothing to do with it.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the statement.

Remand System (Privatisation)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about private sector involvement in the remand system.
In my statement to the House on 30 March last year, I announced that, among other measures which were in hand to deal with prison overcrowding, I intended to make a further study of the possibility of involving the private sector more closely in operating the remand system. To this end, I published last July the Green Paper "Private sector involvement in the remand system". I appointed the management consultants Deloitte, Haskins and Sells to study the practical implications of the options set out in the Green Paper, namely, that contracts might be placed with the private sector for the provision and operation of new remand centres, and for the escorting of prisoners to and from court and their custody at court.
The consultants' report is today being made public, and copies have been placed in the Library. The study was carried out with the help of criminal justice system experts with a wide range of experience of police, prison and courts matters. The consultants advise that, on certain assumptions and subject to further examination of certain issues, private sector involvement would be feasible both for remand centres and for escorting and court duties. They make recommendations on practical procedures and safeguards to ensure that, in any part of the system that was contracted out, prisoners' rights and public safety are properly protected. They also tackle the important question of accountability.
Many of the comments received on the Green Paper concern the issue of principle. It would be wrong for the Government to abdicate their responsibility for the proper treatment of prisoners. It would be wrong for coercive powers to be exercised by those over whom there was no proper control and for whom nobody was adequately accountable. I would not want to proceed unless I was satisfied that a suitable framework of safeguards, controls and accountability could be created. The studies that have been carried out show how such a framework might be devised, and, if this can be borne out in practice, I do not believe that these issues should stand in the way of attaining the practical benefits that private sector involvement may bring.
Some critics have overlooked one point of principle, which is that prisoners should be accommodated in decent conditions which respect their dignity as well as ensuring the protection of the public. If the private sector can contribute to achieving this, that must be to the good.
Having weighed the discussion so far, I propose to move forward on both the escorting and remand centre options, in different ways. Even among those respondents to the Green Paper who had reservations about private sector involvement in the operation of remand centres, many saw the potential advantages of a change in the escorting and court custody arrangements. There is a good prospect that the private sector could provide a better service than at present and at lower cost. The extent of private sector involvement remains to be settled, but I am clear that the existing complex and overlapping escort systems of the police and prison services must be
278
rationalised. The arguments for relieving the police and prison services of the escorting task, so that they can concentrate on their real jobs, are compelling.
Further detailed study will now be undertaken to determine the precise composition of the contract areas; there will be detailed consultation with interested parties about exactly how their requirements should be specified and paid for: the consequences for police and prison service staffing and finance will also need to be considered. We shall need also to be satisfied before a final decision that there is adequate provision for the selection, training and discipline of staff, and for their answerability to the courts.
On the possible private operation of remand centres, there are also positive indications. These indications will now need to be tested in further detailed investigation of potential contractors and their costings before we finally decide whether to propose that we go ahead with the establishment of privately operated remand centres. No potential contractor should enter this field believing it will be an easy option. Standards would be high and would be rigorously enforced. I want to ensure that potential contractors fully understand this and are capable of providng a cost-effective service in these conditions.
My accountability for the treatment of prisoners and the safety of the public would need to be maintained. To achieve this, I would propose that, in line with the consultants' recommendations, each contract would be subject to permanent on-site monitoring by a Government official appointed by me. This official would also have under his direct control the exercise of disciplinary sanctions over prisoners and the hearing of complaints. I also agree with the view that most of the respondents to the Green Paper expressed that contracted-out remand centres and escorting services should have boards of visitors and be subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons. Subject to the results of these further investigations, I would intend, when the parliamentary programme allows, to bring legislation forward to provide a legal framework which would be needed to enable contracting-out to go ahead.
The introduction of the private sector into the management of the prison system in the way I have outlined would certainly represent a bold departure from previous thinking and practice. It offers the prospect of a new kind of partnership between the public and private sectors in this important, though often sadly neglected, aspect of our national life. We should not be scornful of new ideas which, if successful, will make an important contribution to the Government's programme of providing decent conditions for all prisoners at a reasonable cost.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Neither in his statement today, nor in the Green Paper which preceded it, has the Home Secretary even attempted a rational justification of the decision which he has just announced. Even the survey by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, on which he relied so heavily, examined only the practicality, and not the propriety, the desirability or the advantages of privatising the remand system. That company was handed an item of dogma and was asked to decide whether the Government could get away with it. Its conclusion, which appears on page 49, is that the difficulties of privatising the remand service should not be underestimated.

279
The Home Secretary has made no attempt to explain how or by what figure his proposal would reduce the number of prisoners held on remand—a major element in the crisis of prison overcrowding. That is because his proposal will have no effect on the figure. Last year 10,235 prisoners were held on remand compared with 5,795 in the first full year of Conservative Government. Why does not the Home Secretary implement real measures which would reduce that intolerable total—the encouragement of magistrates to award bail more consistently and the insistence that prisoners held in custody all over England should have their trials completed in 110 days?
Is the Home Secretary aware that there is something deeply unpleasant about the false piety of his promise that the Government will not
"abdicate their responsibility for the proper treatment of prisoners"?
Will he confirm that Deloitte's report—which in many particulars is of a quite different tone from that in which the Home Secretary has spoken today—proposes that standards in private prisons should be enforced "progressively" through
"escalating warnings, financial penalties and ultimate contract terminations"?
What will happen to prisoners in inadequate circumstances while all that protracted legal wrangling is going on? They will certainly not have the instant redress which prison visitors and Her Majesty's inspectors can provide under the present system but which will be denied when commercial prison managements argue about contractual obligations.
Will the Home Secretary understand that there are many people, not just on the Opposition Benches, who regard it as wrong in principle that holding a man or woman in prison should be an activity from which profit is made under any circumstances?
On the subject of escort duties, the Home Secretary has told us that there is general agreement about the need for change. Again, as is often his practice, he was less than frank. The general agreement about the need for change is not a general agreement that the change should come in the form of privatisation. Why, if the change is necessary, does he consider only one option?
What the Home Secretary has announced today is as objectionable as it is absurd. It clearly has two intentions. The first is to create the illusion of activity—the Home Secretary's increasing preoccupation. The second is demonstrated by the tentative, apologetic and intellectually inadequate nature of his statement. This announcement is intended to prove that he is prepared to swallow any item of Conservative ideology no matter how distasteful. What he has announced today will damage the prison service and his reputation in equal measure.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman's facts are out of date. The remand population fell by 550 last year. He knows perfectly well of the measures that we are taking through the imposition of time limits, imposed for the first time in England and Wales by the Government, through the creation of bail hostels and through bail information schemes, precisely with that aim. I visited the Greater Manchester probation service yesterday and was much impressed by everything that it is doing in that area.
The contracts would specify standards which would be higher than many of those which are in effect at the moment in local and remand prisons. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are working steadily, and now with
280
some success, to reduce overcrowding and to bring proper sanitation into the conditions in which remand prisoners are held. The question before us is whether, in addition to doing that in the public sector, we should use the skills of the private sector more widely than we do at present.
There would be no abdication of responsibility in that. The decision to remand in custody would remain with the courts, and I would continue, through the system of the monitor suggested by the consultants, to be accountable to Parliament for the security and well-being of prisoners. The Home Secretary would exercise that accountability through the contract, through the effective monitoring and inspection arrangements. The contracting-out of services does not diminish in this or other areas the contracting authority's responsibility for the quality of service provided; it is simply using a different method to deliver the service.
The right hon. Gentleman is right. My approach to this is cautious. But it is not right to close our minds to new ideas or to new ways of achieving what every sensible hon. Member wants, which is to achieve a higher standard, particularly for those who are held in our prisons before trial or sentence.
Mr. John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement will receive a very warm welcome from a great many people, not least the majority of the members of the Home Affairs Committee, which, in a report in 1987, made this very recommendation? The Home Affairs Committee made that recommendation because there were two major things that it wished to see achieved. First, what is proposed will advance the humanitarian care of prisoners by providing a contrasting management style and improved conditions for remand prisoners. Secondly, it will help to bring buildings and other resources into use to deal with the overcrowding of remand prisoners, about which the whole House and many members of the public are concerned.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is perfectly right: the report of the Home Affairs Committee had a powerful influence. Anybody who reads the consultants' report will see that this is not a cost-cutting exercise but an exercise in the use of resources to provide a better service. The private sector believes that is could provide decent conditions for about the same amount per prisoner per day—£31—as the current poor conditions in many overcrowded remand centres and local prisons cost.
As for escort and court duties, the private sector says that it could provide a substantially cheaper service that is just as good, if not better. It is worth remembering that at present 1,000 policemen and 800 to 900 prison officers are involved in escort duties every day. That is a commitment which does not require a tithe of the wide range of prison and police skills in which these men are fully trained.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary no longer accept the principle —which, in a speech that he made on 18 July 1987, he appeared to accept—that the coercive powers of the state that are necessary to enforce the deprivation of liberty of the subject should remain the direct responsibility of the state? Why has he backed down from that principle, in the face, no doubt, of Prime Ministerial pressure?
Secondly, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Deloitte report, in seeking to examine the only conceivable justification for what he has proposed—the

281
cost-effectiveness of the private sector—brings in a not proven verdict and makes it clear that, with regard to reform possibilities, further studies comparing the public sector with the private sector need to be made before a decision can be arrived at? Does he not agree that, even on the basis of cost-benefit criteria, this report does not support the action that he intends to take?
Finally, does not the Home Secretary recognise that the Deloitte report draws attention to, and gives a grave warning about, the management difficulties of operating at the interface between the private sector and the public sector when the private sector breaks down?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the report suggests that research and negotiation are necessary. That is exactly what I have announced today. The report also makes it clear that it should be possible to find ways of preserving accountability, the responsibility of the courts and the responsibility of the Home Secretary, while, in order to provide better conditions, making use of the skills of the private sector. Both points are made clearly in the report, from which my statement flows logically.
Mr. Ian Gow: Will not the British people view with incredulity the hostility of the Labour party to proposals that will release many of the 1,000 policemen who, each day, are engaged on escort duties? My right hon. Friend's proposals will mean that some of those policemen can carry out their real function—protecting the innocent from the guilty.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. One thing on which I thought the Labour party and I agreed was the urgent need to improve conditions in our prisons, particularly the conditions of those held on remand. This is one way, beginning with two or three remand centres, of doing that. Are we to exclude that possibility for dogmatic reasons?
Mr. James Lamond: Does the Secretary of State realise that in abdicating his responsibilities and admitting that he and his Ministers are incapable of organising even proper remand centres he is not helping the many thousands of men and women who are held on remand? One such person is my constituent, Abdul Rehman, who is in Preston prison and has been on remand since 29 January 1988–13 months. His trial will not take place until April at the earliest. What will the Home Secretary do about such cases? My constituent's business and family life have been ruined while he is still an innocent man.
Mr. Hurd: It is right to say that some people are held on remand for too long. However, that is not under my control.
Mr. Hattersley: It is.
Mr. Hurd: Of course it is not. I do not decide when cases come to trial. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) knows better than that. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that the House introduced the concept of time limits for bringing people to trial. That was taken in a modified way from a system in Scotland. He also knows about the new steps we have been taking on bail hostels and bail information schemes to reduce the number of people held on remand.
282
He will have been glad to hear the figures I announced a few moments ago, which show that there has been a reduction in the past year.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned the Deloitte, Haskins and Sells report. Would it not have been better if they had not been so selective in their quotations but had continued reading from the report? It says:
"We do not underestimate the work that would be involved in realising the proposed approach."
It went on to say:
"We believe, however"—
Hon. Members: Reading.
Mr. Speaker: Paraphrase, please.
Mr. Hanley: It went on to say that it believes that the outline suggested is realistic and practical. Therefore, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells thinks that my right hon. Friend's approach is practical and realistic.
I welcome the report. I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and I ask my right hon. Friend to take urgent steps, having introduced an experiment, to ensure that the detention of immigration suspects and women's prisons form the next step in the progress being made.
Mr. Hurd: The immigrants who need to be detained are already held under arrangements where we contract out to the private sector. The case is not an exact parallel, but there is a precedent about which I have not heard complaints from Opposition Members. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that hon. Members who are interested in the matter will look carefully at the report, which does not go overboard. It points out the difficulties and, having examined them, suggests ways in which they can be solved. It is on that basis that we now propose to set in hand the further work I announced in my statement.
Mr. John Evans: Will the staff employed in the privatised sector of the prison service be free to join the Prison Officers Association? Will the POA have negotiating rights on their behalf?
Mr. Hurd: That will be a matter for the contractors.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is not the key issue one of accountability? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if tough and tight contracts are drawn up with private contractors which give incentives for good performance and penalties for poor performance, there is no reason why accountability should be not only maintained but strengthened?
Mr. Hurd: That is right. It would be on the basis of a contract. In addition to the contract and its enforceability, there will be the three provisions outlined in the report and which I mentioned in my statement. There will be the monitor, who will be an official directly responsible to me. He will be handling questions about, for example, discipline and prisoners' complaints. There will also be the inspectorate—we have seen the effectiveness of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons, particularly in the last year or so—and there will be the board of visitors, as there is for a normal prison.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The Home Secretary's announcement does not address the real issues facing people in north Wales, in particular. I refer to the policy decision on setting up a remand centre in such rural areas. I am sure that the Home Secretary is aware that the remand centre at Risley is almost 60 miles from the courts in my constituency. I do not see how the Home Secretary's announcement will help towards the provision of a remand centre in north Wales. It matters not whether the transport structure is public or private. Public and private transport can equally be stuck in traffic jams. Will the Home Secretary address the real issue of the provision of decent accommodation for prisoners in north Wales?
Mr. Hurd: I am familiar with the hon. Gentleman's point about north Wales. I should not like to give him a commitment that, if Parliament agrees, one of the new centres might be in north Wales, but the general answer to his question must be yes. Of course we are pressing ahead, first, to reduce the size of the remand population and, secondly, to improve conditions in which prisoners are held. In both respects we are making some progress, but the question is whether, in addition to those two things, we should experiment with and try to bring in some private sector skills to help with those tasks. [HON. MEMBERS: "What skills?"] People who automatically say no to that are being careless of the need to improve conditions in remand centres.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend's announcement is most welcome. Does he agree that what is objectionable and absurd is not what he said but what the Opposition have said? To anyone who has investigated the problems in our prisons, as the Home Affairs Select Committee did, it is quite clear that there is an urgent problem in improving conditions, particularly for remand prisoners. My right hon. Friend's statement is not about profit or political dogma but about improving conditions for prisoners on remand.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. These exchanges show that, on this occasion, dogma lives on the Opposition Benches. We are not proposing to privatise existing remand prisons. We are not proposing to alter in any way the arrangements for convicted prisoners. We are simply saying that it is worth seeing whether, alongside the improvements we are seeking within the scope of the prison service, the private sector can help. It is dogmatic to rule out that aspect.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Is the Home Secretary aware that his Department's last experiment in private prisoner farming was the prison ships run by Securicor on which unfortunate Tamil refugees were held? With reference to his remark about skills in the private sector, is he aware that the training given to the Securicor guards who were holding people in the most difficult and delicate circumstances was derisory and lasted for only a few days? What steps will he take to ensure that, in their search for profit, private sector companies running remand centres will not skimp training, as Securicor did in regard to the prison ships and the Tamil refugees?
Mr. Hurd: With her experience, the hon. Lady will know that the arrangements at Harmondsworth, for example, were run pretty well. They are reviewed from time to time. In the time that I have been at the Dispatch
284
Box, I have not heard great outcries from the Opposition about the way in which that arrangement works. [Interruption.] Of course there are complaints abut. particular cases, but I am talking about the general system. I have not heard complaints about that. The hon. Lady is quite right. As I said in my statement, the selection of staff and their training are crucial in the management of remand centres. Both aspects clearly will have to be covered by the contract.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Surely there is nothing inherently unreasonable in what my right hon. Friend proposes. If there is a perceived public need, must it always be met in the public sector? Surely the criterion should be whether it can be done more efficiently and effectively. All the party political dogma is coming from the Opposition.
Mr. Hurd: That is so. The longer the exchanges go on, the clearer that becomes. The Government and the House, because this matter will require legislation, will need to be clear about the lines of accountability and clear that they can call the Home Secretary to account if something goes wrong in a remand centre under private management, as they can now. However, the consultants' report shows ways in which that need can be met, and if the Government and Parliament are satisfied that that can be done, there is everything to be said for seeing whether we can improve the present prospects by the proposals in the report.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Is not the Secretary of State aware that we are all in favour of improvements? He has failed to make out the case for improvements in this instance. Will he take on board the fact that there is already sufficient anxiety about the operations of private security forces? It is particularly repugnant that a system involving forced incarceration and, in some cases, violence, should be in private hands and privately controlled when the state should be dealing with the matter. Will he give us an assurance that he will not attempt to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider the same proposal? If he does, the people of Scotland will bitterly oppose it.
Mr. Hurd: I am not answering for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman says that all Opposition Members are in favour of improving conditions. The Labour party has consistently opposed and sniped at the present building programme, which is the best immediate way of improving conditions. I have found that a remarkable and rather disgraceful paradox.
The Labour party is opposing, as a matter of principle and without considering the practicalities, this proposed experiment to see whether we can use the private sector more effectively. I am driven to the conclusion that the Labour party's enthusiasm for improving the standards in our prisons is a matter of words only.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I must have regard for the subsequent business, which is a debate on Wales. There is considerable demand to take part in it. I shall allow questions to continue for 15 minutes and then we must move on.
Sir Peter Hordern: Although I can see that escort duties could be performed more cheaply and perhaps with great advantage by the private sector from

285
the new remand centres, can my right hon. Friend explain how the custodial responsibilities could be carried out more cheaply by these methods, as any company offering such services must do so with the expectation of profit, and bearing in mind that responsibilities for custody must remain the same as under present arrangements?
Mr. Hurd: The responsibilities will remain the same and the contract will ensure that. The advantage that a private contractor might have over the present system is that he would not start with the existing range of agreements and practices, which we are reforming and changing through the Fresh Start reform. Anyone who examines the system carefully knows that such agreements and practices exist and make it more difficult to raise standards. In the area to which my hon. Friend referred—managing remand centres—there are not likely to be cost savings, but the private contractors might be able to deliver a higher standard of service, without overcrowding and with proper sanitation, for example, more effectively and at a comparable cost to the present cost of holding people under prison conditions which are much inferior.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Why has not the Home Secretary mentioned that private sector tenders for two remand centres—Everthorpe near Hull and Cookham Wood near Rochester—have already been received by his Department? In the case of Everthorpe, planning permission has not only been sought, but granted; it was sought five months ago, in October. Who are the contractors for those private prisons? Why have the Prison Officers Association and the Civil and Public Services Association not been told of the plans? Why does the Home Secretary talk about proposals when behind our backs, for five months, he has been discussing with contractors to get these private sector remand prisons built?
Mr. Hurd: As the consultants have made clear, there have been discussions, but far more detailed discussions will be needed, as recommended in the report, before any decision can be taken. The new framework, if we propose it to Parliament, will require parliamentary approval. There is no question of decisions having been taken.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the public will view this measure as giving magistrates the maximum opportunity to protect the public from people who should be locked away and not be granted bail—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, not I, takes responsibility for what he says.
Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the new remand centres should be built in the centre of our cities, close to our courts, so that relatives and those who represent people in courts will suffer the minimum inconvenience and the costs of transportation will be lower?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That point has been raised with me many times over the past few years. It is valid and needs to be taken into account.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Home Secretary recognise that his announcement this afternoon is an admission of the Government's failure to deal with the real problems facing remand centres, with people there who should not be there living in appalling conditions? Does he accept that many people will view the prospect of Butlins and Securicor bringing together their comparative skills to provide the service as a half-baked idea which should be dropped? He should concentrate on coming forward with a positive solution to the real problems of remand centres.
Mr. Hurd: I do not regard this proposal as a substitute for what we are already doing, which I have sketched twice already this afternoon. The figures suggest that that is beginning to have some effect. Eventually, the question for the House is whether, in addition to the new resources we are putting into bail hostels, tightening time limits, the bail information scheme and the prison building programme, which is opposed by the Labour party, we should conduct experiments. I believe that we should.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that existing prisons are largely expensive colleges of crime? Should not the Opposition recognise that the new remand centres will offer the opportunity for higher standards which are more likely to lead to self-discipline? Will my right hon. Friend also encourage more families to foster juveniles, whom local authorities, lamentably, have failed to keep out of trouble?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with the first point. The object of the exercise is to see how we can achieve higher standards.
Mr. Tony Worthington: All hon. Members would agree that the present standards for remand prisoners are appalling. If the Secretary of State is going to set high standards for the private remand centres, it would be untenable, legally and morally for those standards to be higher than the standards in the remand centres run by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will, therefore, have to improve the standards in existing remand centres in order to be able to enforce the conditions in the private remand centres. But if the standards in state remand centres can be improved, why do we need to change?
Mr. Hurd: The Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that the proposition is wicked because standards will be too low as profiteers make profits and that it is wicked because the standards will be too high, which is what the hon. Gentleman has just suggested.
If we go ahead with this scheme, the contract will ensure higher standards in the two or three new remand centres than exist in some, but not all, prison service remand centres. We must work all the time, as we are doing, to improve the standards in prison service remand prisons.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that his reputation will be enhanced by what he has said today if for no other reason than that to some extent he has put his own career on the line by having this experiment? If it is successful—as I expect—he will be given the plaudits due to him, but if it fails Opposition Members will have been proved right. Their indignation should wait until they see how it turns out.
Mr. Hurd: We are doing many new things and we start them cautiously with experiments. I make no apology for

287
that because new thinking and cautious experiments are what are required in the criminal justice system. This suggestion fits neatly and logically into that pattern.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The Secretary of State must be aware that security firms are now two a penny throughout the country and that they recruit their employees from people on the dole and pay them extremely low wages. Is he telling the House that those security firms are to take over from the Prison Officers Association, which is the representative of a skilled profession? Why does not the Secretary of State take some positive action by introducing legislation to reduce the time spent on remand, as has happened in Scotland, and invest in some bail hostels run by professionals?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman should know that I am doing both those things.
Mr. David Ashby: rose—
Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Member present for the statement?
Mr. Ashby: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, I shall have to call the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.
Mr. John Battle: Will the Home Secretary explain what contribution his contracting-out statement will make to alleviating overcrowding in Armley in Leeds, which his Department concedes is the most overcrowded prison in Britain? What will his statement do to address the current crisis of young unconvicted prisoners being held there on remand when they should not be, which has resulted in five young people committing suicide already and numerous attempts? Would it not be better for his Department to fund bail provisions such as bail hostels and bail support schemes—schemes that have been put to his Department by the probation service? Would they not be a better means of tackling the crisis in our prisons?
Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am concerned about the position at Armley. He may also know that I have asked the deputy director general of the prison service to make a special report to me because of the suicides that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am sure that he is right to take those tragedies seriously. I have now received that report and am studying it. I shall make known our conclusions very soon.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Skinner—briefly please.
Mr. Skinner: I am always brief. Does the Home Secretary realise that he cuts a sorry figure in trying to impress the House with this sleazy operation, which is more about him grubbing around for votes among his Cabinet colleagues, satisfying the Prime Minister and lining the pockets of the people who represent the Tory party and of those who pay into its funds? Who will get the contract for Father Ryan? Will it be Trusthouse Forte, Avis rental cars or even the Guardian Angels?
Mr. Hurd: That was a hit laboured. For his light weekend reading I shall send the hon. Gentleman the
288
Green Paper, the consultants' report and the Select Committee report. Perhaps he will then reach a different conclusion.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The Home Secretary has conceded that what he describes as the "proper" conditions in prisons are his responsibility and that of the Government. That being so, why have the conditions in Armley prison, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred, deteriorated so badly over the past 10 years? Bearing that in mind, will the Home Secretary explain a little further what he means by the "special expertise" which he feels will solve the problem?
Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a substantial increase in the prison population over the years. However, in the past year not only has the remand population fallen slightly; the prison population has been held fairly steady. But I am not making too much of that because it might change again in the wrong way. If the hon. Gentleman studies the current figures, he will see that there has been some relief from the overcrowding pressure from which we have suffered.
The staff at Armley have done an amazing job in extremely difficult circumstances. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said that the people there should not be in prison, but it is, of course, the courts that decide whether bail should be granted in certain cases, not me. We are trying to make it possible for the courts to find alternatives to remand in custody in more and more cases. That is extremely important. However, that effort, which clearly needs to be continued and intensified, does not absolve us from looking at any new ideas and new people who may come forward.
As I said in my statement, the proposals will be tested and further work will be done, so the hon. Gentleman should not say that there is no contribution, no help, and no new ideas that can be brought to bear.
Mr. Bob McTaggart: If the Secretary of State is really concerned about the conditions of prisoners, and especially of remand prisoners, should he not address himself to the fact that many people are held on remand without any limit on time and that the majority of them end up receiving non-custodial sentences? If we attacked that question more seriously, that would do a great deal to alleviate some of our problems. Will the Secretary of State inform the House where the skills of the private sector were obtained and learned? Presumably it must have been in Scotland.
Mr. Hurd: I shall try to deal with both the hon. Gentleman's points. First in effect, he complained about the working of the Bail Act 1976. I am anxious that the Act should work properly and that the number of cases in which people are refused bail and then either acquitted or not given custodial sentences should be kept to the minimum. However, that is a matter for the courts. Our job is to provide as convincing alternatives to remand in custody as we can, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is what we are doing.
Secondly, we know that there are skills involved in escort duties because they have already been tested, and there are certainly skills involved in the design and

289
construction of prisons. In the light of the consultants' report, I do not see any grounds for denying that there could be skills in the management of remand centres also.
Mr. Hattersley: Does not the Home Secretary realise that the weakness of his argument was demonstrated by his denial about the figures for men and women held in prison on remand—figures that were given to me by his Department just over two hours ago? Despite the small reduction of which he was so proud, the fact is that the remand population is now twice what it was when the right hon. Gentleman's Government came to office. If he is really concerned about that, why does he not implement the 110-day rule instead of talking about it?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to answer the question: what are the special skills that private contractors have for running remand prisons, other than the willingness to make profits out of human misery?
Mr. Hurd: "Let us test and see" is the message of the consultants' report and it is entirely reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a dogmatic approach and is denying the possibilities of the proposal in the face of evidence from the Select Committee report and in the face of what has been said as a result of the consultants' work. "Let us test and see", is the summary of my announcement today.
On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, in answer to an earlier question I conceded that there has been a massive increase in the remand population—as there has been in the prison population as a whole over the past 10 years. What I am saying and what evidently surprised the right hon. Gentleman is that during the past calendar year there has been a sizeable fall in that population. That might be temporary, so I do not want to overrate the argument. However, that fall may show that some of the efforts that have been made to contain and reduce the remand population are working. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act for the first time gave me powers to impose time limits. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am doing that—[Interruption.] If he does not, he is ignorant. He knows that I am extending the arrangements steadily across the country and that before he is much older time limits will apply throughout England and Wales. That is progress, which was not attempted—or attempted successfully—by Labour Home Secretaries.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:
Kim Scott Howells Esq., for Pontypridd.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On occasion I have been on the receiving end of colourful verbal strictures from your good self. No one wants to incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, but could you nevertheless take time to examine the method and approach that you seem to be adopting in relation to the calling of Opposition and Government Members in Scottish Question Time?
As I understand the proceedings of the House, Question Time is an occasion for hon. Members to put the Executive—that is, the Government—under pressure. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the supporters of the Government whom you choose to call do not do that. Today a Conservative Member was called who had put down no question whatever for Scottish Question Time. When he had put his supplementary he departed the House—only to return again, such was his interest. He thus prevented many Opposition Members from putting genuine questions, of interest to their constituents, to the Government and putting pressure on the present particularly objectionable Secretary of State for Scotland and his cohort.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister's reply to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) may have misled the House somewhat. The Minister said that the question of metered water rates was for the discretion of the regional councils, yet he has—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to take that up with the Minister rather than with me. It is not a matter for me, and I have no idea whether what the hon. Gentleman has said is right or wrong. What is the point of order?
Mr. Bruce: The related point of order is that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside was called twice, while some Opposition Members were not called once. When the Government are bringing in English Members to ask questions, it seems unreasonable that their Scottish Members should be called twice, keeping Opposition Members from being called at all.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
Mr. Speaker: Will it be helpful?
Mr. Bennett: I hope so.
Mr. Speaker: I hope so, too.
Mr. Bennett: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), Mr. Speaker. You will recall that in questions to the English Department of Health on 13 December the Opposition Front Bench consisted of the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook). There were three Scottish Labour Members questioning the English Health Department.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Helpful, but I think that it would be a good idea if I dealt with this.
Mr. John McFall rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet; allow me to deal with this.
I do not think that I need repeat to the House that we are a United Kingdom Parliament. I weigh the rights of majorities in the House very carefully, but the rights of minorities must also be taken into account. Today 35 Scottish Members were called, and 11 Members representing English constituencies. Four of those had questions on the Order Paper, and one of the questions was about forestry, a matter that concerns the entire United Kingdom and is answered for by a Scottish Minister. It is a very difficult balance, but I do my best to be utterly fair.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of serious concern. Today's edition of The Guardian contains a statement that the European Commission is prepared to bulldoze this country into accepting a gross lorry weight of 44 tonnes. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the then Secretary of State for Transport making a solemn statement that the current maximum of 38 tonnes would be retained.
Have you, Mr.Speaker, received any notification of a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport to make it clear that the Government will resist any imposition of a new limit by the Common Market? Although the Government have removed the right to a veto on transport matters, they should be here to prevent the arrival of more juggernauts on our already overcrowded roads as a result of the arbitrary fiat of the Common Market.
Mr. Speaker: I have received no such notification, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman and the whole House that we in this United Kingdom Parliament feel that no one should bulldoze us.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily, but you may recall that this afternoon the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said in reply to a question that I had asked with reference to the Minister of State's use of the word "fluctuation" in relation to Alzheimer's disease that what I had said was wrong and untrue—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is taking time out of the Welsh debate. I cannot be responsible for what is said by the Minister at the Dispatch Box, or any other hon. Member. This is not a point of order for me.
Mr. McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was present for the entire hour of Scottish Question Time and stood up in vain on six questions, while watching hon. Members with no constituency interests in Scotland being called and departing the Chamber. I had put my name down for the ballot and had been drawn seventh. I subsequently discovered that my question had been transferred to the Department of Education and Science.
292
That question concerned a burning issue in Scotland —the possible closure of the Glasgow veterinary school —and it should have been debated in the Chamber today. If that is not of real concern to the people of Scotland, what is? What advice can you give me, Mr. Speaker, so that—as one of my hon. Friends said earlier—the people of Scotland can genuinely question the Executive on such issues?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know about the transfer of the question, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not called. Perhaps I may quote to him and the House the wise words of the Leader of the Opposition when I was chosen to be Speaker for the second time. He said that, sadly, in this place no Member can expect to be called on the day that he wants, at the time that he wants and on the subject that he wants.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall put my point of order in my best Welsh accent. I know that you are not responsible for what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box, but today I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland inadvertently misled the House. I questioned the right hon. and learned Gentleman about Shell's proposal to construct a pipeline between Grangemouth and England to pipe ethylene. In his reply the Secretary of State said he understood that there was a pipeline already between Grangemouth and England. But there is no such pipeline. Shell's proposal is a new approach and the Secretary of State inadvertently—I do not believe for one minute that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended it; no lawyer ever does anything that he is not sure of—misled the House. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State is present to carry that message back to his boss; and I shall look for a letter tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 17 MARCH
Members successful in the ballot were:

Miss Joan Lestor.

Mr. Ian McCartney.

Mr. Henry McLeish.

BILL PRESENTED
  PROTECTION OF RESIDENTS IN RETIREMENT HOMES
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Alistair Darling and Mr. Harry Barnes, presented a Bill to establish the rights of residents who have purchased a retirement home in a complex run by a management agency to appoint the management agency and agent of their choice, to appoint the accountants and auditors of their choice, to have presented audited accounts for any charges levied on them, to restrict the increase in management charges; and to require developers and management agencies to give full details in all advertisements and promotional literature of all charges: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

  Scotland
  4.31 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Scottish Assembly and Executive and for their functions and powers; and to make consequential provision.
  Ten years ago today the people of Scotland voted by a majority of 77,000 to establish a directly elected national assembly for their country. Scotland was, of course, cheated of that assembly by procedural manoeuvring in this place. A cleverly constructed wrecking amendment, allied to the intriguing of Westminster party politicians, was sufficient at that time to ensure the repeal of the Scotland Act 1978 and with it the defeat of the Labour Government who had steered the Scotland Bill on to the statute book.
  In the long years since then, Scotland has had extremely good cause to regret that missed opportunity, which briefly opened up in that referendum a decade ago. Clearly, being realistic, my ten-minute Bill will be of symbolic significance only. It cannot and will not put right the many wrongs that have been done to my country by Conservative Governments since 1979, but that is so only because my Bill will never make it on to the statute book.
  When Scottish home rule is finally enacted, as enacted it will be, and when, at last, an elected national assembly convenes in Edinburgh, there is no doubt that the prospects for social justice and for economic recovery in Scotland will be transformed for the better. Those who put their faith in the present system of governing Scotland are either blind to its deeply undemocratic nature or not entitled to call themselves democrats.
  Scottish Office Ministers, and the army of civil servants behind them, are accountable only upwards, to those above them in the Westminster system, and never downwards, through Scottish Members of Parliament, to the only true source of democratic government in Scotland, the Scottish people themselves.
  The particularly Scottish elements in the current machinery of government—the Scottish Grand Committee, the Scottish Standing Committee and the Scottish Select Committee—are either dissolved, patronised or packed with non-Scottish representatives. Those Committees are never allowed to carry out their intended function of scrutinising the Executive and placing a democratic check on the legislative or Executive excesses on behalf of the Scottish people. Those Committees, and with them the ballot box in Scotland, are rendered impotent by a flawed system of parliamentary government which places overwhelming and unaccountable Executive power in the hands of an unrepresentative, albeit an elected, minority.
  That flawed system of governing Scotland can no longer be tolerated. In the words of the recently published "Claim of right for Scotland"
  "Either we advance to an Assembly or we retreat to the point at which Scottish institutions are an empty shell."
  The purpose of the Bill is to serve notice that Scotland intends no retreat, but is determined to advance to the assembly for which its people have repeatedly voted. The advantages of an elected assembly for Scotland are many. Through it, for example, the Scottish people would directly control their own unique system of education. No assembly that was accountable to the people of Scotland
  294
  would ever countenance the scale of university cuts seen in Scotland or the introduction of student loans into Scotland. No assembly based upon genuine democratic consent would consider for a moment the closure of established and successful dental and veterinary schools. No assembly, which relied for its legitimacy on the Scottish people, would promote opting out or subject seven-year-old school children to the trauma of national testing. Yet all of those developments are taking place in Scotland today only because those who control Scottish education are unaccountable to the Scottish people for what they do.
  An assembly would likewise transform the prospects for tackling Scotland's endemic housing crisis. The answers to the plight of the homeless, to the despair caused by dampness and condensation, to the problems of overcrowding and the problems of growing rent arrears and indebtness are already known to those who are daily involved with Scottish housing. They understand the need for a programme of public investment in the housing infrastructure. They recognise the importance of subsidising owner-occupation and public renting in a fair and equal manner. They appreciate that choice and diversity in housing must be available to everyone by right, not just to those who happen to be able to afford it. But they do not have the ear of Scottish government, because government in Scotland is not Scottish. If the resources to solve those problems are ever to be released it will be only through art elected Scottish assembly.
  It is also important to consider local government in Scotland, which is distinct from local government elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It has its own unique structure, its own unique system of finance and its own separate traditions of public service. All of those are now put at risk by a centralising and authoritarian Government determined to impose uniform controls that will ensure that Westminster runs every corner of the country, imposing a sameness that stems from submission to central Government.
  Worst of all, there is the poll tax—unwanted, unloved and despised by eight out of 10 Scots—imposed on Scotland in circumstances so undemocratic as to call into serious question the claim of this House to any kind of democratic legitimacy. A Scottish assembly elected by the Scottish people would, as a matter of priority, abolish the poll tax and restore the independence of Scottish local government. For me that in itself makes the case for a Scottish assembly unanswerable.
  Tonight there are to be Tory celebrations in London and Edinburgh to mark the 10th anniversary of the defeat of the Scotland Act 1978 and to plan for the defeat of any future Scotland Acts. We are told that the Tories will be celebrating 1979 as a turning point in Conservative party fortunes, although, God knows, Scottish Tories have had little enough to celebrate about in the past 10 years—there is little enough about United Kingdom politics of the past 10 years for any of us to celebrate. Local democracy has been all but strangled. Trade union rights have been smashed. The right to dissent and to freedom of speech have been and are being seriously curtailed. A secret and all-powerful state grows more obsessively secret and ever more authoritarian behind a parliamentary facade, which no longer relates to the people and which is now distantly remote from any democratic reality.

  295
  In those circumstances an elected Scottish assembly would present the most important democratic breakthrough in post-war British politics. To borrow a phrase from the Scottish poet, Hugh McDiarmid, it would be:
  "A flash of sun in a country all prison grey."
  The days of Scotland waiting for others to make up their minds about Scottish government are over. At the end of this month the Scottish constitutional convention will hold its first historic meeting in Edinburgh. That convention will bring forward proposals for an assembly which will unite behind it an unprecedented level of majority popular support in Scotland. Other hon. Members may question the level of democratic support behind this ten-minute Bill, but no hon. Member will be able to question the level of democratic support for a Scotland Bill that will come from the work of the Scottish constitutional convention.
  There is and there will be an absolute democratic imperative on the House to recognise the will of the Scottish people. If that imperative is ignored and if this House again sells the pass on the Scottish question, it can no longer claim any democratic legitimacy in Scotland and it will deserve to be opposed by democrats not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. George Galloway. Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Thomas Graham, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. John McFall and Mr. Martin O'Neill.

  SCOTLAND
  Mr. John McAllion accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Scottish Assembly and Executive and for their functions and powers; and to make consequential provision: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to record that not a single Back-Bench Tory Member was present during that important debate on Scotland's constitutional future?
  Mr. Speaker: That has just been recorded.

  Welsh Affairs
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  Mr. Speaker: In view of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies who wish to take part in this important debate, I propose to use my power to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. If, due to the restraint of those hon. Members called before 7 o'clock, that proves to be unnecessary, I shall ask the then occupant of the Chair to be flexible.
  4.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Since we last debated this subject a year ago we have, unfortunately, lost two of our parliamentary colleagues, Brynmor John and Sir Raymond Gower. I am sure that it is right to begin by saying that hon. Members on both sides of the House are united in their sadness at that loss. The two hon. Members had many qualities and characteristics in common. Both served their constituents exceedingly well and were dedicated to the prosperity and future of Wales. Both had a great spirit of public service and qualities of compassion and kindness which all hon. Members admired. We regret their passing.
  I should also like to congratulate our new colleague, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who has just taken his place in the House. Like him, I arrived at the House after a by-election. I must confess to relief that since then I have had to fight only general elections, not by-elections. For the period that the hon. Gentleman is a Member of the House, I wish him well and the fulfilment of his ambitions in parliamentary life.
  During the past year, there have been many events which will affect the future of the Principality. A range of new schemes and enterprises have been set up, all of which will have a considerable impact on the future of Wales. During the past year, the valleys initiative has been launched and the enterprise initiative was launched by the Department of Trade and Industry. Major proposals have been made for housing, to which I shall refer later. The Welsh language development board has been launched and a White Paper on health has been published. Bills on the privatisation of water and electricity have begun their passage through the House. All those developments will have a considerable impact on Wales, and I shall have something to say about each of them.
  I realise that the Opposition cannot say that the programme for the valleys is splendid. Understandably, they have to say that if it looks good, it is merely good publicity and public relations but not good in a monetary sense. I perfectly understand that reaction as I spent some years as a member of a shadow Cabinet in opposition to two Labour Governments. I do not think that my record would show me to have been full of praise for anything that those Governments did.
  This week, one of the Welsh newspapers commented on a report sent in by the Welsh district councils. I have just read the report on the valleys programme, which they had also sent to me. I had replied to them and was surprised by the headlines in the newspaper. I thought that the report was constructive. It analysed what was taking place,

  297
  devoted several pages of approval to the details of many of the proposals and ended with six major policy priorities, with virtually all of which I agreed.
  A great deal is currently being done to overcome the considerable problems—in particular, the decline of the coal and steel industries—that the valleys have suffered and in some respects are still suffering. I think that everyone, irrespective of political views, will rejoice at the recent considerable new inward investment into the valleys. There has been one investment—often a large one —every two weeks, and many more are being negotiated. That will substantially increase the diversity of industry and commerce in the valleys.
  I am sure that everyone is also delighted that Welsh Development Agency factory lettings have been at record levels. In the nine months from 1 April last year to 1 January this year, there were no fewer than two new factory lettings per week. Unemployment in the valleys, although still far too high, has fallen during the past three years by nearly 40 per cent. During the seven months since the launch of the valleys initiative, the fall in unemployment in the valleys has been even faster than the record falls in Wales as a whole.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: In the past month, unemployment has risen in the Cynon valley, which still has the highest male unemployment rate in Wales. The valleys initiative has not done much to help towns in my constituency such as Mountain Ash, Penrhiwceiber, Aberdare and others which have been devastated by job losses in the coal industry.
  Mr. Walker: As the hon. Lady will know, it was the chief executive of her local authority who prepared the report from the district councils in which he listed many factors in the valleys initiative of which he thoroughly approves. As the hon. Lady also knows, unemployment in her constituency peaked in 1986 and is now much lower, although a great deal still needs to be done there. In a recent parliamentary answer I listed all the initiatives taking place in her valley, where there is enormous public expenditure. If she would like to table a similar question on the likely benefits for her valley of the valleys initiative, I shall be only too pleased to answer it. Greater programmes than ever before for work such as derelict land clearance and factory building are now being undertaken.
  Under the valleys initiative, the new small loan scheme and the valleys enterprise scheme now operate. Those schemes apply only to the valleys, and already several dozen valley businesses have taken advantage of them. I hope that many others will benefit from them in the future.
  One of the most exciting elements is the new enterprise initiative launched by the DTI, under which firms can apply for substantial Government grants so that they can call in consultants to advise them on a range of important issues. No fewer than 360 projects have been undertaken for valley firms in the first few months of this initiative.
  Another initiative of considerable importance, not just for the valleys but for the whole of Wales which I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome —and when it is built and completed, support—is the centre for quality, enterprise and design at Treforest. Building is now starting and I hope that the first occupants
  298
  will arrive at the end of August. This institution will be unique to the United Kingdom, and I am glad that it will be in the valleys. Its object will be to have a major impact on improving design quality so that Wales and the valleys retain their reputation in that respect.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: We await the outcome of the valleys initiative to see whether it will create new jobs and provide new money. If it does, everyone will welcome it. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there are old industrial areas outside the valleys—old slate quarry areas, for example—which face problems similar to those of the valley communities? What initiatives does he plan to help those areas?
  Mr. Walker: I intend to deal with other parts of Wales later in my speech. I am dealing now with the major new initiatives that we have launched, but I agree that such areas face a range of problems, that some have higher unemployment than the valleys and that action is needed.
  The hon. Gentleman says that he awaits the outcome of the initiative and will judge it on the details, and I am happy for him to do that. In the first six months of the initiative, there has been a great deal of new money and, compared with the promises and predictions that I made, there has been more activity on derelict land clearance and factory building and letting, and more money is going in. I intend to deal later with today's announcement by the Welsh Development Agency of the new factory building programme for 1989–90, which is larger than last year's.
  The figures for regional aid in the valleys are remarkable. Grants made since the initiative, to the middle of January, have covered projects involving 7,500 new jobs and private investment of about £180 million. The WDA's record advanced factory building programme is well under way. In the current financial year, it involves investment in 450,000 sq ft of new advanced factories. In addition, more than 300,000 sq ft of bespoke factory building has been completed, and more projects are in hand. Total WDA investment in factory building in 1988–89 will be more than £20 million in 1988–89 and about £66 million over the three years of the programme, which is £5 million more than my original forecast. Work is also in hand on more than 130 small local authority factory units, with Welsh Office urban programme assistance.
  Mr. Keith Raffan: As my right hon. Friend knows, there is considerable disappointment in my constituency at the Government's decision not to extend the Delyn enterprise zone. Will he give an assurance today that the focus of WDA factory provision in north Wales will shift from south-east Clwyd to north-east and coastal Clwyd? At present there is an imbalance favouring Alyn and Deeside and Wrexham Maelor which we want redressed throughout north Wales.
  Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will be pleased to see the programme announced by the WDA today. I know how long and enthusiastically he has propounded the need for more factories. Today's announcement of the WDA factory building programme for 1989–90 includes plans for three new factories in the Delyn area, which I know will be welcomed by my hon. Friend and his constituents.
  A great deal is happening in training in the valleys, where more than 20,000 people are expected to benefit from the Training Agency programmes in this financial year. Other major investments are taking place, too. It is

  299
  now estimated that £56 million will be invested in the garden festival at Ebbw Vale. I hope that all local authorities, not just that of Ebbw Vale, will support the project, which will benefit the whole of Wales. In all the programmes of the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales tourist board and others, we must ensure that we take full advantage of this enormous capital investment.
  Mr. Ray Powell: Returning to the point about the Training Agency and future developments in training, I must point out that that has nothing to do with the valleys initiative, which is designed to reduce unemployment. Since the transition in Ogmore from enterprise to training we have lost about 500 jobs in an organisation of which I am chairman, known as CATO —community activities and training in Ogmore. When and how will those jobs be replaced?
  Mr. Walker: I have discussed this with the hon. Gentleman. A decision was announced long before the event that the large sums being spent on training should be spent on schemes in which real training was provided to give the trainees future careers. The community schemes were of great service at a particular time, but it was then important to move over to training in greater skills with proper training facilities.
  In the valleys initiative I pledged that £1 million per week would be spent on training in the valleys for the next three years. I intend that to happen, and that the money be spent on training of a quality that will use the skills, talents and abilities of the people of the valleys, because that is the best way of developing industry.
  This week I met the key people involved in the training organisation. We have invited a group of people to serve on the advisory training board, some of whom have still to say whether they will do so. The board will consist of people of high quality. The previous chairman of the Training Commission, Sir Mel Rosser, has agreed to continue, and I am glad to say that George Wright of the Transport and General Workers Union has agreed to serve on the board. He was on the previous commission and has considerable knowledge of the training needs of the areas. I intend regularly to meet those responsible for training to ensure that that £1 million per week is well spent on improving the quality of training.
  During this period there has also been remarkable progress in the clearance of derelict land in the valleys. Record levels of expenditure have been deployed. In 1988–89, expenditure is expected to be £14 million, compared with the original forecast in the valleys initiative of £12·5 million. Schemes involving the clearance of about 400 acres will be completed in 1988–89, and a further £40 million will be spent over the next two years. In all, 2,800 acres are expected to be cleared during the life of the valleys programme, an increase of 300 acres on my original forecast of eight months ago.
  The urban programme package for 1989–90 includes allocations totalling £18 million of projects to benefit the valleys; that is a 19 per cent. increase over the record level of allocations this year and about 67 per cent. over the year preceding the launch of the valleys enterprise. The Welsh Office has also announced that it will make available additional funding of £5·5 million for 10 more valley health projects, which are proceeding. The forecast 25 per cent. increase in the number of houses benefiting from
  300
  enveloping and block repair schemes is taking place; about 2,000 houses will be treated under the programme in 1988–89.
  I could continue with more details. I challenge anyone to find anywhere in the United Kingdom with a population of 700,000 in which there is so much activity on such a scale and enjoying such considerable success.
  The enterprise initiative launched by the DTI was important. Wales has a remarkable record during its first few months of that initiative. When I took on my responsibilities at the Welsh Office I discovered that, when major DTI schemes were launched to provide grants and facilities for industry, far from receiving more than its appropriate share, Wales virtually always got less. We endeavoured to communicate with Welsh commerce and industry—with considerable success—and the Opposition will be delighted to hear that in the first few months of the enterprise initiative, applications and grants provided under the scheme in Wales have been 60 per cent. higher than the DTI had predicted. Indeed, applications are better in Wales than in any other region of the United Kingdom, which reflects the vitality in what is happening there.
  During the course of the year I announced the setting up of the Welsh Language Board and received criticisms from both sides about it. The English-speaking parts of Wales said that it was monstrous to set up a board whose members were all enthusiastic Welsh speakers. They thought there should have been a balance between English and Welsh speakers. I decided to set up that board because I wanted on it people who were enthusiastic about the Welsh language. They have started their work and made various suggestions to us. They will be making many more suggestions in the coming period. Partly on their advice and partly as a result of the examination that we conducted, I have today announced a record £4·6 million of grants for the Welsh language, a 40 per cent. increase over this year.
  This large increase demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to the language and our determination to build on the enthusiasm and good will that already exists to secure its future. Welsh language education will receive £2·7 million, £2 million of which will be allocated to local education authorities, the Welsh Joint Education Committee and other educational bodies., including colleges. More than £700,000 is being given to support the Welsh language educational development committee to meet the cost of curriculum-led developments proposed by the committee.
  I also hope that during the year there will be additional proposals which, if approved, can be supported from the £300,000 that I have yet to allocate. In addition to the £4·6 million, I have also made available £160,000 in 1989–90 for educational support grants to be given to support Welsh in the curriculum, and I hope significantly to increase that support in the future.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: With regard to Welsh in the school curriculum, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the fact that, although we in Pembrokeshire support encouragement being given to the Welsh language and culture, there is the traditional culture of Pembrokeshire which for nearly 1,000 years has been based on English? Will he also bear in mind the representations which are being made to him by the

  301
  governing bodies of schools in south and mid-Pembrokeshire? They feel that rather than be obliged to have Welsh as a compulsory part of the curriculum, which will alienate the large number of English speakers, its inclusion in the curriculum should be voluntary.
  Mr. Walker: I hope that, in all of what can be described as the predominantly English parts of Wales, considerable enthusiasm will be shown by education authorities to ensure that the teaching of Welsh is available. In terms of Wales as a whole, that represents a positive approach. I do not believe that there is any need for the English-speaking parts of Wales to show any fear or hostility towards the idea of more children of English-speaking families learning the Welsh language. The measures that we are pursuing in this sphere will prove to be important.
  I note that the Welsh Language Board has been offered more than £250,000 to undertake the tasks that I have set it. That is the amount of money that it suggested that it would need in the coming year for the tasks that it will be taking on. In that area too, therefore, considerable progress is being made.
  I wish to consider next the provisions that have been made and the legislation that has been passed in relation to housing. As yet, neither local authorities nor the people of Wales have recognised the radical change that is taking place and the way in which it can lead to considerably greater resources going towards improving the housing stock in Wales. The new housing improvement grants which will come into force in 1990 will be of particular benefit to Welsh householders and will enable us to target resources to those in greatest need.
  For the first time, there will be a mandatory grant to enable dwellings to meet a new and more objective fitness standard. Discretionary assistance will be available to improve properties beyond that to a new target standard. Our test of resources will ensure that those in the greatest need receive the highest level of assistance, and for the first time grants of up to 100 per cent. of the cost of the works will be available. For example, a pensioner couple with an income of £90 per week will receive 100 per cent. assistance by way of grant. A married man with two children and earnings of £6,000 will also receive 100 per cent. improvement grant.
  Considering the position and nature of the housing stock in Wales, the nature of the people of pension age and the fact that there has been a massive programme of housing improvement in Wales—in the last 10 years it was far greater than anything that had previously taken place— this new mechanism, by which throughout the United Kingdom a great deal of the money will go to those on lower incomes with the worst housing, will result in a considerable transformation of the scene in Wales. I hope that local authorities and others concerned will examine carefully how to take full advantage of the scheme when it is introduced in 1990.
  Mrs. Clwyd: The Cynon valley has the highest percentage of unfit housing in Wales, and more than half the privately owned houses are unfit for human habitation. will the right hon. Gentleman estimate how long it will take the Cynon valley to put right its unfit housing under the programme that he has been describing?
  Mr. Walker: I cannot think of any part of the United Kingdom that will benefit more from this scheme than the Cynon valley, because, as the hon. Lady says, there are many people on low incomes and a large number of old houses. Never, under any Government of any complexion, has there been a mandatory right to 100 per cent. grant for people in that position. I hope that the hon. Lady's local authority will examine in detail exactly how it can take advantage of the scheme. The speed with which advantage is taken of the scheme is important in terms of planning, because Wales has experience of poor workmanship in house improvements. As the scheme will not come in until 1990, that is a good period for local authorities to examine, survey and decide how to meet the mandatory requirement on them to deal with the problem. For areas such as that represented by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), this will be an important and radical measure.
  I come now to some controversial areas in terms of party politics. Before the White Paper on health is implemented, there will be plenty of time for dialogue and suggestions. I hope that we shall debate the White Paper in the Welsh Grand Committee, when I shall be interested to hear the views of hon. Members. As one of the small number of Cabinet Ministers who were originally involved in the drafting of that White Paper, I give a categorical assurance that there has never been any motivation that it should be a means of privatising the National Health Service. I believe that it is absolutely vital to keep the NHS and to manage it well.
  I hope that, when people examine the White Paper—as I had to examine it in terms of drafting—they will bear in mind the importance of deciding what levels of quality to set for the management of the NHS. Irrespective of the complexion of the Government in power, that is a very real problem. By considering the quality of management, the manner of its recruitment, the amount that it is paid and the diverse nature of the skills required, we wish to improve the quality of delivery, whatever total Government expenditure is put into the NHS.
  I am eager and willing to look at ways to achieve that improvement. For example, would there be advantage in having more managerial power at hospital level rather than at district authority level? If that were to be done, it would have to be on the basis that management had all the obligations to carry out all the services that were needed in the locality served by that hospital. Not only would there have to be a management structure by which that would continue to be done, but we would have to monitor the situation to ensure that it was being done after the change had taken place.
  There are many issues in the White Paper, some controversial and others not, but they are all important, considering the considerable resources that are being spent on health. In what I might call the Welsh passage in the White Paper, we can see that in Wales perhaps more than in most parts of the United Kingdom there is considerable scope for improving the services to see that the lifestyle of the people, the prevention of illness and health care is improved. We are examining proposals on those matters and I hope that they will come forward in the coming year.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Welsh Office does not appear to have produced working papers on the Welsh section of the White Paper. Will the

  303
  right hon. Gentleman say more, for example, about the so-called treatment centres? I cannot discover any information to flesh out what is said about those centres.
  Mr. Walker: On most issues we shall be issuing papers similar to those for England, and of course those principles will apply. I think that they are to go out this week. Thereafter, we shall issue papers on specific Welsh proposals. There will be plenty of time for discussion and I am anxious to hear the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  I recognise the party political differences on water and electricity privatisation. When those proposals have been implemented and are fully in operation they will have to be examined by the people of Wales. Prior to vesting date, many issues will arise about the form of privatisation, the way in which the shares are placed and the use of land holdings. I am happy for those two proposals to be examined on their merits when they are in operation.
  I should like to say a few words about the general economy of Wales and deal with some regional matters. In regard to north Wales, I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to examine the implications of the completion of the A55. He will be meeting local authorities and will welcome the views of Members of Parliament representing north Wales and other areas. Currently, the movement of inward investment in north Wales is very encouraging. A whole range of potential planning applications are under consideration. Obviously, I cannot comment on them, because any appeals will come to me.
  There is no doubt that there is enormous interest in development along the A55 and enormous potential for tourism. We have to examine carefully ways to attract to mid-Wales, west Wales and north Wales businesses and interests in which the geographical location is no longer of any great importance. Due to the nature of telecommunications and monocommunications for a whole range of service industries there is no disadvantage in being in a place that is not on the main routes but is very attractive. I want to persuade local authorities along the A55 to take a postive approach to planning and not merely react to applications that are put in. They have to make clear which areas they would like to see developed and the type of development that they would prefer.
  I understand the fear that development will damage Welsh language and culture, but nothing has been more damaging to the language than the lack of economic development, which has led Welsh-speaking people to move away. If economic development means firms and managers coming from outside, one has to examine the education system and ensure that the Welsh language is preserved, but one also has to consider the enormous advantage of active economic development. In the coming months, therefore—before the summer recess, I hope—the potential of the A55 to north Wales will be examined.
  The letting of factory units in mid-Wales during the past 12 months has been quite staggering, and way beyond what was predicted. For that reason, we have given the go-ahead to further investment programmes. Some further units are under construction and some are to be built in the coming year. If we consider the scale of population concerned there are considerable advantages in making such efforts.
  In regard to south Wales, in the long-term communications are terribly important. The completion of the second Severn bridge is also of considerable
  304
  importance. I am delighted that the firms to which the tender documents are being sent were announced yesterday. We have given them a very short time in which to put in their tenders and I hope that shortly afterwards we shall be able to make decisions and proceed quickly with the building of the new bridge. Likewise, an improvement of the railway services is extremely important to south Wales and will take place on a considerable scale.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: What discussion has the Secretary of State had with British Rail and other interests in the railway sector? Has he considered a direct rail link through the Channel tunnel to European capitals for passengers and freight? It is totally unacceptable for such a link to go through London, as it would cause complete chaos.
  Mr. Walker: I have had talks with the chairman of British Rail and with the chairman of the Channel tunnel company about that. British Rail has a statutory requirement to produce a basic plan for building an infrastructure fitting into the Channel tunnel during this calendar year and it is working on that. I have relayed to British Rail the importance of good freight and passenger services.
  In regard to freight, the important thing is riot necessarily the direct line to the Channel tunnel, but where, how and how speedily the carriages are assembled and how quickly they go through the Channel tunnel. In various parts of Wales, we have to create very good modern freight terminals in which carriages can be assembled and made ready to move as whole trains or to link up with other trains to go through the Channel tunnel. We are considering those issues in great detail with a view to creating an extremely good service.
  We should remember, however, that 82 per cent. of all freight traffic to Europe will go by means other than the Channel tunnel. Everyone is becoming obsessed with the Channel tunnel, which will convey a very important 18 per cent. of the freight, instead of concentrating on improving communications for the other 82 per cent. of freight from the United Kingdom to Europe. There is considerable potential for south Wales in a possible link with Portugal and Spain through Milford Haven docks. Although the docks have been built, road improvements would be needed. There is considerable potential for getting a considerable amount of United. Kingdom freight to Spain, Portugal and Ireland by that route.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of railway links, will he confirm that British Rail has been considering the possibility of reopening the Severn tunnel junction which was closed —in my view, ill advisedly—only two years ago? Will he also say something about railway halts in Gwent? There is certainly a clamour for one in Magor, which is developing fast. Can the Secretary of State give any assistance to Gwent county council as it seems that British Rail is asking for an exorbitant amount of money to provide that halt?
  Mr. Walker: I have not discussed either of those matters with British Rail. I have heard nothing from British Rail about those issues, but I shall look into them.
  We must consider a number of issues concerning south Wales. Newport and Cardiff enjoy a great deal of inward investment, including the big Ford investment. I believe

  305
  that the area surrounding Swansea also has considerable potential. The WDA factory programme announced today suggests a specific programme, and a number of local authorities around Swansea bay have formed a consortium, including a number of places currently confronted with considerable difficulties, such as Llanelli. I hope that there can be a range of promotional activities and factory building which would greatly benefit areas further west along the M4 motorway.
  In regard to the economy, the WDA factory building programme announced today is on a considerable scale. I shall not bore the House with the details other than to say that they are a considerable increase on anything that has taken place before. However, I shall say a few words about an important issue to Wales—the future of inward investment. Recently, the Select Committee examined inward investment and made a range of proposals. There is no doubt that inward investment into Wales in recent years has been on a considerable scale and has proved a great success.
  In the past year, inward investment has broken all records in terms of forward investment. Even excluding Ford, it breaks all records for inward investment. We are enjoying a big proportion of the inward investment in the United Kingdom. We have an attractive package of measures, thanks to the selective assistance and the Welsh Development Authority. The most important and attractive ingredient is the fact that we have gained a good reputation in labour relations and productivity.
  I believe, however, that our drive for inward investment must be even more professional in the immediate future than in the past. We have had colossal benefit from both investment and jobs, each of which has risen year by year on a considerable scale.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Secretary of State agree that the quality of the inward investment is important, that a number of the jobs that have been created in Wales recently are low paid and part time, that current average male earnings in Wales are the lowest of any region in Britain, and that the position of women is even worse? Is there not a possibility that people are exchanging poverty-line benefits for poverty-line wages?
  Mr. Walker: That is a very bad remark to make about the quality of inward investment. It creates the impression both at home and abroad that the only thing coming to us is low quality investment. Does the hon. Lady think that the Ford investment is low quality or that some of the investment in the chemical and electronic industries is of low quality? As for average male full-time earnings, in two of the Glamorgan county council areas they are higher than in the west and east midlands at present. The image that the hon. Lady constantly wishes to depict of low earnings and unskilled people is just not true. I ask her to go down the list of inward investments over the past two years. How can she suggest that they are of lousy quality? They are very high-quality investments, bringing a new range of activities and considerable skills to the Welsh economy. I warmly welcome them and hope that they will continue to be of such high quality.
  One of the important new injections into the Welsh economy in investment is financial services. These are going on now on a considerable scale. In the recent past,
  306
  the Trustee Savings bank has brought 2,000 jobs to Newport. There has also been investment by the National Provident institution, a major French bank, Rothschild's, and the expansion of Lloyd's bank in Swansea. We also have a whole range of small firms expanding their staff and their activities. Over the past eight years, 20,000 additional jobs have been created in financial services in Wales. Nobody would have predicted that rise such a short time ago. I am glad that it is accelerating, and I am glad that the Cardiff bay development will add to it. It is something that will benefit the whole of Wales.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: It is interesting to hear the Secretary of State refer to 20,000 extra jobs in financial services in the past eight years. He must realise that in the past 10 years we have seen a reduction of 153,000 full-time jobs in Wales. When does he expect us to get back to the levels of employment that existed when Labour was in power?
  Mr. Walker: I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman waits for the forthcoming figures he will be pleasantly surprised. He may, when he sees them, say that this is due to the very small sample that was taken, and that may well be true, but all I can say is that in Wales we have the remarkable fact that since its peak in May 1986 unemployment has dropped by 62,000 despite the fact that in that period we lost 10,000 more jobs in coal and steel. Financial services are a very important part of the economy.
  The Select Committee said that it did not like the title of WlNvest, and that it should be replaced or altered. I accept that recommendation, as I do not think that it is a good name.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: How about "Walkervest"?
  Mr. Walker: That might be much better. If it comes about, I shall cite the hon. Gentleman as the proposer.
  We see, therefore, that Wales is experiencing a substantial fall in unemployment, has an enormous flow of inward investment and has the biggest factory building programme for its size anywhere in the United Kingdom and perhaps anywhere in Europe. The diversity and number of new jobs is increasing and new training is being carried out on a considerable scale. The combination of all these factors is transforming the Welsh economy. I believe that the people of Wales recognise that this transformation is taking place and that it is very much to the benefit of future generations in Wales.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State refer to inward investment and to a record building programme. Some of us on the Opposition Benches thought that the really big record was his output of press releases during the past year: they have rained down on Wales thick and fast.
  I had hoped to hear in the right hon. Gentleman's assessment of the economy how he saw the impact upon small and medium-sized businesses in Wales of a possible further rise in interest rates. As regards inward investment, I had hoped to hear some sort of statement on the Toyota project. But he did not mention them. I would use the word "sanguine" to describe his speech, even "over-sanguine", and as a corrective I will offer a reference to the report by the Low Pay Unit in today's Western Mail, which says that:

  307
  "the divide between Wales and the south-east of England is now greater than it was a year ago."
  According to the Western Mail,
  "The report argues that the situation has worsened since the loss of relatively well-paid, male-dominated jobs in the Welsh coal and steel industries in the early 1980s. Low pay is also common in rural Wales."
  It makes the serious statement:
  "Average earnings for men are lower in Wales than in any other region of Britain".
  More facts as an antidote to an over-sanguine speech. In Clwyd male unemployment is 12·8 per cent., in Dyfed 14·8 per cent., in Gwent 14·2 per cent., in Gwynedd 17·1 per cent., in Mid-Glamorgan as high as 17·3 per cent.; South Glamorgan has 12,459 unemployed men and some 4,200 unemployed women, and West Glamorgan has 14·5 per cent. male unemployed. These are very serious figures. The right hon. Gentleman's approach today took no account of the very large-scale unemployment that still exists throughout Wales today. One of the disadvantages that he labours under is that his Prime Minister, early in the 1980s at a Conservative conference in Swansea, actually said that the unemployed of Wales should travel to England to find work.
  The right hon.Gentleman referred to two late colleagues of ours. Sir Raymond Gower was regarded by all of us as a very personable man and a very gentlemanly person—a very nice man. Nobody would deny that he was a House of Commons man. None of us ever heard from those Benches any harsh or personal statements that were offensive. In the Tea Room he was a pleasure to talk to. He had a great deal of humour; he used to understate matters. In the Welsh Grand Committee, Raymond Gower was always very loyal to his Ministers, and he displayed a great deal of insight into the politics of Wales. I rather think that, over the years and behind the scenes, he gave Ministers a lot of good advice. Nobody can take from him his superb constituency work. He was probably one of the finest ever constituency Members. Nobody could say that Raymond Gower had other than tremendous personal and loyal support from Lady Gower. Our proceedings will be the poorer for his death.
  In passing, I draw attention to the pressure in modern politics throughout Wales. I remember Mike Roberts, Alec Jones, Brynmor John and Euan Evans. We can all draw some conclusions from the passing of these colleagues.
  Having spoken about late colleagues, I should now like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) who had an exceptionally warm welcome today. He fought a fine campaign and is no stranger to us. He is a considerable broadcaster and his by-election victory is a watershed in this Parliament. I enjoyed listening to all his speeches in the campaign, and I especially like his identification with and loyalty to his own industry of mining. I was impressed by his love of the Welsh landscape and know that he will do his best in the House to guard it. He spoke up strongly for the under-privileged in his constituency—those on low wages and people who are badly housed. When my hon. Friend speaks in the House, some of these issues may come forward.
  I was disappointed in the Secretary of State's response to the loss of jobs in the steel industry. In Trostre, Velindre, Brynawel, Ebbw Vale and Shotton, there have been heavy job reductions, over 1,000. Those were hi-tech, full-time, first-rate male jobs in manufacturing, and the
  308
  economy cannot afford such job losses. I emphasise our great regret at the lack of consultation. It seems that, once the steel industry was privatised, the board was able to act at will. I do not think that the Secretary of State lifted a finger to help. I regret that, because we have lost some of the best jobs in Wales.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will say something about the tinplate industry in Wales as we go towards 1992. Our steel workers who suffered job losses are getting a poor repayment for first-class productivity. They generated profits but have suffered a reduction in manning because there have been many redundancies over the years. The Secretary of State should take into account the strength of the industry. I do not want that strength to be dissipated now that the industry is privatised. I warn the Secretary of State that many steel workers in Wales fear that their jobs will go to contractors. I am informed by trusted and experienced trade union leaders that there is always a decline in the status of jobs provided by contractors. That decline is in health and safety, pensions, wages, holidays and other conditions that were hard won and jealously guarded over many years.
  I should now like to turn to the south Wales coalfield. There is now a revue of the Cynheidre and Marine collieries in which about 1,500 jobs are being looked at and about 500 jobs are under review elsewhere in the coalfield. The loss of 2,000 colliery jobs would be serious because coal and steel jobs are important. I have a hot question for the Secretary of State. Why is the Carway Fawr mine at a halt after the investment of £35 million? The miners believe that production has been halted so that when people are taken on again they will be non-NUM members.
  We think that the supposedly moderate face of British Coal in south Wales is a blind. The south Wales NUM is noted for its good day-to-day industrial relations. We have every reason to believe that British Coal is acting provocatively and, arguably, wanting disputes. I should like the Minister to refute that. He should meet the chairman of British Coal and the area director for south Wales and raise these matters because they are of great importance to the coalfield.
  I spoke about great pressure on miners. They are somewhat bitter because it seems that the productivity goalposts are being moved. They are also worried about the import of anthracite from China and there is apprehension about the effect on the south Wales coalfield of electricity privatisation. Because of the importation of anthracite our production centres are being closed. The Minister should intervene, not step aside and ignore the worries in the coal industry.
  When we consider the potential loss of 2,000 coal jobs and 1,000 steel jobs, we see that even if the Toyota project were to come to Wales, the jobs that it would provide would be negatived. We could put it another way and say that, to replace the steel jobs soon to be lost in Wales, we would need several more of the magnificent Ford Bridgend investment projects. That shows that the matter is serious.
  Interest rate levels have prompted warnings from the business community in Wales. A recent survey by Cardiff chamber of commerce showed that high interest rates are an increasing headache for businesses in south Wales. We have had a warning from the director of the CBI in Wales, Mr. Ian Kelsall, that sustained high interest rates will lead to a decline in investment. I was disappointed that the Minister did not address himself to the problem of high interest rates in relation to industry in Wales. He did not

  309
  address himself to the continuing impact of the balance of payments crisis or to the effect on businesses of likely increases in the cost of water, electricity and gas. He did not speak about inflation, which may well hit 8 per cent. before long.
  The Secretary of State and I both know that the Budget surplus is estimated at about £10 billion. Will he use the authority and influence of his Department to ensure that the Severn bridge tolls are not increased? We should like to hear about the date on which it is intended to start the second crossing. We are worried by recent statements by the Minister for Public Transport, because it seems from reading reports of what he has said that he is not prepared in any way to say that the second crossing is a certainty. We expect the Secretary of State and his Ministers to fight hard for the earliest possible starting date. Given the size of the Budget surplus, there is no reason why the Department of Transport should not seriously consider electrifying the Crewe-Holyhead railway line.
  We should have a guarantee of major increases in funds to tackle the housing crisis. The Secretary of State forgot to tell us that more than 4,500 people are homeless in the Principality, according to a recent answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman). We should like the Minister to press for an increase in child benefit and for more funds for the National Health Service, with the aim of mounting a meaningful attack on waiting lists and financing a genuine programme of preventive medicine in Wales.
  The right hon. Gentleman should devise schemes to assist exporting industries in Wales. Something should be done about bringing in lower interest rates. On these Benches we say no to a free market; we know, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, that Wales needs public investment, intervention and more and more funds.
  While I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have criticised various legislative proposals that have come before the House in recent months, we need legislation which the Government have not brought forward. There was no mention in the Queen's Speech of a measure to make an attack on environmental pollution. Yet in Wales last year the infamous poison ship, the Karin B, wanted to dock at Neath. In my constituency poisoned soil has been dumped near houses, having been brought to Mostyn dock from Rotterdam. The Dutch did not want it; we in Wales had to receive it.
  In the borough of Torfaen, Rechem has an infamous smoke stack. Its outpourings frighten the local population. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is fighting hard for a public inquiry. We should have a public inquiry too about continuing pollution of the river Dee, from which water is extracted for domestic use. There have been far too many pollution incidents on the river. The right hon. Gentleman surely saw the Daily Post this week where it is reported that the North West water authority still intends to dump raw sewage in Liverpool bay. Much of that deposit ends up in the north Wales area to the detriment of our beaches and our tourist industry. Public opinion demands ministerial intervention in the near future.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of pollution, will he please not forget probably the worst industrial polluter left in Britain, the phurnacite plant in
  310
  Abercwmboi in my constituency? Does he agree that if that plant were in the south-east of England it would have been shut long ago?
  Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be instructive if the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his many visits to Wales, were to go with my hon. Friend to see for himself what it is like.
  More Welsh people should be involved in decisions affecting the environment. Above all, we want an adequate inspectorate. We have only one inspector responsible for poisons for all of Wales, yet the importation of foreign poisonous waste is a burgeoning industry. There has been a 13 per cent. increase in carbon monoxide from cars in the past 10 years. Expenditure on research into the environment has been cut by 17 per cent., yet there has been a tenfold increase in the importation of hazardous waste since the Government came to office. We want legislation, and we want the right hon. Gentleman to speak up for us on this matter.
  Much of what the right hon. Gentleman said today related to the valleys initiative. We have a mandate to make our views known. The initiative has a noble aim if it is properly funded, strategic and not tactical, long term rather than short term, and if it is free of any taint of a confidence trick or of the technique of the sting. The right hon. Gentleman made an error last week. Two days before the Pontypridd by-election, he could not resist the temptation to meet some of his cronies and make a speech to them, instead of making a statement to the House on the Monday. I am sure that his civil servants advised him against doing that.
  Mr. Peter Walker: May I say that there was no protest by civil servants? The speech was agreed and announced in September 1988 before there was any knowledge that there was to be a by-election.
  Mr. Jones: So it was just a coincidence that the right hon. Gentleman went to meet his cronies two days before the Pontypridd by-election. His civil servants did not protest. They advised him not to do what he did.
  Mr. Walker: I had no advice from any civil servant on that. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that civil servants gave me advice which they did not. I hope that he will withdraw that.
  Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is stung. He is embarrassed. He knows that he made a monumental error of judgment. By his demeanour during his intervention, all of us on these Benches know that he has virtually made an apology. I respond to the right hon. Gentleman in the same spirit as he made his intervention.
  My advice to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should not play around with the initiative for short-term gain. The councils in the valleys are good councils. They are well informed and responsible. Their reaction to the initiative has been reasoned. That is important for the whole programme. I want to give the right hon. Gentleman some advice. The areas outside the valleys are getting nervous. He has to do something about them. Yesterday in the Western Mail we had the headline:
  "Urban aid package share out is attacked".
  The article said:
  "Dyfed County Council yesterday bitterly attacked its share of Wales's £20,600,000 urban aid package. The county's

  311
  share, of only £48,000, was described by civic chiefs as bitterly disappointing, with West Wales being sacrificed at the altar of the Valleys Initiative."
  The right hon. Gentleman has work to do; he must tell areas outside the valleys that he is not robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it were.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has quoted from yesterday's Western Mail. Has he seen today's issue with the headline:
  "Investment in rural industries 'booming'"?
  Underneath it says:
  "West Wales is now witnessing a major rural investment boom."
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman should tell that to Dyfed county council.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has quoted the Western Mail as a definitive newspaper. During the recent by-election it was grotesque that the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo were taken over by the Welsh Office. At one stage we wondered whether the cost of their publication would be included in the Conservative candidate's election expenses.
  Mr. Jones: It is "Walkervest" and "Walker Mail". That is in keeping with that newspaper over generations.
  The £8 million for housing envelope schemes is welcome, but that amount could be used entirely by but one local authority in the valley areas.
  Valley councils fear a stop-go policy on derelict land clearance schemes. A consistently high provision of cash is necessary, not just in one or two years. What specific extra funds will he given to deal with the awesome problems posed by our aging population in the years ahead? If the right hon. Gentleman has not thought about that, he had better start doing so in the context of the initiative.
  Will the Secretary of State meet the valley communities to hear their response? Will he take the time to hear their views? Will he meet the local authorities with his junior Ministers, not just once but several times in the years ahead? The three-year programme is welcome, but if the initiative is to get off the ground it must run for at least eight years because continuity is all important.
  Surely the urban programme funding should be increased significantly. The valley councils clearly believe that the initiative can prosper only as a rolling programme. The Secretary of State instances 25,000 to 30,000 jobs in three years. What private enterprises will put their money into the valleys and who will pay for the infrastructure to facilitate such an advance?
  Regional development grants are out, but the Secretary of State has included them in his package, having the cheek to talk of a massive increase in applications. The massive increase was because regional development grant was to be phased out within three months. That is typical of the right hon. Gentleman. Local authorities do not think that regional selective assistance will be sufficient to fill the gap that will be created by the loss of regional development grants.
  In a document published by the valley councils, they say:
  "It was surely deceptive to draw attention to a 'massive increase in applications', when the main reason for such an increase was the three months period given for firms to apply for RDG before it was removed. Obviously this ultimatum generated applications from firms who wished to protect their position, thereby beating the deadline".
  312
  The councils use the word "deceptive", and it is that sort of approach that I want to warn the Secretary of State against. The initiative must work. The programme must be carried forward.
  The valley councils fear that their economic efforts will be secondary to those on the coastal plain. The Secretary of State must give some assurances on that. The Government's financial cuts have left valley road maintenance in a scandalous state. They say that the fabric of their roads may disintegrate entirely. Will the right hon. Gentleman make cash available to avoid that? Where are the proposals to upgrade the present antiquated three-lane sections of the heads of the valleys road? Surely upgrading that road is of fundamental importance to a strategy for the region. That is of prime importance, but the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to it.
  The figures that the Secretary of State has given for housing are not enough. The total repair bill for the valleys is in excess of £300 million. The employment and financial status of many home owners is disturbing. That is the only word to use. A rolling programme for housing is necessary.
  Let me remind the Secretary of State that the poll tax would be a devastating blow to his own initiative. How can his initiative revitalise the valleys when the burden of the poll tax will fall disproportionately on the valleys? The right hon. Gentleman's support of the poll tax undermines the very programme that he has been extolling to the House. Again, that is typical of the right hon. Gentleman. We want some answers from him on that issue. If he does not make money available over and above the normal provision, his initiative will fail.
  It is daft for the right hon. Gentleman to include the improvement of hotels arid pubs. Many brewery refurbishments were completed before the valleys initiative was announced. That has caused some hilarity in the valleys at the right hon. Gentleman's expense.
  I have read the impressive response of the Committee of Welsh District Councils to the valleys initiative. I know that the Secretary of State has read it and I hope that he will meet members of that committee.
  I support the idea of the valleys initiative. Much needs to be done to create jobs, to provide good housing, better health and better education and to improve the quality of the environment in the valleys. But the Secretary of State is an expert at gift wrapping. The paper is nice and shiny. The bow is beautifully tied. But when the right hon. Gentleman's parcels are unwrapped there is not much in them. We shall have to look carefully at his statements and examine them in detail.
  The Secretary of State is willing to take the credit for the valleys initiative—he went to Merthyr to get it—but, he must share responsibility for the Government's policies and their impact on the valleys. The Opposition know that the Government's economic policy is at odds with the aim of the valleys initiative. Until the right hon. Gentleman can work that out we have a serious problem.
  The Electricity Bill guarantees electricity for our Welsh people, but at a much higher price. It will have a serious impact upon the south Wales coalfield. It will encourage a flood of cheap imported coal and there is no guarantee in the Bill of security of supply in the mid-1990s. It is defective legislation.
  The Local Government and Housing Bill continues Heir Majesty's Government's attack upon local government in Wales. It guarantees large increases in council house rents

  313
  Those rent increases that the Government will force upon council house tenants are likely in turn to force tenants to buy their homes. In case the Secretary of State has not read it, I can tell him that his name is on it.
  The Secretary of State's name also appears on the Education Reform Bill which has since been enacted. That Act goes overboard on testing. It puts a great deal of pressure on the primary school pupil and it ignores the current demoralisation of the teaching force and the need for money for staff in order to meet the demands that the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Education and Science are making through the curriculum. Worse, it is potentially divisive.
  Worse—if it can be worse—is the Water Bill. If ever there was one, here is an unwanted, friendless Bill. Its name could be "the great Welsh land sale". When last were some 85,000 acres of beautiful Welsh landscape put under the hammer? The Bill there virtually guarantees that the ownership of our own Welsh water authority will slide into the hands—the profit-hungry hands—of City institutions. That is to be the fate of the Welsh water authority. In respect of this Bill, the Secretary of State has been as weak as water. His name is on it.
  Why has no Welsh national rivers authority been mooted? My right hon. and hon. Friends and I say to the Secretary of State that he should have had Wales exempted from this Bill. Without a doubt, it is a stain on his reputation. The Secretary of State for the Environment —the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—bested the Secretary of State for Wales in Cabinet. The Secretary of State for the Environment has overturned the right hon. Gentleman's own water reorganisation of 1973. If ever there was a departmental humiliation, this measure is it. However much the right hon. Gentleman may squirm, he knows that the Bill is a major defeat for him and his Department, yet he had the recklessness to put his name to it. It guarantees high costs, but does not declare a war on pollution or guarantee quality water, yet the right hon. Gentleman failed to have Wales exempted from it.
  Then there is the Local Government Finance Act 1988. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the poll tax goes against the Welsh people's instinct for fair play. As if he did not know it, the poll tax will bear heavily on the larger, poorer families of Wales. Women, too, will lose out. When the full impact of the legislation is measured, it will be seen that our valleys curse the poll tax and curse the right hon. Gentleman who failed to have Wales exempted from it.
  We have also the White Paper on the National Health Service reforms. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that these reforms are unwanted by patients, by nurses, by doctors and by ancillaries? Does he not realise that the White Paper is a lost opportunity? It contains no substantial proposals about how to provide quality care for the elderly—just a proposal for private health insurance and private beds. How can the average pensioner afford private health insurance? The Prime Minister should explain, because, despite the Secretary of State's disclaimer today, and despite his soft words and his honeyed phrases, there remains in Wales the suspicion that the Health Service is to be prepared for privatisation. I remind the Secretary of State that Mr. Aneurin Bevan, the
  314
  architect of the Health Service, drew his spirit from the people of Wales—and the pervading spirit was social justice. This White Paper goes in the opposite direction. It is another instance of an error of political judgment on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I understand that my own county health authority— Clwyd—condemned the overhaul of the National Health Service. It said that the health authorities that provide regional services—Merseyside, for example, offers cancer services to North Wales—have their costs reimbursed through extra Government funding, but that under the new arrangements they would charge for those patients they treat. Dr. David Jones, the general manager, said that between £5 million and £10 million would be needed. As recently as yesterday, the health authority voted, by nine votes to one, with one abstention, to reject the right hon. Gentleman's own White Paper. This measure is not needed by the people of Wales, and when the general election comes, and when there are further parliamentary by-elections, the right hon. Gentleman's party will be called severely to account. That I predict.
  These measures—all of them—will be the means by which the right hon. Gentleman's party loses many, many votes in Wales, and, symbolically, I throw the book at him. He will deserve the criticism that he will get throughout the length and breadth of Wales for putting his name to measures that Wales does not want and does not deserve. He should know that he is putting very heavy burdens upon the backs of his hon. Friends who will present themselves to the Welsh people for re-election.
  I firmly believe that the Prime Minister appointed the right hon. Gentleman as our Secretary of State by error. Perhaps she thought that his constituency—Worcester— was in Wales. These legislative measures will quicken the electoral decline of the Conservatives in Wales. The Education Reform Act, the Local Government and Housing Bill, the Electricity Bill, the proposed changes in the National Health Service, the poll tax and the privatisation of our water industry are against the grain of our nation's history, and I know that they will be rejected by the electorate. The Secretary of State for Wales, who so carelessly—indeed, cheefully—endorses them, will in the long run be found waiting by the Welsh people.
  For all his skills of presentation, the right hon. Gentleman cannot hide the fact that he is politically the Prime Minister's messenger-boy. The most experienced member of the British Cabinet, and arguably the most able, is the Prime Minister's apologist for unjust, unwanted legislation in Wales. I remind him that at Prestatyn last year he was rash enough to say that he would make the political map of Wales blue. Well, he has got the blues now. Pontypridd gave him the answer. Hon. Members on this side reject the free market approach. We shall redouble our efforts, because we believe that the Conservatives are in decline. We look forward to the hustings, when our programme will point to victory and to social justice.
  6.9 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) reminds me of nothing so much as a small boy sitting on the edge of a canal bank, fishing aimlessly through the long afternoon with a bent pin, and coming up with nothing more than a few rusted tin cans.

  315
  I am very conscious that this slot in our debates was almost invariably filled by my good and close friend, and the friend. I believe, of every Welsh Member, Sir Raymond Gower. On a later occasion it will be my privilege to pay a fuller tribute to him, but at this point I must say that he had one quality in particular that I think we should all do well to emulate: he invariably gave his political opponents credit for sincerity and for good intentions. I will try, at any rate in this speech, to live up to his high standards in that respect
  After the Pontypridd by-election, which was caused by the untimely death of another much-loved and much-admired Welsh colleague, Brynmor John, and which has brought into this House a very distinguished new Member, whom we all eagerly look forward to hearing, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, the Labour party, very understandably, is feeling rather pleased with itself. It can hardly be blamed for licking its lips over the prospects in Vale of Glamorgan, where the act of Raymond Gower will be a hard one to follow.
  There were two fundamental reasons for the Pontypridd result. There is the natural disenchantment that comes after any Government have been in power for some time. The only surprise is that it took so long in coming. What is of more specific interest is to assess how far the mid-term unpopularity has been mitigated and aggravated by the Government's policies, particularly those affecting Wales. I intend to deal mainly with those policies but, before that, I must face another relevant issue.
  During the by-election campaign the Labour party concentrated on attacking the value of the valleys initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside did the same today. There was a lot of talk about hype from one Opposition Member and much derision over the paucity of visible results from the initiative. Fair play; that is all part of the rough and tumble of politics and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be the last to complain. He knows the value of a sharp jab in the solar plexus. In trumpeting so loudly the scope and huge aims of his valleys initiative he was laying himself open to just such a jab, especially with a by-election coming when it did. No doubt there will be other such blows in Vale of Glamorgan.
  However gleefully the Labour party exploits the contrast between my right hon. Friend's policies and the achievements shown to date, it knows two things well. First, the valleys initiative represents a major effort by one Minister, in a Government who are excessively addicted to market forces, to intervene purposively in the economy and to use the power of the state to unleash large-scale private investment. Secondly, it shows something else which offers an even sharper comment on its by-election tactics. My right hon. Friend, in this matter as in everything else that he has undertaken in his long and immensely distinguished public career, has always been conscious of the need for boosting morale. He knows that if he can create the impression that the valleys are about to enjoy a rebirth of activity, private investors, scenting a boom, will want to get in on the act. That, in its turn, will touch off other investors until the process of growth becomes self-stimulating.
  I apologise for a brief attack of total recall, but I can remember the mood of dismay with which those of us in the British forces in this country in 1943 contemplated the prospect of making an opposed landing on the heavily fortified coast of northern France. I remember how, within
  316
  a few weeks of his appointment as commander-in-chief, General Montgomery, speaking directly to all the troops under his command, had convinced us that the landing was not merely possible but something to look forward to with relish and cheerfulness. My right hon. Friend is perhaps too young to have come under Monty's spell, but he has some of his qualities—at any rate the electorate of Wales seems to think so.
  A truly startling poll conducted by the Western Mail just before the by-election—if Opposition Members wish to dispute the validity of the poll, may I say that it predicted the result of the by-election with uncanny accuracy—showed that no less than 93 per cent. of Conservative voters who expressed an opinion said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was doing the best job among Welsh party leaders. That is perhaps not surprising. It showed that 73 per cent. of Liberals thought the same, and the cruellest blow of all for the Labour party was that half as many again of Labour voters approved of my right hon. Friend as approved of the Member for Alyn and Deeside. Almost every Welsh Member is prepared to admit in private that the Secretary of State is the best thing that has happened to Wales in many a long year, and his speech today was good evidence of that.
  I come to the more controversial matter—the impact or the Government's policies on Wales. Without the substantial economic progress that has occurred under this Government, there would not have been the recovery from the painful process of industrial reconversion that was forced on Wales by the previous over-reliance on the older, heavier industries. There is no doubt that the Welsh economy is infinitely better placed to withstand any future blast than it was even 10 years ago. I am aware that there is plenty of room for discussion as to whether the social price of the conversion has been higher than it need have been or whether the fruits of the new-found prosperity have been shared out with tolerable fairness. However, the prosperity is indisputable, and I see unmistakable evidence of it throughout my constituency, most notably in Rhyl.
  However, some of the Government's policies have exceptionally, and sometimes needlessly, damaged Welsh susceptibilities. There is the exclusive reliance on interest rates as a means of combating inflation, which is causing hardship and resentment among farmers and home buyers. There is the sheer lunacy of the poll tax, which will turn out to be at a higher level than we have been led to expect and will be far more expensive for local authorities to collect than the Government have allowed for. I withdraw none of the criticisms I have repeatedly directed at that daft idea. However, it is now the law and must be obeyed.
  There is the privatisation of water, which is at present dragging its serpent path through Committee and making few friends on the way. I still find it as intensely and deservedly unpopular in Wales as it has ever been, and the news that the Government plan to spend £100 million telling us how splendid it is is hardly calculated to endear it to us any more.
  There is the privatisation of electricity, which does not arouse the same hostility but which does not send the blood coursing through Welsh veins.
  There is also the fundamental reform of the National Health Service, which is certainly necessary and well intentioned. However, it will be hard to make it acceptable unless the Government are seen, at the same time, to be making a massive additional injection of public funds into

  317
  the Health Service. That should be done in much the same way as they could more easily have secured acceptance for the changes in the social security system if they had not tried to combine those changes with limiting the growth in expenditure at the same time.
  Of course, there have been the confrontations with the doctors, nurses, social workers, farmers, house buyers and, in their time, the teachers, miners, postal workers, civil servants, the BBC, all our EEC partners and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand—and now, as if that was not enough, the serried ranks of the lawyers. That is far from being an exhaustive catalogue. It is all seen by many people in Wales as part of the syndrome, once described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), of the Prime Minister being unable to see a British institution without wanting to hit it with her handbag.
  It is not as if there was any great love in Wales—any more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom—for those institutions. However, there is a growing feeling that enough is enough and that privatisation is in danger of becoming an obsession of the sort more usually associated with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and Mr. Enoch Powell. It is more urgent to improve public services than to pull them up by the roots.
  More and more people in my constituency, including many of my Conservative supporters, wish that the Government would stop and let us catch our breath instead of turning everything upside down for the sake of it. Also, they are not as convinced as they might be of the overwhelming merits of the reforms to date. They have been told time and again that the Department of the Environment has sorted out local government. However, they find that, despite all the talk about curbing local council extravagance, Clwyd county council is making a gigantic increase this year in its rate precept while, at the same time, failing to carry out its full responsibilities in education or social services. They ask how that can be when Clwyd had a generous rate support grant settlement and the new machinery is supposed to be in place to stop such extravagance. However, the intolerably large increases go on just the same. What will Ministers do about it? What can they do about it?
  The people have been told, rightly, how much the Government have done for the police, where their record is miles better than that of their predecessors. But they read also that the north Wales police have asked for 30 extra posts and have been allotted six, and at the same time they read of more and more loutish riots in hitherto peaceful villages.
  Although we have the best Home Secretary that I can recall, the Government are not seen to be winning the battle against crime or disorder. It would be dishonest to pretend that a large increase in police resources would turn the tide. However, the impression which is now widely prevalent in north Wales, that the Government are refusing the increase in manpower for which the police are asking—an increase which is needed if they are to cope with imported hooliganism in seaside resorts and the home-grown variety in the villages without totally depriving the countryside of any cover—reinforces the growing sense of unease that the Government are getting
  318
  some of their priorities wrong. I ask the Secretary of State to convey to the Home Secretary the deep disquiet that is felt throughout north Wales on this matter.
  It is not just in the matter of law and order that there is growing concern about the Government's priorities. There certainly was a need to diminish the power of the state, to give the individual more room to breathe and to assert himself over mighty corporations. The new freedom has brought results that benefit the whole community, but there are things that can be better done by collective action. I refer to public order, the protection of the environment, education, and health. People seem to sense that fact more vividly in Wales than in other parts of the United Kingdom. That feeling will have to grow and deepen before it constitutes any real threat to the Government at the next election—although, no doubt, it will fuel many a by-election humiliation. As long as divisions in the centre and on the Left persist—and they will persist—there can be no effective challenge to Conservative supremacy. We Conservatives will continue to govern this country for a long time.
  I do not know whether the ambitious projects that my right hon. Friend has launched, not just for the valleys but throughout Wales, will have shown enough results to enable our party substantially to increase its representation in the next Parliament. It certainly deserves to. What I do know is that a Conservative Government who rely for their power and authority solely on English seats are not the kind of Government whom I want in my country. I should find it hard to support policies that seem designed to produce such a result, and I have profound comfort in knowing that neither would my right hon. Friend or any of my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench.
  6.22 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: I echo the tributes that have already been paid to my distinguished predecessor, the late Brynmor John. As Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Minister of State in the Home Office, chief Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, defence, social security and agriculture, and simply as a decent human being, Brynmor John gained the respect and admiration of all whom came into contact with him. As a member of Labour's shadow Cabinet, he maintained a special interest in defence, community relations and Welsh affairs. He listed his chief interests as music and watching rugby.
  During my by-election, his and my favourite club, Pontypridd, fought a hard and uncompromising duel with Llanelli. As I sat and watched the huge, force-fed Llanelli forwards manhandling our smaller, spirited Pontypridd pack, I thought of Brynmor and wondered what he would have made of such a spectacle. Would he, like me, have been reminded of the similarity between Llanelli's tactics and those of the majority of the Cabinet when they rudely trounced the former right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, beginning a train of events that resulted in a by-election in that constituency being held on the same day as that in Pontypridd? Would he, like me, have been struck by the similarities in the one-eyed press coverage given to both bloodbaths, with Pontypridd and the former right hon. and learned Member for Richmond portrayed as the guilty parties, leaving Llanelli to pour its players into the present Welsh national side and the Prime Minister to retain her grip on the national economy?

  319
  Given the less than distinguished record of the current Welsh rugby team and the Government's performance in controlling inflation and their balance of payments deficit, Brynmor John would have smiled and whispered something about how it is better to lose a short battle but win the war. If ever the Welsh rugby establishment or the Prime Minister care to venture into the Pontypridd constituency, there will be a special welcome there. It may take some getting used to, but it may also help them on their way to wherever they plan to retire. The Pontypridd constituency is modern Wales in microcosm. I am far from certain that the Welsh rugby establishment or the Prime Minister has any notion of what that means.
  Oh, they have their methods for gauging the mood of the Welsh nation. The rugby bosses seem to favour the sacrifice of a goat at midnight so that they can judge the composition of the national squad from reading the carcase's entrails. The Prime Minister employs as her own diviner in Wales the right hon. Gentleman from the English marches who continues to chant, "Initiative, initiative," as though he believes that, at a stroke, the very word will eradicate all the economic and social problems that his Government claimed to have cleared up five years ago.
  My constituents bear little malice towards those who, because of accident of birth, walk in ignorance of the true nature of modern Wales. They have almost certainly forgiven the candidate for the Social and Liberal Democrats, for example, who, in the recent by-election, referred to Pontypridd as a black hole. They did not forgive him quickly enough to prevent him from losing his deposit, but never mind. Pontypridd's intrinsic sense of fair play ensured that the SDP candidate lost his deposit as well.
  As I said, the constituency is modern Wales in microcosm. Its northern extremities embrace the old heart of Wales's coal industry. In the south, it is fringed by the M4 corridor of newer, lighter industries, and to the east and west by constituencies which, like Pontypridd, have experienced considerable changes of character since the second world war. Evidence of those changes is spread evenly across the Pontypridd constituency. There has been around its southern communities a welcome expansion of new industries.
  At the northern and eastern ends of the constituency the evidence of change is less encouraging. For example, the Tonyrefail community was proud of its colliery— Coedely—until it was closed under the auspices of the Conservative Government. Similarly, if we travel south and east, we find the community of Beddau, where the Cwm colliery was located. That colliery employed 1,000 men until it was closed under the auspices of the Conservative Government. Travel south and east and we find the community of Nantgarw, which lost its colliery at the same time as Beddau lost the Cwm colliery.
  There is no let-up to such closures. Just an hour ago I heard directly from British Coal that it has lodged the strongest possible public complaint at news of the Central Electrical Generating Board's decision to import, via Newport docks, a test cargo of 30,000 tonnes of American coal for its Aberthaw B power station. British Coal is particularly upset at the news, because, as the Secretary of State knows only too well, it has invested heavily in the collieries which supply Aberthaw. British Coal has made it
  320
  clear that that investment has resulted in an unprecedented increase in efficiency and productivity, and a perfectly adequate supply of low-cost fuel from its pits to Aberthaw.
  I fail to see the sense in allowing the CEGB, which is about to be hocked off to private enterprise, to destroy the good work of this investment just for the sake of making a fast buck on the international coal market. I deplore the prospect of my constituency's electricity supply depending for its fuel on sources beyond the boundaries of Wales. Although we in Pontypridd may have reservations about the price that we pay for our electricity, and even greater reservations about the lack of anti-pollution technology installed in power stations, we are glad that our electricity is generated from low-sulphur Welsh coal at the Aberthaw power station.
  We are far from glad to note the Government's enthusiasm not merely for imported coal but for the construction of a nuclear pressurised water reactor at Hinkley Point, just 20 miles from the southern edge of my constituency. Although, no doubt, some of my constituents may enjoy the remarkable spectacle of the Secretary of State for Energy attempting to emulate Tony Curtis in that great old film "Trapeze" by performing the political equivalent of a triple somersault as he justifies the need to ring-fence the nuclear industry at the same time as he throws the rest of the power industry into the open market, many more of my constituents will be hoping and praying that the Secretary of State for Energy will find no equivalent of Burt Lancaster to catch him as he hurtles towards the temporary safety net of the Back Benches,, taking his poor nuclear policy with him.
  The people of Pontypridd do not intend that their elected representative should remain silent on such issues, and nor shall I, as long as I manage to attract the attention of your fair and most reasonable eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: It is rare to have the privilege of following a maiden speech, especially in mid-term, as a result of a by-election. It is traditional that maiden speeches are listened to without interruption and greeted with approval. I have no wish to depart from that tradition, although I do not do so merely out of tradition. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is already a known face from his appearances on television. I was most interested to see in a recent television appearance that he has such diverse interests as jazz music and our own exciting proposals for redevelopment in south Cardiff. He now has the opportunity to be a known voice —or an even more known voice—as he has taken his place on the Opposition Benches.
  I unhesitatingly offer the widest welcome to the hon. Gentleman personally because, whatever political differences any of us may have with each other, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as sincere in representing his constituents as I and every other hon. Member try to be. Whatever our differences, we must try to remember that we are human beings as well as hon. Members and we must try to work together. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as any of us what a hard act he has in following the late Brynmor John. He was a loved and respected Member of Parliament. He was loved and respected in the House and as a neighbour, in that my constituency abuts the Pontypridd constituency. I know that Brynmor John was

  321
  loved and respected in south Wales as well. I wish the hon. Member for Pontypridd well in his membership of the House, and I am sure that in our continuing debates we shall hear much more from him.
  Another hard act to follow was the late Sir Raymond Gower. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) spoke admirably in his tribute to my late hon. Friend. He said that Sir Raymond Gower was arguably the finest constituency Member of Parliament for Wales that we have seen. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside never spoke truer words. I can subscribe to those words because for much of my life in south Wales I lived in the late Sir Raymond Gower's constituency. My first involvement in politics was in 1964, when I canvassed the area in which I lived on behalf of the then Conservative candidate, Sir Raymond Gower. Most recently, when I had the privilege to enter the House, Lisvane, where I live in south Wales, was in Raymond's constituency.
  There has always been intense media coverage about what will happen after the loss of Sir Raymond Gower. It struck me that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made a most appropriate comment on Monday in delivering some form of rebuff to his counterpart, the leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). He suggested that there was no great haste to be discussing the Vale of Glamorgan as the late Member for the Vale of Glamorgan was not even buried at that point. There have been unseemly moves in that direction, and I am afraid that the speculation about who may replace my hon. Friend continues.
  Only last night the editorial in the South Wales Echo said that whoever was to be the new Conservative Member for Vale of Glamorgan had to be an outstanding Member of Parliament. Yet we do not know who will be the next Conservative candidate for the Vale of Glamorgan and we do not know when the by-election will be held. As the right hon. Member for Devonport said, there is plenty of time to speculate about that. When we have a new hon. Friend to join us on the Conservative Benches—if that is to be the outcome—I sincerely hope that, whatever qualities he has, we shall be able to say that he is another Sir Raymond Gower, who is truly fit to represent the Vale of Glamorgan which Raymond represented so well and for so long.
  I do not want to fight the Pontypridd by-election again. I will admit to the hon. Member for Pontypridd that I went up there myself. At the end of Thursday night, when I was still going round the doors of Hawthorn in the cold rain, it went through my mind how marginal a constituency we were fighting there. But we can learn from Pontypridd. I refer again to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who called the result in Pontypridd a watershed. I find it interesting that he should describe it as a watershed because, as far as I can calculate, it was Labour's second worst result in Pontypridd at least since the end of the second world war.
  I may be criticised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who made a fascinating attack on his own Front Bench by strongly criticising the use of references to the Western Mail, just as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside was doing that. I suppose that I knew what he meant when I saw on the front page of last Tuesday's Western Mail:
  "Thumbs up for PM and Walker."
  322
  The Western Mail was certainly not prophesying the result of the Pontypridd by-election in putting that headline on its front page, but there were some interesting points in the opinion polls to which the Western Mail article referred.
  An issue that has been on our Welsh agenda and to which it is pertinent to refer in a Welsh day debate is the question of devolution, which most of us in Wales thought had been buried on this day 10 years ago, when the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly and convincingly for having no truck with the Labour Government's Welsh assembly. That was borne out by the opinion poll that was reported in last Tuesday's Western Mail. Excluding those who did not know or did not answer the question, 44 per cent. of the respondents said that they did not want devolution. Out of the supporters of the party that espouses devolution—the Welsh National party—a majority wanted devolution, but a not insignificant number of those who said that they were going to vote for the Welsh nationalists—23 per cent.—said that they were opposed to devolution.
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: To get the record straight, my party does not espouse devolution. Clearly the hon. Gentleman has not been reading the Western Mail.
  Mr. Jones: I am somewhat surprised by that correction. The respondents to the Western Mail opinion poll would have felt that Plaid Cymru was espousing a form of devolution—the ultimate form of devolution. My understanding of the hon. Gentleman's policy is that he wants to see an independent Wales within the Common Market. To me, that is a form of devolution. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, besides the 23 per cent. of his own supporters who say that they do not support devolution, a further 20 per cent. say that they do not know—and that is a total of 43 per cent. of those who claimed to support Plaid Cymru in the Pontypridd by-election.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) has already referred to another result from the opinion poll—the substantial approval rating for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. He had a far higher approval rating than the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside or the leader of the Welsh nationalists, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). I know that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will join me in noting that that was a far far higher approval rating than that for the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), the leader of the Democrats in Wales.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: When it comes to approval ratings and opinion polls, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the best opinion poll was the by-election result in Pontypridd because we attempted to make that election a referendum on the policies of the Secretary of State and the electors of Pontypridd gave them a firm thumbs down?
  Mr. Jones: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's contention is right—
  Mr. Rogers: Count the votes.
  Mr. Jones: Yes, I do count the votes, but I contend that my party did no worse in the Pontypridd by-election than the Labour party, because the Labour party regarded that

  323
  seat as its own but it got its second lowest ever result in a Pontypridd election since 1945. It was even worse than its 1987 result and was worsted only in the 1983 election.
  When the approval ratings were broken down by the political allegiances of those questioned, 19 per cent. of Labour supporters preferred my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales while a mere 13 per cent. approved the actions of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who is my right hon. Friend's counterpart on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Those questions and approval ratings were not confined to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to his opposite number because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's approval rating was tested among the Pontypridd electors. She scored 34 per cent., which was significantly more than the leader of the Labour party. Indeed, out of those who said that they would vote Labour —we know that there were substantial numbers on Thursday—one in four preferred my right hon. Friend to the leader of the Labour party.
  From all that I deduce—this is most relevant to our consideration of Welsh affairs—that there is still a form of traditional support for the Labour party in the valleys in Wales. However, that support is grudging and owes most to tradition. When the electors of the valleys of south Wales are asked specific questions about policies and the people who implement them, there is a far higher approval rating for my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales and for their Conservative policies than for the Opposition. On that evidence the by-election result is not a watershed. It is the death knell, or rather yet another death knell, for the Labour party in Wales and underlines the aim of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to turn the map of Wales blue.
  What else can we learn from that result, and what else has happened in this past year? I have learnt that we have a new spokesman on the Labour Front Bench and that he displays a more positive approach than his predecessor. Indeed, he referred positively to the valleys initiative this afternoon. I wonder how much the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside regretted comments in the press this week that, under the leadership of the lion. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who unfortunately is temporarily not in her place, a study has been set up, comprising Labour party researchers, which is determined to prove that the valleys initiative is a sham, a hype and not worth proceeding with. How typical that reaction was of a destructive attack from Labour and how much it must be regretted. How much more refreshing it would be if a Labour Member representing the valleys had said that he or she was setting up a study group to try to show how the valleys initiative could be improved and how one could build on the excellent work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  However, when such conversions happen, they are something of death-bed conversions. Again in the Western Mail this week I noted that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside outlined his policy for housing and his commitment to the right-to-buy for council house tenants. I wonder how that commitment has come about. Is it because it is now an elephant on the doorstep and cannot be ignored because nearly 60,000 tenants of council houses and flats in Wales have now exercised their right to buy? In view of its poor result in the Pontypridd by-election, the Labour party clearly cannot continue to attack council house tenants who have exercised their right to buy. There
  324
  is still a strong and continuing stream of applications from tenants who want to exercise that right to buy. Therefore, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion, which is probably a good, if a late and dated, example of his pragmatism.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside will now welcome the new Housing Act. Rented accommodation has usually been a smaller proportion of the housing stock in Wales than in the United Kingdom and instead home ownership has traditionally been higher. Since 1979 the proportion of those who own their own homes in Wales has increased from 59 per cent. to 68 per cent. I very much welcome the Housing Act and hope that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside will soon do so. It provides tenants in Wales with more choice and better services.
  I am glad about the establishment of Housing for Wales, which takes over the responsibilities of the Housing Corporation. I believe that it will operate those responsibilities better. Mr. Allan from Cardiff is to be the new chairman and I particularly welcome one of my constituents, Mr. Adam Peat, who is to be the chief executive. I am glad that the financial resources for Housing in Wales for 1989–90 will be 19 per cent. greater than for the previous organisation.
  More emphasis in Wales is now rightly being put on housing associations as being the providers of socially necessary housing. Since 1979 housing associations in Wales have either built or renovated 15,000 additional homes. They are providing necessary additions to the council housing stock and the stock of the private rented sector. As not everyone wants to be a council tenant, the greater emphasis on housing associations is especially welcome.
  Local councils appear to be frightened of some of the provisions of the new Housing Act. They appear to be especially frightened of the freedom for tenants to change their landlord. Why should councils in Wales be frightened of that new freedom? If they are good landlords who look after their tenants, there should be little for them to be frightened about—if "frightened" is the right word— because tenants would not want to change from them. If we consider the theory of that new freedom, we should ask why local councils are frightened of tenants having that opportunity which merely represents a freedom that the tenant can exercise, if he so chooses, after a ballot.
  I am glad to note that two tenant groups in Cardiff are already actively considering the opportunity to change themselves into housing associations. Their estates would be owned by housing associations which they could feel were their housing associations. They would be able to feel that they could more closely control the places in which they live. I cannot predict the outcome. The tenants may ultimately resolve to remain with Cardiff city council and not to form themselves into housing associations. However, it is good that those two groups are giving this issue their fullest consideration and I hope that all tenant groups in Cardiff and elsewhere will also do so. If there are any minor shortfalls on the part of housing authorities such as Cardiff city council, this exercise will at least encourage them to be better landlords and more responsive to the proper needs of their tenants.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales also referred to the new Local Government and Housing Bill. I welcome especially the new grants regime. It will overcome the frustrations that many people in my constituency and elsewhere have felt at being eliminated

  325
  from assistance when making necessary repairs to their homes simply because their homes were not built before 1919. I welcome the fact that the greatest help will go to those in the greatest need and that 100 per cent. mandatory grants will be available to those who most need them. I have many examples in the Tongwynlais, Gabalfa and Heath areas of my constituency where there is 1920s housing which is just as much in need of that help as pre-1919 housing. The people who live in those houses also need those 100 per cent. mandatory grants.
  In many ways, that matter is a less well publicised aspect of the work of the Welsh Office. Inevitably our press is filled with the controversy surrounding new housing developments. The latest planning application to change yet another green field makes significant headlines, but the important progress made in improving Wales's existing housing stock and the further progress that will be possible when the Bill becomes an Act have certainly not been promoted.
  I confess that I have had enough cause to quarrel with the Welsh Office. I was particularly upset to learn recently that the North Penwyn development in my constituency now seems certain to go ahead. What can be laid directly at the door of the Welsh Office is the allowing of an appeal by the Land Authority for Wales enabling it to develop parts of my constituency when the local council had overwhelmingly turned down the application. I still feel that that is entirely against the authority's remit, which should be to facilitate land and housing development where that is a commonly desired objective, not to act in the same way as a speculative developer and flout the wishes of local residents and councils.
  I tend to prefer the strong policy operated by the Vale of Glamorgan borough council, which has largely tended to say that the vale is full and that there is no more room for speculative housing development there. That council is not only working in an excellent way to conserve the Vale of Glamorgan, but redirecting finances towards projects that need them—for instance, the redevelopment of older housing stock that could be brought up to a superior standard if only the money were spent. There is an opportunity for 5,000 new homes to be built in the south Cardiff redevelopment, but instead the green fields in my constituency are being destroyed. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that more promotion of the excellent work being done to improve existing housing stock could result in preserving those green fields.
  Let me finally deal with the subject of health, and in particular transplants—especially kidney transplants. This is a cause that I still hold dear. Wales has led the way in improving kidney dialysis treatment, to the benefit of many patients. Pioneering work has led to the establishment of subsidiary renal units. In the last Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) promoted a ten-minute Bill, arguing that if only the English Department of Health were to emulate Wales there would be a tremendous improvement in kidney treatment there. I especially welcome the recent letting of two new contracts for a further two new subsidiary renal units, including one in my constituency, at the University hospital of Wales.
  I congratulate the Under-Secretary, with his responsibilities for health, on agreeing to walk in Cardiff's St.
  326
  David's day "Walk for Life" on Sunday, and I also pay tribute to the lord mayor, who has done so much to promote it. I urge my hon. Friend, when he is walking on Sunday in a most excellent cause—and, I hope, raising a good deal of money—to reinforce his determination that Wales should maintain its leading role in kidney treatment. I need only remind him of those disturbing newspaper reports about the deplorable sale of organs, involving foreign patients and transplants taking place in this country.
  There is a continuing demand for kidney treatment, and a potential for the number of transplants to be increased through the adoption of the concept of "required request". If only the right questions were asked at the right time I am sure that many more transplant operations could be carried out, and that opportunity should be taken. I urge my hon. Friend on his walk to meditate on the possibility of maintaining the spirit of the lead and taking the matter up with the Department of Health in England. What could be better for Wales's leading record in improving kidney treatment than for us to hear in the Queen's Speech this autumn that a transplant notification Bill will be introduced, making the necessary progress here—as it has been made in so many parts of Wales?
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on his excellent speech. We all knew him, to our advantage, when he was a distinguished research officer for the south Wales branch of the National Union of Mineworkers and many of us relied on his expertise when problems arose—as they still do—involving the coal industry. I shall not follow what my hon. Friend said, especially his remarks about that famous match in which Llanelli once again beat Pontypridd, save to say that if he comes to Llanelli we shall give him and his team a traditionally warm west Wales welcome.
  The Secretary of State spoke very briefly about water privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) rightly said how ridiculous the measure was. In all our debates, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I have been unable to hear or read any cogent argument or sensible justification for abolishing the Welsh water authority and replacing it with a company quoted on the London stock market. If past experience of the privatisation of public utilities such as gas and telecommunications is any guide, the service to the consumer will certainly not improve and will probably deteriorate. Prices will rise steeply and Welsh industry— which already has to pay far more for its water in many respects than many other parts of the United Kingdom —will suffer and find itself at a competitive disadvantage.
  The privatisation plans cannot be justified on any of the grounds on which the Government have sought to justify privatisation in the past. It certainly cannot be justified on competition grounds. I concede that, when the Government privatise what used to be known as the trading part of the public sector, such as steel, it can be argued that competition will result. The steel industry has to compete with other steel companies, with imports on the home market and with other countries on the export market. Steel also competes with other products such as aluminium and plastic.

  327
  The case for privatisating public utilities, however, is much weaker, although I suppose that it is possible to argue that even in the case of gas there is competition in that there are other energy sources. There is no competition whatever for Welsh water, and there will be no competition for the new water company, because there is no substitute for water. The privatised water industry, as has been said, will be a total monopoly. In their ideological madness and Ayatollah-like fundamentalism, the Government are trying to graft on to a total monopoly principles and structures which can be applied only to a free competitive market. Because there will be no free market in water, the result will be a terrible botch-up, to the detriment of consumers.
  The second justification for past privatisation has presumably been money. The Government have made a lot of money out of it. Now, however, they have a massive surplus on their public sector accounts—a surplus that has come about not through shrewd economic management but through the temporary benefit of North sea oil, through other privatisation measures, through the sale of council houses and through running the economy at levels far above its productive potential. The Chancellor now has so much surplus money that he dare not do anything with it. He is in the extraordinary position of being frightened to touch the money. All that he can think of is the futile exercise of repaying the national debt.
  The third justification was that privatisation would establish what the Prime Minister describes as "popular capitalism" in Britain—a share-owning democracy. The privatisation of the Welsh water authority will do little for that. The Secretary of State waxes lyrical about his proposal to ensure that 15 per cent. of shareholders in the new quoted public company will be individuals. That may well happen—I do not know—but I can say for sure that the other 85 per cent. will he held by City institutions.
  The accountability, albeit imperfect, which currently exists through the House and the Welsh Office will be removed and economic power will be transferred to a kind of corporate conspiracy between the managers of the new publicly quoted company on the one hand and the managers of City institutions such as pension funds and insurance companies on the other—the actuaries, the investment managers and what the Chancellor describes as the "teenage scribblers" of the City of London. We shall have corporate capitalism, as opposed to the popular capitalism that we thought the Prime Minister favoured.
  The Government have no moral right to sell off the assets without returning the money that they receive to the local authorities and the ratepayers who have paid for and created those assets. There may be legal challenges in the courts, as there were with the Trustee Savings bank, and perhaps the Government will beat them off, but there is no moral right on the part of the Treasury or the new company—unless there is a restriction on the dividend—to expect that money to go back to the coffers of central Government. If the Government had any moral sense they would return the money to the local authorities.
  It has been estimated that the Government's plans will probably mean that the price of water to Welsh consumers will increase by about 50 per cent. In the past few years the price of water in Wales has gone up by about 10 per cent. over and above the retail prices index. Under the new arrangements—we have not seen them in detail—
  328
  apparently the new stock exchange company will be allowed to increase prices first by the RPI and then by something called the K factor.
  The K factor is a figure made up of a number of complicated ingredients and indexes. One element in the K factor will be the cost of investment. If the new stock exchange company wants to invest, presumably it will have to borrow money. We all know about the level of the pound today. As things are going, it will cost upwards of 20 per cent. to borrow from the money markets. The cost of that borrowing can only be met by the Welsh consumer through price increases—it cannot be borne anywhere else.
  In the competitive market place situation in which the Government believe when companies invest they often, though not always, recoup the cost of that investment not just from existing consumers but, they hope, from increased turnover and sales, an expanded market and by beating their competitors. Such companies therefore spread the cost of the investment. The new Welsh water company, however, cannot increase its sales. Everyone wants purer water, better sewers and less polluted beaches, but such improvements will not increase the sales of water or produce new customers, so there will be no chance to recoup the cost of the investment by spreading the cost —the existing customers will have to pay the lot.
  It gets worse, however, because the K factor will include another figure which we should perhaps call "Special K" for the dividends that will have to be paid by the quoted company as a kind of Danegeld to its owners—the insurance companies and the pension funds. Those owners will want to be told about the dividend before the sale takes place or they will not buy the shares. As a general principle, the dividends of companies—on the stock market or otherwise—are usually paid out of profits. Profits may also result from lower costs, and there may be some scope in the Welsh water authority for reducing costs, although I doubt it because everyone knows that it is a capital intensive operation, so there is little chance of substantial cost reductions.
  There is not much hope of paying for the dividends out of sales increases. As I have already said, one cannot sell any more water than at present, however much purer the water, better the infrastructure or cleaner the beaches. On top of the initial basic costs of water and the investment costs, those extra dividends—12 per cent., 15 per cent. or whatever the City demands—will have to met from the price paid by the consumer. Welsh water consumers will want to pay for better services, albeit grudgingly in some cases, but they will also have to pay for the transfer of funds from them to the new owners of the company, 85 per cent. of which will be owned by City of London institutions.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside has said, a sensible Government would use some of their huge surplus funds to improve our water infrastructure and to make our water and our beaches cleaner rather than to pay off the national debt. Such expenditure would be non-inflationary, unlike the Government's proposals and despite what the Chancellor says about inflation being a terrible thing. Improving services would not have an inflationary effect on prices. If the Government were concerned about efficiency they could set up an independent body to monitor the use of their money in the new companies. A sensible Government would do that and there would be no problem.

  329
  A responsible Secretary of State—I am sure that in private the right hon. Gentleman believes this—would go to the mullah at No. 10 and tell her that the whole thing is nonsense, that the Welsh people do not want privatisation because it will not help our services and it will do no good. If the right hon. Gentleman did that, he would serve the Welsh people well, but it would probably be his last service to the Welsh people.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: I join my colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on his victory after what we all know was a hard-fought campaign and on diving in so quickly and delivering an eloquent and witty maiden speech. I look forward to hearing him again in the Chamber, as we all do, as well as in the smaller more initimate atmosphere of the Welsh Grand Committee—which meets shortly and to which we all look forward with such enthusiasm—and, who knows, perhaps even in the Select Committee on Welsh affairs.
  This debate is the principal Welsh parliamentary event of the year. As has already been said, today's proceedings are tinged with sadness because of the recent loss of two of our senior Members, Brynmor John and Sir Raymond Gower. Both were good, decent and kindly men who were well respected on both sides of the House. Sir Raymond, with his 38 years of service as a Member of Parliament, narrowly missed being Father of the House, but in a real sense he was the father of Welsh Members. The Financial Times said of him:
  "His interest was his constituents and he was assiduous in their welfare".
  Those words could equally apply to Brynmor John. Both raised politics from what Alan Watkins of The Observer calls "a rough old trade" to something closer to a noble calling.
  Last December, towards the end of his speech in the Welsh Grand Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was
  "anxious that we take full advantage of what the A55 can do for north Wales."
  He was keen to examine closely the immense opportunities arising from the £500 million investment spent on dualling that road. He drew a parallel with the enormous impact on economic development in south Wales of the opening of the M4 corridor. My right hon. Friend then announced that he was asking my hon. Friend the Minister of State to confer with local authorities and agencies in north Wales
  "to achieve a much more co-ordinated concept. That will attract economic activity, inward investment and develop existing business."—[Welsh Grand Committee, 7 December 1988, c. 9–10.]
  I hope that that "much more co-ordinated concept" will develop into—I dare not use the word initiative—a full-blown programme for north Wales. Some may ask why that is necessary and why the Government have to intervene in view of the fact that much economic progress seems to be taking place naturally.
  In my own constituency, unemployment has dropped by 48 per cent. in the last two years. That is the fastest falling unemployment rate of any Welsh constituency during that period. In close second and third places are Alyn and Deeside and Wrexham Maelor. Much has been achieved but more still remains to be done.
  330
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the fact that unemployment has fallen faster in several of the valleys than in north Wales. There are currently more people out of work in Clwyd, North-West and Ynys Môn than in the Rhondda, Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent, Cynon Valley, Islwyn and Pontypridd. A more co-ordinated and positive approach is needed to ensure that the prosperity that is beginning to be seen in north Wales is pushed along the A55 corridor into coastal Clwyd without by-passing any area on the way.
  I want to make two important points which must be faced if we are to realise the full value of the A55 improvements. The first concerns roads—I have made it before and I shall make it again and again until the necessary action is taken by the Welsh Office. We need adequate access link roads to and from the A55. I am, of course, aware of the division of responsibility for roads between the Welsh Office and the county councils. But that is not a sufficient response.
  Clwyd has no coherent road strategy. That is not just my view or that of Delyn borough council, but that of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I informed the hon. Gentleman that I was going to say this today and he totally endorsed my view. It was also the view of the previous Secretary of State. Clwyd county council, having dragged its feet for a long time, finally commissioned an A55/A548 road link from consulting engineers Frank Graham and Partners. They concluded what we all knew —that the road network in the area of Flint and Holywell is unsatisfactory in terms of safety, environment and travel conditions. Yet, the county council deferred indefinitely any further study until the Flint by-pass, the third Dee crossing and Northop by-pass has been completed. It said that those roads would relieve congestion on the current link between Northop and Flint—the A5119.
  Delyn borough council takes a diametrically opposed point of view. It believes that a new road link between the A55 and the A548 is of vital importance and should be completed before the Flint by-pass is completed and before the third Dee crossing is even started.
  The borough council commissioned a study of strategic road issues affecting Delyn, including an A55/A548 link, from Messrs. Colin Buchanan and Partners. The report is due in three or four weeks' time. I understand that, with those prestigious engineers carrying out the report, it is already striking dread into the hearts of the county surveyors department at Clwyd.
  It is astonishing that the transport section of the Clwyd first structural plan alteration contains no mention of the benefits that the A55 will bring to Clwyd. Delyn's view is in sharp contrast. The council is particularly anxious to exploit the opportunities offered by the A55. We urgently need Welsh Office intervention to ensure the development of a coherent road strategy for Clwyd and the whole of north Wales so that the vast investment of taxpayers' money in the A55 is worth while. That strategy requires adequate access link roads.
  I turn now to my second point on industrial development. I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today of three further WDA factories in Delyn. I do not want to sound like a broken record but he knows that there is too great an imbalance with the concentration of Welsh Development Agency factory space in the south-east of Clwyd, in Alyn and Deeside and Wrexham Maelor.

  331
  In the ten years since 1978 the total industrial floor space has increased in Alyn and Deeside by 72 per cent. in Wrexham Maelor by 46 per cent., while it has increased in Delyn by only 23 per cent. Admittedly, in Rhuddlan it has risen by 67 per cent. but that was from a very low base. I might add because it emphasises my point, that the situation becomes more worrying further along the north Wales coast. In Glyndwr industrial floor space is up by 25·9 per cent., in Colwyn it is down by 2·1 per cent., in Aberconwy it is down by 3·6 per cent., in Arfon it is up by 9·6 per cent., in Dwyfor it is down by a massive 50·2 per cent., in Meirionydd it is up by 9·6 per cent., and in Ynys Môn it is up by 2·5 per cent.
  This clearly shows the need to shift the focus of the WDA property efforts in north Wales away from the present heavy emphasis on factory provision immediately adjacent to the English border, further west along the A55, following, in effect, the improvements in the road. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the positive move that he has made in regard to north Wales. I believe that we are now poised to take full advantage of the dualling of the A55.
  As usual, all the fresh ideas are coming from the Conservative party. We initiate and the Opposition react. We set the agenda and the pace and they set up a policy review committee to try to keep up. We look to the future and they look to the past. We come up with new, fresh ideas and they rehash old, stale ones—
  Dr. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Raffan: Of course I shall not give way: I have only 10 minutes.
  We come up with fresh ideas and the Opposition rehash old ones. To see that we need look no further than early-day motion No. 69 in the name of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), entitled "Welsh Parliament".
  Today is a famous anniversary—I do not know whether the Leader of the House or those involved knew it when they organised today's business. It is the tenth anniversary of the day when the Opposition parties suffered a monumental defeat in the referendum on a Welsh assembly, by 80 per cent. to 20 per cent.
  I am a kind and considerate chap, so I tabled an amendment to the early-day motion gently to remind Opposition parties of that event so that they would not humiliate themselves again, but to no avail. They seem to have forgotten 1 March, 1979. However, there is of course one Opposition Member who should not have forgotten that date. He led the "Labour says No" campaign so ably that he brought down his own Government. I refer, of course, to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who is always so much more effective when opposing his own party than when opposing ours.
  Let us look at the right hon. Gentleman's record. He was for devolution in 1974; against it in 1979; for it again in 1989. He has done a triple backward somersault as spectacular as any that Greg Louganis has ever performed but without any water to break his fall.
  If we go back 10 years we find an unbelievable treasury of quotes on devolution from the right hon. Gentleman. Here is a sampler:
  "The irony of devolution is that it will smash beyond healing the unity of Britain".
  He also said:
  332
  "A new slab of Government in the form of an Assembly would turn into yet another costly millstone around the necks of the people of Wales",
  and:
  "In practice it"—
  an Assembly—
  "would simply mean a divisive and destructive scramble over limited resources with no gain in money or democracy to the people of Wales",
  and:
  "For the price of an Assembly we could have a new hospital or six miles of motorway or 10 comprehensive schools every year".
  He had the nerve, the gall or—that wonderful Hebrew word—the chutzpah, to say a couple of weeks ago:
  "I've always supported devolution—a devolution that is right for Wales".
  "Something old; nothing new"—that is the Labour party refrain. As Neil Ascherson, the Observer columnist, put it:
  "Devolution is a withered word".
  The phrase "something old, something new" applies equally to the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)—[Interruption.] I am being asked to wind up just as I was coming to my best bit, but never mind, I shall use my speech again like the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. He made a speech which has again shown him to be the original "Green". All he does is recycle his old speeches; we had another old one today. He forgets, as his colleagues forget, that Pontypridd, where Labour had a reduced share of the vote and where its majority was almost halved, will not win Labour the 98 seats it needs to achieve victory at the next election.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It was remiss of me not to do so before, but I take the opportunity to remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Braint ac anrhydedd yw caelsiarad am Gymru a'r. Ddydd Gwyl Dewi. To some of us St. David's day is very important but perhaps it is not so to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who does not understand the aspirations of the Welsh people and the nation. Turning, the clock back a few years to St. David's day 1974, four of us in the House today will never forget that day as it was early in the morning of that day that we were elected for the first time—the hon. Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr Grist), for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and myself. Whatever views people may hold about us, we are still here and we hope to remain for a long time. When we entered the House a week after St. David's day we were fortunate to be met by the two hon. Members who have already been mentioned—Sir Raymond Gower and Brynmor John—who advised us in a nice way on how we should proceed in the House, and thank God that we had the pleasure to meet them and to know and work with them.
  Today we have listened to the new hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). It is an historic occasion for him—I can recollect no other Welshman making his maiden speech on St. David's day. That is a wonderful achievement. The hon. Gentleman's delivery was excellent. He made a humorous speech and I predict that in a few years he will be one of the greatest orators in the House.

  333
  He has an excellent baritone voice and I wish him well. He is also a staunch devolutionist. Better still, he is one of the Howells clan—a rare commodity in Wales today.
  Turning to the Secretary of State for Wales while I am in a complimentary mood, I congratulate him on the way in which he has looked after the interests of the Welsh language. As a Welshman and Welsh speaker, I congratulate him on his great endeavours and concerted efforts to save the language before it is too late. I am only sorry that other Conservative Members do not share his will to support Wales, its language and its culture.
  On the 10th anniversay of the referendum on devolution, it is appropriate to look back over the intervening years to see what has happened in Wales under this most centralist of Governments, after the rejection of the measures on offer at that time. I am not afraid to talk about devolution, I am willing to argue with the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) whenever he wants to discuss the aspirations of Welsh people and the devolution of power to them, which he does not understand.
  Although the Secretary of State claims great advances in manufacturing output, well above the United Kingdom average, he fails to point out how much ground there was to make up after the dismantling of the traditional industries during the lifetime of this Government. Wales, more than anywhere else, has suffered from the concentration of power and resources in the south-east of England, and continues to do so. The Welsh Office may paint a fine picture of factories, valley initiatives and inward investment, but that is more a tribute to its public relations efforts than a reflection of the true state of the nation.
  We still have a crumbling infrastructure in Wales. Where are the plans to build the north-south road link? We still have the worst housing stock in the United Kingdom. Unemployment in some areas is disgracefully high. For example, despite the Government's massaging of the figures, it is still very high in my constituency. Standards of education in many parts of Wales are far lower than they should be. School buildings are in poor repair; parents and pupils have to run bazaars and jumble sales to provide the funds for fairly basic requirements in the schools. Our university colleges are struggling for survival in an unfriendly and philistine environment. Agriculture in Wales, which has not yet been mentioned, has suffered some of the worst years in living memory but the Government have steadfastly refused to provide any special help for the worst afflicted areas. After 10 years of Tory rule, Wales has gained little and lost a great deal.
  I am sure that if a Welsh Parliament had been established in 1979 we should not now be facing the iniquitous poll tax, which will hit people in Wales who are at the lower end of the income scale. We should not now face the cost of water privatisation or fear the privatisation of British Rail, which could cut our rail services to the bare minimum. We would give short shrift to the Government's latest proposals for the so-called reform of the National Health Service, because the people of Wales know that those proposals will bring little benefit to the sick and the elderly. We would protect our institutes of higher education and defend our research institutions. By now, a north-south road would have been part of the plans for an improved road and rail network, and plans for improved
  334
  housing would be well advanced. Education would be given far higher priority, and local government would be streamlined to respond to the needs of the community.
  The truth is that Wales has already comprehensively rejected Thatcherism, as shown by the falling number of Tory seats and the evidence in recent polls of a growing desire for a Parliament for Wales. There is something profoundly undemocratic about the way in which we are governed by the bureaucracy of a Welsh Office and ruled from London by various quangos full of Tory appointees. The Welsh people are waking up to the fact that if they are to have what they want—what is good for Wales and her people—government must be brought closer to the people through a fairly elected Welsh Parliament which can deal directly with the problems and aspirations of our country.
  I said in 1979 that a Tory Government with centralist ideas would delay the establishment of a Welsh Parliament for at least 10 years. I now feel that there is a real awakening of enthusiasm for the principles of devolution, not just among politicians but in the population at large. It is time to reopen the debate in the context of the present economic, social and cultural state of Wales—we should not wait for another 10 years. Most hon. Members representing Welsh seats are now in favour of devolving power to the people of Wales. One thing is certain— whichever party now in opposition takes over from the Conservative Government, all are pledged to support a Welsh Parliament. We look forward to that day, and I hope that it will come soon.
  You said, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we could speak for 10 minutes. You may not be aware that I was to have spoken fourth today but I made way for the hon. Member for Pontypridd to make his maiden speech, so I wonder whether you can give me any extra time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Once the Standing Order has been applied, it is not in my authority to give any extra time.
  Mr. Howells: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker—perhaps things will be better in a Welsh Parliament.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, north (Mr. Howells) seems to think that a panacea for the problems of Wales is a Welsh Parliament. It is clear from proposals that have been put forward in the past for a Welsh Parliament that, far from being a panacea, it would be a recipe for disunity and argument between the Westminster Parliament and an assembly in Cardiff. The Westminster Parliament would have to decide how much taxes could be raised for spending in Wales. In any event, we could not have the break-up of the United Kingdom that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see.
  I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, as I did last year, on some constituency matters, but I wish at the outset to pay tribute, as hon. Members in all parts of the House have done, to the late Sir Raymond Gower. I was able to pay tribute to Brynmor John in the debate on 1 February on the Pontypridd by-election. I remember Sir Raymond sitting a few feet from me, chuckling with delight as the debate progressed. That was typical of the man.

  335
  Those of us who, as new Members, got to know him well in the Tea Room in recent years became aware of his friendly, avuncular personality and the way in which he would give warm advice, would teach us some of the ways of the House and would tell us how to perform our work as constituency Members. I greatly regret his passing. I am sure that whoever follows him as the Member for Vale of Glamorgan will have a difficult role to play in emulating the hard work that Sir Raymond did over 38 years.
  My route to my constituency takes me down the M4 through south Wales to the far corner of west Wales. Driving down that motorway, I see the remarkable transformation that has taken place in the Principality in the last few years. It is incredible to see the new housing and factories going up and to witness the prosperity that has come to Wales under this Government.
  That has been seen in the figures for unemployment across Wales. My constituency has the highest single unemployment rate in Wales. Whereas in 1987 we had 7,381 people out of work, that had fallen last year to 6,232 and at January this year the figure was 4,899. It is still far too high, but it is a fall in two years of 33·6 per cent. I welcome the improvement in the economic circumstances of my constituency. Initiatives have been put forward in recent months for Tenby, Pembroke, Narberth and, above all, for Milford Haven. But there are still worrying signs in my constituency.
  The reply I received to a written question on Monday of this week showed that imports through Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock had fallen to 7,151 tonnes in 1987. I am glad to note that the figures for Fishguard show an improvement, but there are still problems in my part of the world, caused partly by the geography of being so far from the major centres of population and markets.
  However, on the good side there are wonderful signs of revival. In Pembroke Dock there are clear signs that it is becoming a boom town, and I pay especial tribute to Govan Davies. one of our leading entrepreneurs in that town. He has raised nearly £7 million, mainly through private means, towards funding his deep-water dock facilities which are being constructed in the town. When completed, that will provide 500 jobs. It will also provide, on the warehouse site, 300,000 sq ft of new warehouse accommodation. He was the subject of an article in the February edition of Management Today, which said:
  "Moreover, Pembroke Dock has certain undeniable advantages over many other ports. It has no lock gates which open only when the tide is high, as at Bristol, for example. Davies' quays will be accessible, except to big Panamax vessels, at all states of the tide. They will work seven days a week, round the clock … It should thus be possible to turn round shipping, which earns money by being at sea and only incurs costs when in harbour, as quickly as anywhere in Britain. Milford Haven Port Authority charges are among the lowest in Europe. Davies also suggests that shipowners should be able to negotiate cheaper insurance rates by avoiding the English Channel."
  There are also clear signs that, with the revival of the B and I ferry service to Ireland from Pembroke Dock and with the growth of the Ledwoods company and the Jenkins and Davies company in the town, the manufacturing base of Pembroke Dock is on the up.
  But in the 10 minutes available to me I wish to concentrate on the local economy and the future of Milford Haven. There, unemployment is still running at 24 per cent., far higher than the Welsh average. In discussions about the future of the royal naval armaments depot in Milford Haven, the Secretary of State promised to contact
  336
  the chairman of the Welsh development agency to see whether action could be taken on Milford Haven. I was delighted that, as a result of the pressure which I, local trade unions and local residents put on the Secretary of State, he announced at the end of last year the establishment of the Milford Haven business initiative by the WDA. I look forward to seeing the report which the chairman has promised will be with us shortly.
  In my speech last year I referred to the subjects of small business units, the improvement of the infrastructure, the improvement in inward investment and the need for Government offices and agencies to be brought to west Wales. Today I shall refer to only two of those, the first being the infrastructure.
  We must ensure that the A477 and A40 are brought up to dual carriageway standard throughout their total length, for that is the way to ensure that the goods and services that we need in west Wales and the goods and services that we can provide—the imports and exports— can go swiftly to the large markets and centres of population.
  But we must also push British Rail into improving its services to west Wales. Hon. Members who use BR will be aware that it takes only two and a half hours to get to Swansea by InterCity 125. But it takes nearly another two hours to get from Swansea to Haverfordwest, which is only another 60 miles away. We do it in dirty, two-car diesel multiple units which are hot in summer and cool in winter. One cannot see out of the windows for the dirt and, because there are only two cars, inevitably large numbers of passengers must stand. My constituents in west Wales are entitled to a decent railway service, and that would be the way to attract more passengers and customers.
  Those who took part in the Welsh Affairs Select Committee visit to the far east last year were impressed with the determination of companies, especially in Japan, to invest in Wales. They saw Wales as a country of growth and potential with good labour relations and a good tax regime. I want to see my right hon. Friend encouraging those Japanese and other companies to expand westwards into the west and mid-Wales. It is all very well having a great deal of new investment around Cardiff, Newport and Wrexham, but those of us in west Wales—I see the hon Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) nodding in assent— want those companies to be brought to our areas.
  The green field site of the former Esso refinery would make a superb opportunity for use by Nissan, Mitsubishi or one of the other companies which is expressing interest in Wales. By providing valuable work to the local economy, it would have the effect, through the multiplier. of increasing the amount of cash in the shops and thus. helping to build up the local economy.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about increasing trade with Spain and Portugal. It is vital that we make a headlong rush towards increasing trade with those countries because that is an under-developed market where there should be ample opportunities to export our goods.
  I have time to refer to only one other matter, and that must be the farming community in my constituency. They are concerned about the review which is now taking place of the Potato Marketing Board. I have told my constituents that I want to see the outcome of the review before reaching a conclusion. The Government must have

  337
  extremely strong arguments before I shall be convinced that we should get rid of the Potato Marketing Board. It has been a good stabiliser for the local farming economy.
  I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I welcome the fact that the economy of Wales is improving greatly.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Donald Coleman: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have served longer in this House than anyone else, and during those years we have heard tributes paid to colleagues who have served here and passed on. Today, hon. Members in all parts of the House have paid tribute to Brynmor John and Raymond Gower. Each tribute has been fulsome and has emphasised the warmth, dedication and commitment of those men. I join my colleagues in those tributes and I believe that we should be failing in our duty if we did not mention Mrs. Ann John and Lady Gower, whose support for their husbands made it possible for our former colleagues to give the quality of service that they did to the House and to the people whom they represented.
  Today we have also witnessed the commencement of a new parliamentary career. We welcome to our assembly my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). He speaks eloquently and with ability and I am sure that his contributions will enhance our proceedings in the Mother of Parliaments.
  I extend an invitation to right hon. and hon. Members to visit Neath to see the excellent development taking place there, especially the pedestrianisation of the town centre, which makes it among the best in Britain. Before the Secretary of State dashes out with a press statement claiming it as another of his great initiatives, I place it on record that the development in Neath owes nothing to the whizz kid from Worcester but is a result of the confidence of the people of Castell Nedd. The development was designed by a former borough engineer, Mr. Alan Jenkins, and authorised by the borough council in co-operation with West Glamorgan county council. When I was a youngster in my home town of Barry large numbers of day trippers used to come to the town—many of them, no doubt, from Neath. When I visited my home town recently it occurred to me that it might be very useful for some of the citizens of Barry to take a day trip to Neath and see what is being achieved under a Labour council and perhaps compare it with what is happening in Barry under a Tory council.
  It has been said that life in south Wales centred around two great industries—coal and steel. That is perfectly true. Those industries did not just create employment—they moulded the character and quality of the people and their communities. From those and related industries came our religious leaders, our community leaders and our industrial leaders—leaders of the Welsh people, some of whom, such as Nye Bevan and Jim Griffiths, went on to become leaders of the British people. Today those industries have declined from their former strength, but they are still important to the communities in which they exist and to the economy of Britain. Unfortunately, the present Government, unlike many people in south Wales,
  338
  do not see those industries as related to the lives of the people of south Wales but only as a means of private profit and expendable if that profit is not achieved.
  Last week Blaenant colliery, which is in the Dulais valley in my constituency and the only deep mine left in west Glamorgan, was on stop and £1 million was lost, and what was it all about? It was about the pig-headedness of British Coal management at area level. Twelve months ago Blaenant faced possible closure. Now, as a result of co-operation between men and local management a new face has been opened up which will provide good quality coal for another four years. The seams are rather thin—2½ to 3 ft high—and, unfortunately, very wet, especially at times of heavy rainfall, so the men working there get soaked to the skin. In addition to the wet conditions, air passes through the pit at high velocity and makes it bitterly cold.
  During the past 30 years it has been custom and practice among men working in such conditions to get on with the job, finish it and get out of the pit, which often meant working through food breaks so that the work could be completed. That flexible approach by the men and the local management has been the means of turning around the future of the pit. The pit was closed last week because an edict came down, without consultation, that the men were not to leave the pit but were to remain there until the end of the shift, in conditions which were likely to injure their health. The Secretary of State understands these things much better than any of his Tory predecessors as Secretary of State for Wales, as he was responsible for the coal mining industry when he was an Energy Minister. I ask him to intervene and to stop the nonsense which closed Blaenant last week and thus remove the men's suspicion that there are other motives behind British Coal's action.
  I remind the House that Blaenant is in the news again this week because of the accident on Monday evening when two men, Calvin Jones and Clive Havard, lost their lives in the pit. The sympathy of right hon. and hon. Members goes to those so tragically bereaved by that accident, which is a reminder to everyone that mining is not like working in a shop, an office or an electronics factory—it is dirty and dangerous, and those who work in it and their community are very special. Those two men grew up together, played together, went to school together, worked together and ultimately died together.
  Finally, I want to say a few words about the steel industry, in which I have to declare an interest. I notice that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are signalling to me to sit down. That is a pity because I am concerned about the tin plate industry and its effects on the steel industry in Wales. There is a fear that unless we are able to maintain steel and tin plate in south Wales, we shall lose our steel industry in Wales and perhaps the ideas of Eden and Ridley in the days of the Heath Government will come to pass.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales is not happy that we are not so enthusiastic about his endeavours for Wales, but we want success in Wales. That is why we set up the Welsh Development Agency when Conservative Members voted against it. We want it to succeed because its success will mean a better life for the people of Wales.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Secretary of State for Wales has an avowed mission to convert the valleys to Conservatism. He is not making very much progress and we are not seeing his light at present. Equally, it is the right of the native to convert the missionary, and that is our aim and purpose. One reason why he is not making progress is that fundamentally the valley communities do not share the attitude, the approach and the values that are the driving force of specific Government policies.
  I notice that an almost simplistic model of policy is now being applied to practically everything, whether it is steel, gas, coal, health or housing. It is the simplistic idea of the competition model—that if one manages to create conflict, if one manages to divide, if one manages to break things up in the name of competition and motivate people with money and incentives, everything will be infinitely better.
  The valley communities do not work on that basis. The people in the valleys do not share those values or possess that kind of mentality. They believe much more in co-operation than in conflict. They believe much more in collectivist action than in highly individualistic or competitive attitudes. It does not mean that we do not want to get on, but when it comes to the community and, in particular, areas of service in the community we do not believe in this simplistic competition model being applied to every aspect of our life and our services. The Secretary of State will find, as the Government seek to apply this model to areas that touch the very heart of our services and the very nature of our community, that the reaction and the revulsion will increase.
  I will illustrate the point by reference to the White Paper on health services, for it is almost archetypal of this competition model approach to what is a vital and central service in our community. I do not know whether hon. Members read the day after the White Paper came out the remarks of Dr. Hugh Saxton, a distinguished consultant and chairman of the management board of Guy's hospital. It would transform attitudes to patients, he said, referring to the White Paper:
  "We will have to look outwards for our customers instead of just watching them come through the door. Every patient becomes in some sense a private patient, a valued customer who is bringing the money for treatment with them."
  I find that attitude absolutely nauseating. Are the thousands of patients who are currently passing through the doors of Guy's hospital not valid? Are they just watched through by the Dr. Hugh Saxtons and the rest of them because there is no money motivation in it? Are the concept of the Hippocratic oath and the idea of service no longer enshrined in the attitudes of consultants who run our hospital services?
  It is that instinct, that mentality, which runs right through the White Paper on the Health Service to which we fundamentally object and which we reject—the idea of trying to create, in the one and only Health Service that most of our communities have, some sort of conflict, some sort of competition, when the fact is that we want to make the one Health Service that we have work much better, we want not to break it up but to build it up and improve it. We have only one district hospital and one Health Service in our community. We do not expect any others to turn up. We want to make the service better and even more responsive to the needs of the community that it is meant to serve.
  340
  I listened with some interest to the important statement of the Secretary of State about the role of the so-called self-managed hospitals and his commitment to the notion that all the services provided by them will be committed to the community in which they are built. This is not what the working papers issued by the Department of Health show. I hope that when the Minister replies he will clarify the position. One working paper makes a clear distinction. It says that these self-managed hospitals will be responsible only for what it calls "core services". It says:
  "'Other Services' are those where there may be expected to be … an element of competition in supply".
  Let me tell the House what those services are—not the committed core services but the treatment of cataracts, hernias and hip replacements, all vital services that we expect from our own district general hospitals. According to these working papers, these services are not necessarily to be the function of one district hospital or another; they will be open to some sort of competition in supply. What a nauseating concept it is that elderly patients in my constituency, who are hobbling with terribly arthritic hips or suffering from the painful condition of hernia, will have to hunt around perhaps as much as 50 or 100 miles away from the hospital up the road from where they live, the hospital that is within walking or bussing distance. They will have to look for whoever is competing in supplying treatment for hernias or hip replacements.
  In my community, because of the climate, we have a high incidence of ear, nose and throat conditions in our young people. The notion is that families have to peddle: their children and hunt round to Ysbyty Gwynedd, to the West Wales hospital to get an ENT condition seen to. That is the idea written into these working papers, and we reject it utterly.
  Where is this competition in supply? I have the figures for all our district hospitals and their waiting lists for treatment of conditions like hernias and cataracts and ENT conditions. At Prince Charles the waiting time is over 209 days for hernias—that is when one gets on to the waiting list. Would we look for treatment at East Glamorgan? No, it has an equally large waiting list. Perhaps we can send our people all the way up to Ysbyty Gwynedd—there is only a 65-day waiting list there. Is that the idea—that the patient hunts for a service he should be albe to expect from the hospital that the community has built and in many cases has financed and supported voluntarily?
  That is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State will fail hopelessly in his mission to convert the valley communities to this narrow-minded, mean and petty attitude towards life and society and community.
  As I said, the natives have a right to try to convert the missionary, and I would like to convert the Secretary of State and his Ministers into taking another approach to our Health Service. There is much common ground. I have welcomed and supported, as the Minister knows, the efforts of the hospital waiting lists initiatives that the Welsh Office has promoted. There is a necessity, as the White Paper says, although it is rather weasel-worded in this respect, to define closely the role and contracts of major consultants in all our hospitals to ensure that we get the maximum service from that formerly great profession.
  We must deal with and settle once and for all the unfortunate notion that the recruitment of private patient work in our community has something to do with the lengthy waiting lists in our hospitals, thus giving rise to

  341
  potential conflicts of interest. We could give stronger powers to patients. We should not be hidebound by earlier, old-fashioned views about how the hospital system was accountable to the community. We could look at various ideas.
  I should like to borrow one idea, promoted possibly by the Secretary of State when he was in the Department of Energy. I have been rather impressed by the function and work of James McKinnon on behalf of the customers of the gas industry. Let us look at the idea of a health regulatory body which would stand up for patients and demand that hospitals delivered the services and achieved their objectives. There are whole areas where we could reach out to some common ground, but we will not reach out to common ground on the basis of the present proposals.
  I am no medical expert, but I understand that if one tries to transplant an alien organ into a body it is highly likely to be rejected. There is a very high likelihood that if the Government continue to attempt to graft American-style attitudes and money-motivated methods on to the British National Health Service they will be rejected and, in the process, the Secretary of State himself will be rejected.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Chris Butler: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) not only because, like him, I was a research officer in Wales, not only because he managed to win a by-election in Wales, which I did not, but also because over the years I have followed his progress, and he has exuded such frankness and honesty that this place will be the better for his presence.
  There is a long-standing myth that the Welsh language was effectively extirpated by the Act of Union in 1536. However, 300 years later 90 per cent. of the Welsh population still spoke Welsh. The trouble is that the victims of that myth have assumed that the salvation of the Welsh language depends upon the reimposition of the official status of Welsh, perhaps through a new Welsh language Act or otherwise.
  All the new bilingual forms and the rights of Welsh people to speak Welsh in court and to deal with local and central Government in Welsh have probably not created one more Welsh speaker—welcome as those developments have been. The salvation of the Welsh language lies in education. For that to make progress it must exploit the substantial reservoirs of good will that exist in the monoglot English-speaking majority. To a great extent, that opportunity is impeded by those who do wilful damage and deliberately disobey the law in a cause which they believe will advance the Welsh language. That causes damage because it enshrouds the Welsh language in negativity. To win hearts and minds, people must draw others towards them and not repel them. In 1755 the Cymmrodorion knew that when they said that their aim was to
  "reveal to the world the value of this old language in such beautiful colours as it will be reckoned an honour henceforth to speak it."
  That is an important message and it is one that Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin has learned. It has exuded that attractiveness. It was started in the early 1970s and it has
  342
  now grown to an organisation that schools 10,000 children a year. It has 530 groups and 320 mother and child groups. Its target is to have 600 groups in the near future, each fed by a mother and child group.
  That expansion has had to be fuelled by hard cash. Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin is a voluntary body, proud of its independence and, to a large extent, it has raised its money through its own sweated labours in fund raising that often involves parents. The plural funding on which it depends has given it an independence and a zip that no local education authority could hope to emulate. Welsh Office funding has grown generously by about 827 per cent. since 1978, to £383,700 in 1987–88. It also receives local authority social service grants of £120,000 a year from the Welsh Office to support its field operation and headquarters. Sadly, I do not think that those LASS grants have grown in line with inflation. It also receives some funding from local authorities, although some are not as generous as Gwynedd, Clwyd and Dyfed.
  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin desperately needs more money to pay for desperately unfulfilled needs. It needs more development offices, the people who go around monitoring progress and pump-priming new groups. It needs a great increase in the number of group leaders, especially in the south-east and north-east of Wales. I understand that it has made a submission to the new Welsh language body asking for resources so that young mothers can be trained in pre-school education and so that they too can take on the duty of educating these young groups.
  The insufficiency of group leaders can be attributed to the rapid growth of Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, which has meant that it is outstripping the resources available to it. That is a signal to the Welsh Office that more resources will be needed for Welsh medium teachers. Young children have the facility to absorb language in the way that rain is absorbed. Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin turns them out at the age of four and a half potentially bilingual. Because of that the organisation is engendering a demand for Welsh medium education at primary and secondary school levels.
  The Government believe, or at least they say that they believe, in parental choice, in diversity to make that choice real and in higher standards. In Wales we have ready-made excellent standards in Welsh medium schools, and that fact derives from the highly motivated teaching staffs within them. We have ready-made cultural diversity and a ready-made real alternative.
  The demand for Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin often comes from English-speaking monoglot parents, especially in the south-east and north-east of Wales. That should be presented as a blockbuster argument to the Welsh Office, because if we believe in parental choice we should accommodate that choice. If the believers in the Welsh language and in its future are prepared to manipulate the Government's aims to their objectives, we could achieve the jewel in the crown—the right of children in Wales to be educated through the medium of Welsh.
  8.5 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) who is a dysgwr—a Welsh learner— himself, and I am sure that his support for Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin will be noted by that movement and by the Government.

  343
  It is also a pleasure for me to welcome and congratulate my hon. Friend the new Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on his maiden speech. Those of us who have known him for many years know that he has rhetorical skills and I am sure that he will apply them in the House as he has done elsewhere for many years. He secured a good vote in the Pontypridd by-election but I can claim to speak for 25 per cent. of the Pontypridd electorate. Our candidate in that by-election, Syd Morgan, fought a positive campaign that elicited a strong response from the electorate in that valley community which no doubt resonated in other valleys.
  The untimely death of Sir Raymond Gower occurred after a hard day's campaigning. I know that that was the way he would have wanted to go. That may be a cliché, but I know that Raymond would have appreciated it. It is right to put on record our appreciation of the tradition of Welsh Toryism from which he sprang and for which he was such a valuable representative for many years.
  In paying tribute we also look back to the history of the last 15 years in Welsh politics as my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) has done. I have only 10 minutes and I shall spend one minute on history and the remaining time in dealing with the future. The history of events since 1979 have been recounted in the debate and by my friend Jon Dressel in the Western Mail this morning. We had the disappointment of the failure of the devolution referendum, but it is important to put those events behind us because Welsh politics have moved on since 1979.
  In that sense, I attempted to give a short, salutary lesson to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) who tried to suggest that the party of Wales believed in devolution. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that we do not believe that the question of a devolved assembly and the relationship between Wales and this House is the most important question about the government of Wales. The most important question is about the powers to be established in an effective Welsh Government in Cardiff and the relationship that such a Government would have with the European Community.
  Whether we like it or not we are living in the age of federalism. The days of a centralised nation state and of the bandying about of notions of national sovereignty, whether of the United Kingdom or of the putative sovereignty of a Welsh state, are over. We are living in an interdependent world and have to try to find what levels of government make sense for which functions. That is why we in the party of Wales have always argued that we should have an elected Welsh Government with competence over the whole of the economic and social life of the nation and the ability to relate the Welsh economy and society to the other constituent parts of western Europe. Indeed, we need look no further than the success of our sister party in Flanders, which not only has a vice-premiership in the Belgian state Government but has been able to negotiate a new federal structure for Belgium which assures, among other things, that resources are adequately distributed within the state and that the Flemish Government has direct links with other similar regions. That is the model that we take for the development of Wales.
  Whether the Welsh people like it or not—clearly, some representatives do not like it—the position in the United Kingdom is changing. The people of Scotland are expressing themselves in various ways. I will not comment
  344
  on the internal discussions which are going on in Scottish politics; it would not be appropriate, particularly since I have a fraternal relationship with the Scottish National party. Whatever the specific debate, the momentum in Scottish politics is towards an elected Scottish government.
  The people of Wales have to decide whether they want to end up as an addendum of an English region or whether they have a level of government adequate to meet the needs of Wales for the 21st century. In a sense the debate in the Pontypridd by-election disappointed me. I lay down a marker for the Vale of Glamorgan by-election in the hope that we will get a better debate about the future government of Wales, the future planning of the Welsh economy, the way in which services can be provided and the relationship between that and the role of Wales as a small European nation and region.
  I went on record a few years ago alleging that the people of Estonia, that small republic in the Soviet Union with a population of 1 million, was likely to get autonomy sooner than the people of Wales and Scotland. If the raising of a flag is a sign of autonomy, it appears that Estonia has achieved that in the last few days. So the movement towards smaller nations being the building blocks of federal structures is the norm not just in western Europe and the European Community but in central and eastern Europe.
  The irony is that when these "nationalist" movements such as the popular movement in Estonia, achieve a degree of political support, it is saluted widely by people who are unionist in the House—there are unionists on both sides of the Chamber—as a sign of democracy. But when it happens in Scotland and Wales it is "separatism", in the old jargon, or, now, the "dismembering" of the United Kingdom. Apparently it is appropriate to dismember the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but not to create democracy in the United Kingdom.
  We must realise that the future belongs to the federalists—those who believe that government is not located in one place, either in this House or in any other single assembly, but organised in levels of functions. The function appropriate to a locality is one level, as is the level of the region, the level of the historic nation as a cultural community, and the level of the international community such as the European Community, with the relations between the Community and its Mediterranean partners and its partners in central and eastern Europe. That is why. we do not apologise for having a vision about the future of Wales.
  It is also a deeply internationalist vision. Welsh nationalism is progressive. It implies that we see our problems and opportunities in common with other nationalities and people in Europe. If we believe in our heritage of a nuclear-free Wales and of ensuring the removal of nuclear weapons from Europe, starting with unilateral action, which we still believe in, and moving on to multilateral responses, which we also believe in, that policy can be implemented through the action that small nations such as Wales can take on the European stage. That may sound far removed from some contributions to the Welsh affairs debate, but it is important that a nationalist should intervene in the discussion with an element of internationalism.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Today is St. David's Day when we consider with pride and affection the fortunes of our own dear little country of Wales. It is even more special, perhaps, because we mourn the death of two colleagues whom we valued dearly, Sir Raymond Gower and Brynmor John. I endorse the generous tributes that have been paid to both of them.
  It is also an occasion to say a big "croeso" to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). He made an admirable speech. During his election campaign the people of Pontypridd launched their own and the real valleys initiative. The poor Tory was left barely holding his deposit.
  Our county councils are concerned about their relationship with the Welsh Office over the partnership arrangement with the EEC. That partnership, particularly relating to structural funds, should cover the preparation, financing, monitoring and assessment of operations. So far as I understand, the Welsh Office has not taken any initiative by way of informing or discussing with the county councils how the partnership might work. Apparently the relationship is better between the EEC and Scotland and other regions of England. The Commission considers that the partnership arrangement is being operated more successfully with every other member state of the Community. The lack of co-operation is difficult to understand. In his reply, will the Minister shed some light on the matter? Perhaps we may be told what steps are being taken to bring about a more balanced and harmonious partnership.
  A matter which vitally concerns Newport is the proposed takeover of Plessey by GEC and Siemens of West Germany. Plessey is the major employer in Newport, with two factories in my constituency. The original one, developed in the 1970s, employs over 350 people; the second one, the former Standard Telephones factory in Corporation road, employs 170. Three years ago, in my humble way, I worked closely with Sir John Clark, chairman of Plessey, to prevent a takeover. Now there is a fresh attempt. This tends to create unease amongst the work force. It undermines morale.
  There is little doubt that, if the merger goes ahead, there will be further rationalisation. That could bring about hundreds of redundancies in Newport through work being transferred elsewhere. Surely the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will take the employment aspect into consideration before coming to a conclusion. Likewise, such a vast concentration of industrial might and virtual monopoly, with foreign linkage, in an area of strategic importance is not to be desired. Lord Weinstock's initiative should be rejected. It is better to retain an element of competition. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will throw his weight behind the opponents of the proposal.
  Generally there has been a more optimistic outlook about the Welsh economy in recent months. Of course, there are black tides as well. The closure of the Velindre steelworks, with hundreds more redundancies, is one example. We have witnessed the decimation of the Welsh coalfields, with 12,000 jobs lost since the end of the strike. The proposed closures of the Marine colliery in Ebbw Vale and Cynheidre in Llanelli are pending. Other pits are now on the hit list. New investment in Wales has a difficult task to keep up with so many redundancies and closures.
  346
  The Secretary of State keeps on telling us that unemployment is coming down, but we are entitled to ask who put it up in the first place. To use that old adage, charity begins at home, and I want to look briefly at unemployment in Newport in order to draw back the curtains a little. It has always been my belief that, with a fair crack of the whip, Newport will achieve prosperity. Situated on the eastern seaboard, it has perhaps the most favourable geographical location in Wales. It is linked by the motorway network to the south-east and the midlands. There are excellent rail facilities and modern docks. There is a fair amount of prosperity, but there is a good deal of hidden poverty as well.
  From the Department of Employment's press notice of 16 February on unemployment as at 12 January, it can be gleaned that, despite all those economic advantages, male unemployment in Newport stands at 12·5 per cent. That is a pretty scandalous figure. What is more, if the 1979 method of compiling statistics is used, the figure goes up to over 16·5 per cent. In May 1979, when Labour left office, male unemployment in Newport was 7 per cent.—3,959—and the statistics then were based on people registering, whereas as now they are based on people claiming benefit. Male unemployment in Newport is nearly double the 1979 figure. That dismal situation is reflected all over Wales.
  Under the Government, the blows have simply rained on Wales. Homelessness has rocketed. Houses are just not being built in the public sector. Average wages in Wales are probably the worst of any region in the country. Our National Health Service is being undermined. There has been a loss of no less than £750 million in rate support grant and £1 billion has been cut from regional aid.
  Despite all those cuts and economic difficulties, the Government have the cheek and audacity to propose a doubling of tolls on the Severn bridge, which is our main access point. On St. David's day, we would all do well to remember that people have to pay to come into Wales and they have to pay to go out of Wales. That is a disgrace and an imposition. That is the situation despite all the money raised in motor taxation—close on £17 billion in the current year—less than one quarter of which is being spent on roads and maintenance. In one way or another the Government have wiped out the massive debts of other concerns in order to pursue their privatisation ventures. The original cost of the bridge has been paid for many times over. There is no bank loan involved; it is on the Consolidated Fund. The debt is purely a paper figure. It should be wiped out, as the Select Committee on Transport advocated two or three years ago.
  The St. David's day message to the Government is that they have sold Wales short, and the people of Wales know it, as they showed in Pontypridd last week. They will not be conned by a publicity-mad Secretary of State. That is why they will continue to reject the Conservative party and the Government whenever the opportunity arises.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: First, I associate myself with the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on his excellent speech. We look forward to many more contributions of such calibre. I also associate myself with the comments made about the late Sir Raymond Gower, whose contributions to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs

  347
  were always particularly helpful. He was the senior Conservative Member on that, Committee and I could always rely on him for astute advice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) was right to say that, when a great tinplate plant such as Velindre closes, as it will in September, it is no use replacing the jobs lost by such a closure with low-paid or part-time jobs, often employing female labour. I am sure that the Welsh Office will work with the Welsh Development Agency and other agencies to replace those jobs with manufacturing jobs which will use the skills of the men and women previously employed at Velindre.
  St. David's day in Wales probably means most to the young, dressed up and performing in schools throughout Wales, and to the old who this evening will be carrying on the tradition of community entertainment followed by cawl and caws suppers in village halls throughout the Principality. It is appropriate to take this opportunity to highlight the problems faced by more than one in six of the population of Wales—the over-65s. Although a study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that we are not doing so well as some of our EEC neighbours in raising life expectancy, especially in Wales where the inroads into alleviating poverty and associated deprivation and lifestyles have been too long neglected, the proportion of the Welsh population aged 75 years and over has continued to increase and almost doubled between 1971 and 1986.
  Looking forward, as Governments are supposed to do in formulating policy, the population of Wales is expected to increase by less than 2 per cent. between now and the year 2000, while the proportion of people over the age of 75 is expected to increase by more than 8 per cent. An unprecedented and increasing number of older persons, having made their contribution to the security, economy and well-being of Wales, therefore look to us as their Members of Parliament to represent their interests. It is clear that the Government are failing them. The Local Government and Housing Bill, affecting those 35 per cent. of pensioners in rented housing, has caused great anxiety. Many elderly people will be reluctant to move into more suitable rented accommodation when they do not know whether rents under an assured tenancy will remain low enough to be passported on to housing benefit.
  In the social security changes of April 1988, pensioners were among those worst hit by losses. The Social Security Advisory Committee estimated that 74 per cent. of pensioners dependent on social security would be worse off after the changes. The Welsh house condition survey shows that 11 per cent. of Wales's housing stock is in a state of serious disrepair. A disproportionate number of elderly people in Wales live in houses which are damp, draughty and in need of repair.
  Such housing is notoriously difficult to heat, yet in last April's benefit changes the heating allowance for difficult-to-heat housing was scrapped. Under the new system, general heating, diet and laundry additions have been rolled into one premium payment for pensioners. The system makes calculating benefit entitlement easier, but for the elderly encountering special problems there is no extra help when they need it. Out of the new rolled-together benefit they have to find 20 per cent. of rates and all their water bills. In the past, only 15 per cent. of single payments went to elderly people, and even fewer pensioners are likely to put themselves in debt to the social fund. Many could not afford the repayments on loans in any case.
  348
  Six million people lost entitlement to housing benefit last April. In Wales, more than half the losers were pensioners. Thousands of pensioners, mainly those with small occupational pensions. were worse off by up to about £3·25 per week after paying at least 20 per cent. of rates as well as increased rents and water charges. For those people there was no help—it was called "targeting" and they were deemed able to bear the loss.
  In response to the public outcry, when it became known that some people were losing up to £20 per week, the transitional payments scheme was introduced for those who lost more than £2·50 per week after meeting rent and rates rises and paying 20 per cent. of their rates, but what a tragedy that has turned out to be. Next month, when benefits are increased, those on transitional payments will not have an increase in income because their transitional allowance will be reduced by the amount of the benefit or pension increase, but their rents, their rates, their water rates and their electricity bills will go up. With inflation at 7 per cent., all their costs will rise, but their income will not. Moreover in April 1990 and in April 1991 those who lost most last April will still be paying off the transitional allowance against benefit increases, so their incomes will still not have increased. Truly, they will still be paying for the changes of last April.
  There is nothing in the policy pipeline which recognises the special needs of pensioners and the elderly. They are not benefiting from the chaos in local community care services caused by the Government's reluctance to respond to the Griffiths report. The latest estimates show that there are 9 million disabled people in Britain today, most of them in need of some special provision. The OPCS clearly identified and quantified the link between increasing age and disability. Of the 575,000 people in the most serious disablement category, 64 per cent. are aged over 70. Of those, nearly two in three—a quarter of a million people—are living at home, on their own or with their families. The OPCS study showed also that the highest prevalence of disability was found in Wales. To the credit of dedicated carers, Wales was second only to the north of England in terms of caring for the disabled at home.
  The West Glamorgan health authority is currently deciding its long-term strategy for care of the elderly, but how can it make long-term plans when it does not know who is to be responsible for community care, what the health authority's role in community care will be, whether the Government will commit the necessary resources to fund beds in private-sector residential and nursing homes or whether the authority will have to provide beds because those elderly people without savings or capital receive too little help from the Department of Social Security in the form of income support payments to cover the cost of care in such a home?
  I conclude by associating myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on the Government's health proposals. It is entirely unacceptable that pensioners should be expected to shop around for hip replacement or cataract operations. Providing a market for patients or GPs does not increase choice when the pool of expertise is constant. One can shop around only if one knows what one wants and when one wants it. Unfortunately, illness and need do not yet appear or go away solely at the whim of the Prime Minister. Like my hon. Friends, I hope that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will go away at the whim of the grey vote in this country, and

  349
  I hope that Conservative Members will reflect that, unless far more is done to protect this group of people unless—they urge Ministers to come down into the real world and ease the pressure and stress that have been created—the fate of the Government will be sealed by the effect that they are having on the most vulnerable groups in our society.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The Chair is very grateful to the House for co-operating so well with regard to the 10-minute limit on speeches. A number have lasted less than 10 minutes, and, as a consequence, it is now possible for me to relax the limit. That does not mean, of course, that I am inviting long speeches.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies (Carphilly): I suppose, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is my misfortune to be told, just as I stand up with a 10-minute speech in front of me, that I may speak for 20 minutes.
  Mr. Morgan: Or half an hour.
  Mr. Davies: Or half an hour. I shall not do that, however, because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) now has 10 minutes' notice to extend his speech.
  Most hon. Members who have spoken have paid tribute to two Members that we lost during the last 12 months. I want to say a word particularly about our most recent loss. I refer to the hon. Member who represented the Vale of Glamorgan and, before that, the constituency of Barry, Sir Raymond Gower. I lived in part of what was his old constituency of Barry. He represented what was then the Cardiff rural district council area, which included the parishes of Llanfed, Rhydygwern, Rudry and Van. It is in the parish of Llanfedu that I currently live. Many of the villages in my constituency were in his constituency then.
  It is no exaggeration to say that his reputation was legendary. All who knew him had the greatest respect for him. The work that he did on behalf of his constituents was deeply appreciated. He had the support of many people through the ballot box, who in no other circumstances would have considered themselves Conservatives or would have given a moment's consideration to lending any support to the Conservative cause. That really was recognition of the care, attention and diligence with which he approached his constituency responsibilities. I am sure that many people who live in what is now my constituency held him in great affection and mourn his passing.
  We on this side of the House have sustained a tragic loss with the death of Brynmor John, who was a dear friend to us all.
  I want to talk for a moment about the Secretary of State for Wales, who has been the subject of much vilification during our debates on Wales. I have to confess that I rather like the man.
  Mr. Morgan: We all like him.
  Mr. Davies: We all like him, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to agree with all that he does. However, it is rather easier to like him when we compare him with his predecessor. Certainly the approach of the current Secretary of State, when he comes to the
  350
  Dispatch Box, and in his dealings with Welsh Members, is very different from the distant and arrogant approach of his predecessor.
  I have to say, in passing, that the previous Secretary of State committed what I believe was an act of the utmost folly when he accepted the paid post of chairman of the National Rivers Authority, having been a member of the Cabinet that had created that very post. If he had been a member of a local authority he would have been imprisoned for corruption—for doing the very thing that he did as a member of the Government. It was most reprehensible.
  I have said, I have some affection for the current Secretary of State. His style is different and we must give him credit for the fact that he has achieved something during his tenure as Secretary of State. We have to recognise that he has brought about some real achievements. There is a mood of confidence in south Wales which did not exist before the election. Wales has a much higher profile and, in terms of investment, business confidence and business activity, the Secretary of State has achieved a turnround. There is no point in denying that he has had some remarkable success in achieving inward investment for Wales. Those are real and positive achievements and it would be foolish of us to deny them.
  Despite those achievements, and although there is an element of affection, the Secretary of State has not achieved the respect of the people of Wales. That is due entirely to his obsession with raising his personal profile and claiming that everything good that happens in Wales is a direct result of his initiative or intervention. He does his cause no good at all.
  I can give one example which occurred in my constituency and which affected me directly. When he announced his much vaunted review of the valleys initiative in Merthyr on 21 February, he said—I quote from the press release—
  "This week there will be announced a new £30 million development at Caerphilly that will create 2,000 new jobs."
  That came under the heading, "The Urban Programme".
  Understandably, my office was besieged by telephone calls from journalists asking about the new £30 million investment in Caerphilly and where the 2,000 jobs would be. I had to find some answers. I thought that if, two days before the Pontypridd by-election, the Secretary of State could suddenly conjure up £30 million he must have a little pot of gold that he has raided or have made provision for it in the estimates for his Department. I made inquiries. I asked the House of Commons Library to check the estimates of the Welsh Office and the provisions made by the Land Authority for Wales. The Library let me have the results of its investigations. We should bear in mind the fact that that announcement was made under the heading "The Urban Programme" and if anybody disputes that, I have the Welsh Office press release with me.
  That £30 million was like a rabbit out of a hat. I will not divulge the name of the researcher in the Library but she told me:
  "I have spoken to an official at the Welsh Office and it appears that the £30 million development is a purely private development … The Public Relations company acting for the developers (Peter Gill Marketing of Cardiff) tell me that they have not yet applied for any Government grants … The developers might apply for infrastructure grants in the future but have not yet done so."

  351
  Yet two days before the Pontypridd by-election the Secretary of State was trying deliberately to claim in a press release credit for that project.
  I happen to know something about that project. It is the Pontypandy development in Caerphilly, a constituency in which I have lived for a long time, and I was aware of the plans that the local authority laid a long time ago for that development. Therefore, it came as no surprise to me to read at the end of that week in the local newspaper the comments of the leader of Rhymney valley district council. They were illuminating. The newspaper said:
  "Welsh Secretary Peter Walker has been accused of claiming credit under his Valleys Initiative scheme for projects that have been in the pipeline for years.
  Councillor Graham Court, leader of Rhymney Valley council, said the announcement by Mr. Walker of the £30 million business and retail park at Pontypandy, Caerphilly, was a con. 'He's claiming credit for something that was being planned long before the Valleys Initiative and it would have gone on without Peter Walker or the Valleys Initiative' … The application for the out-of-town retail park was actually submitted to the district council on June 3 1987 and called in by Mr. Walker which, said Councillor Court had actually delayed the scheme. 'I am really annoyed by this—
  that is an understatement—
  "'Members and officers have put in a lot of work and along he comes and claims credit."
  If the application had not been called in the project would probably have been in existence before the Valleys Initiative."
  The present Secretary of State for Wales might be regarded with some affection because of his new approach, but that is why he will never gain the respect of the people of the valleys. What he is doing is fundamentally dishonest.
  That is nothing new in the career of the Secretary of State. We saw the same characteristics when he was the Secretary of State for Energy. Despite all the delegations we took to him when he was Secretary of State for Energy explaining that Wales was different and needed different treatment during the miners' strike, and despite the soothing words and pleasant conversations, the end result was pit closures. We were not spared the consequences of the retraction in the coal industry.
  We can look at the time that he spent as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I remember that time well because some of my constituents came to me after having to face the consequences of his policies. In 1984, months before the introduction of milk quotas, the Secretary of State for Wales—then the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—was going round the country telling farmers that they should produce, produce, produce. He was encouraging them to involve themselves in development schemes using Government money. He was encouraging them to invest.
  Many farmers in my constituency came to me saying, "We did exactly what the Minister wanted us to do. We took out bank loans and have invested £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 a year thinking that we would be able to increase our milk production, meet the bank overdraft and the needs of the Minister while bringing about an improvement in our standard of living." What happened? Within months of him urging them to invest, milk quotas were introduced. In Wales there was a massive cut in the level of milk production and massive job losses. About 2,000 people were penalised. That is the record of the Secretary of State for Wales, and it is why he will not obtain the respect of the people in Wales.
  What is happening, as has been made clear during the debate, is that the Welsh economy is changing. The nature of Welsh society is changing, as is the nature of our Welsh
  352
  communities. We are losing—it is something whose passing we will not mourn—our dependence on the coal and steel industries. However, in place of those secure, highly paid, full-time jobs, we are being offered a panoply of part-time, low-paid or temporary jobs. They are no substitute. They do not give our communities the stability they had before. They do not provide the wealth that is necessary for our communities to flourish. As a result, we are living in a much poorer society. The Secretary of State hypes it up by saying we are on course to some brave new world. The truth is, as was shown dramatically by the Low Pay Unit's report in the Western Mail, we are slipping further and further behind the standard of living of the majority of people in Britain.
  I want to deal with a sector of the community that has not yet been mentioned—the people who live and work in our rural communities and are most closely associated with what has been happening to our environment. I want to look briefly at the environmental record of the present Secretary of State and his predecessor.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for environmental protection in England, to his credit, after the Budget changes to forestry last year announced that there would be no further afforestation in the English uplands. We have urged the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland to extend to Scotland and Wales the same protection as the Secretary of State for the Environment has given to England. We have been denied it in Wales. As a result, we see the destruction of some of our finest lowland, for example, at Llanbrynmair in mid-Wales.
  The Secretary of State for Wales could have done the same as the Secretary of State for the Environment has done in England and protected our fragile moorland ecosystems. He has not done it. He could have done something about the acid rain problem. The whole catchment area in mid Wales has been damaged—not irrevocably—as a result of acid rain. Some of our great water catchment systems, such as the Llyn Brianne, are virtually lifeless, because the problem has not been tackled with any urgency either by the Secretary of State or his predecessor.
  Last Monday's report by Greenpeace on an analysis of water pollution in Welsh rivers shows a dramatic decline in the quality of class 1 rivers over the past 10 years. The best waters have declined. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of grossly polluted rivers. The greater part of that increase took place between 1979 and 1987—during the tenure in the Welsh Office of the man who is now head of the National Rivers Authority, charged with the responsibility of looking after river quality in Britain. His record on defending Welsh interests does not bode well for those of us who hoped that he would defend the true interests of British water.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The hon. Gentleman was the main signatory of early-day motion 188, which referred to the deterioration of Welsh water over the past eight years. My information is that it is not 175 miles of water that are dead or dying, as he put it in his early-day motion, but no more than 26 km.
  There is another error in the early-day motion. It puts class 3 and class 4 rivers together. There has not been an increase in class 4 waters in Wales over the years 1980–87.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman and I dispute the facts. When I saw the report, which was widely publicised on Monday, I took the trouble to ring Morlais Owen, who is the chief scientific officer of Welsh Water. As a direct result of the information that he gave me, I tabled the motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If he considers that anything in the motion is incorrect, and he gives me his version of the level of pollution, I will happily re-word my motion. I assure him that that information was made public and was verified by the chief scientific officer of Welsh Water. Based on my own experience and on my conversation with Morlais Owen, I am prepared to claim that my motion represents the facts.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Welsh Water's research on acid rain and its effects has been of a high quality? Does he agree also that it is important that Welsh Water should continue its research on the destruction of our environment? A proper code of practice, with statutory powers in respect of forestry in the watershed, should be presented in the Water Bill with great force.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman and I are in full accord on that matter. A powerful case has been made against water privatisation. The hon. Gentleman shares my concern about the 100,000 acres of the highest quality landscape that will be threatened by the proposed privatisation. I agree that safeguards should be built into the Bill if privatisation is to go ahead. All hon. Members know how rigorously the Government have enforced the guillotine and are preventing proper debate on such matters.
  Some developments dufing the past 12 months have demonstrated that, in his role as guardian of Welsh farming interests, the Secretary of State for Wales has been neglectful. Earlier this week the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food admitted that the variable premium on land is to be phased out. That matter is important to the people of Wales, but we will not get any safeguards or protection. We will not get special treatment in respect of stabilisers. Vital Welsh interests will be sacrificed.
  The same applies to the beef premium. Welsh interests are particularly important in the livestock sector. The Secretary of State was happy to go along with the deal that was done by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in selling out the variable beef premium. The livestock sector in Wales is taking a severe blow.
  The farm and conservation grant scheme that is currently being introduced is shifting resources from less-favoured areas to the low counties of eastern and southern England. There has been a deliberate diversion of resources from Welsh farmers to prosperous English farmers. The Secretary of State has refused to use his powers, which were conferred by Brussels, to introduce direct income aids to assist farmers in mid and north Wales who are struggling as a result of the succession of blows that British agriculture has been struck through the reorganisation of European policy. All those matters are of concern to Opposition Members.
  As can be judged from the debate, there is little to divide Opposition Members' views on what will happen in future. Three or four political parties are represented here, but, by and large, we speak with a common voice. If there is a gulf in Welsh politics, it is not between the Labour party and the SLD. There is no gulf between the SLD and Plaid
  354
  Cymru. I am not an advocate of pacts—far from it. There is a gulf in the recognition of what is happening to our communities, and that gulf is represented on the Floor of the House. If there is a difference, it is between Opposition Members, who argue that there is a Community perspective to Welsh problems and that they can be addressed only by a co-operative approach as we move towards the next century, and Conservative Members, who argue that everything can be left to deregulation, market forces, and the glitz and gloss of admen.
  That system is not working. It is alien to the people of Wales, and that is why the Secretary of State for Wales, although he may be regarded with some transient affection by politicians or communities in Wales, will never be regarded with respect by the people of Wales and will never command their allegiance through the ballot box.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I begin by adding my words of welcome and congratulation to my hon. Friend the new Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Howells). He seemed to get the hang of things quickly in his speech and we all feel that we have acquired an hon. Member who will make a distinguished contribution to the House.
  I would also like to add my words of condolence to the family of the late Sir Raymond Gower to those already uttered by all hon. Members who have spoken. I have spoken of my condolences already in the House, but I want to repeat them, especially in the light of the remarks by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). He mentioned that in 1964, he was a resident in the constituency of Barry, which was then the constituency represented by Sir Raymond Gower. He said that he had first gone out canvassing in 1964 and that that was his first political experience. I can beat him. As a small boy, aged 12, my first political experience was to attend an election meeting addressed by Sir Raymond Gower in the local baptist vestry in the constituency of Barry. I asked him a question about peace in Europe and our relations with Germany. I had the odd experience tonight of realising that I had asked a similar question of the Prime Minister yesterday. I had the chilling thought that we politicians give the same speech over 38 years and that although we might try to polish it up a bit, we arc always saying the same thing.
  To be sure that I do not make the same speech after 40 years in politics, I want to speak tonight about gallium arsenides and indium phosphides. I am on safe ground in saying that I did not refer to those in 1951 because they had not been discovered then. If anyone is wondering what those substances have to do with the future of Wales, I shall explain. If Wales is ever to move away from begging-bowl politics, regional development politics and grant-aided politics, it must have the chance to have a stake in the technologies of the future.
  We had such a stake before the first world war because we led the world in industries such as tinplate, strip mills and some aspects of coal mining, especially marine coal, which we then lost with the loss of stable industries and the McKinley tariff in the United States. We have never managed to get back again. We have always been catching the last bus with the aid of a Government grant and hand-me-downs from the south-east of England. It is time that we started to give some thought not only to devising a generous regional policy, but a self-extinguishing

  355
  regional policy, whereby grants are paid out and public money is put down as seed capital, but with the specific aim of trying to get rid of the need for a regional policy in 10, 20 or 30 years, or however long the job takes.
  I raised the topic of gallium arsenides and indium phosphides because those substances are the raw materials of the semi-conductor industry after the silicon chip has gone. The silicon chip, I am assured by technologists, will be replaced by epitaxial products made of those two sophisticated crystalline compounds. We are at the beginning of the stage whereby south Wales, especially the Cardiff area, has a significant stake in the intellectual infrastructure in its university departments and in the application of those products for industrial purposes.
  In the new university of Wales college of Cardiff, a merger of the university of Wales institute of science and technology and University college, Cardiff, there is a substantial proportion of the world's expertise in epitaxial products, the post-silicon chip age materials for semi-conductors. The reason that I want to draw the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State is that although strictly speaking, the matter is not within his province, but in the province of higher education, it is a matter on which he can use his broader power of oversight and interest in the future of Wales.
  By the efforts of the local authority in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), a new factory is being set up, one of the first in the world, which will be manufacturing on a significant commercial scale, with the advantage of venture capital from Shell, a substantial multi-million pound investment in indium phosphides and gallium arsenides—semi-conductor space age materials. That must be welcomed because it is giving Wales the chance of a share of 21st century technology, not hand-me-downs from south-east England and Germany, industries that are too dirty to comply with Scandinavian environmental controls or industries in which the wages that would have to be paid in the home counties do not enable them to compete with Taiwan and Singapore and which have provided so many of the new jobs over the past 40 years under Governments of both colours.
  To get away from that, it is important that the Secretary of State keeps an eye on what his fellow Cabinet Ministers are doing and says, "This may not be strictly my responsibility, but I want to see what I can do to get Wales the same kind of stake in the post-silicon chip materials that Scotland got when silicon got off the ground 30 years ago". That was when transistors and computers had their first impact on the European scene in the late 1950s and early 1960s. We in Wales missed out on that and there is not much point now in trying to grab a big share because we would still he making the mistake of catching the last bus.
  I should like to make another plea to the Secretary of State although, again, this is not in his province. He should keep an eye on the development on the exciting new engineering faculty at the combined University college at Cardiff because it may be the last big public sector, public-funded development in higher education in this country. The University Grants Committee has given a budget of £30 million to develop a new engineering faculty as a kind of dowry to encourage UWIST and University college to merge. We all know how difficult it is to get
  356
  students on to engineering courses at the moment in this country and how dependent we frequently are on overseas students to make up the numbers.
  The Secretary of State should keep a close eye on that development to ensure that it is a genuine centre of excellence with links with industry and job creation in Wales. It should be an intellectual powerhouse and a centre for training for the future decision-makers and technology leaders of Wales and provide us with a stake in the 21st century so that we can create more of our own jobs instead of having to give grants to import other countries' hand-me-down jobs when they cease to have use for them.
  Although it is not his province, I hope that the Secretary of State will keep a close eye on that matter and work closely with his colleagues in the Cabinet who have more direct responsibility for education and science. I hope that that new engineering faculty will be stuffed full of fellows of the Royal Society and fellows of the British Academy of the highest quality to ensure that we in Wales do not just have the ability to churn out the poets, preachers, doctors, professionals and even the politicians for which Wales is known, but the technicians, scientists, engineers, and technologists—the people who can help Wales to churn out a fair proportion of its own jobs. That would give us a chance that we have not had since the first world war to be a self-sufficient region in terms of job creation.
  There will be a place in that for both the private and public sectors and for organisations that are neither one thing nor the other, but a halfway house. I remind the Secretary of State of the importance of the public sector in providing new jobs in Wales. Indeed, what we think of as private sector companies often turn out not to be so when one looks at them more closely. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North and just across the boundary from my constituency is Amersham International, which is an absolute pillar of the industrial society in Wales. It was a public sector company when it came to Wales but it is now a public limited company. Another example is the royal mint—a public sector development that was brought to Wales 20 years ago. The new financial services initiative companies that have moved into Wales are not plcs, at least not by background. The Trustee Savings Bank Group plc, for example, was a mutuality as the TSB, and likewise National Provident which is moving to Cardiff and bringing 500 jobs is not a plc, but a mutuality. The public sector is extremely important in terms of providing technology and training.
  People may mention in pubs that they have been working for the royal mint and are being promoted to the royal ordnance factory in Llanishen, saying, "I was making good money down at the royal mint but now I am making a bomb at the ROF in Llanishen."
  Such companies are important because they provide apprenticeships. I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the extremely important report issued yesterday by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and Professor Praïs—not Pryce in the Welsh sense—who is one of Europe's greatest experts on comparative levels of engineering apprenticeships and graduate engineering apprenticeships and on industrial training in general, which compares Britain, France and Germany.
  Although it is not directly his function to do so, the Secretary of State should look at that very closely. Wales is basically without an engineering tradition because of the kinds of industry that it contains. We need to fill the gap,

  357
  providing craftsmen, technicians and engineering graduates so that we are no longer dependent on bringing people in from outside. Although there will be interplay across the regions, we should not depend on importing technology or technologists.
  It is particularly sad for that reason to see how many white-collar, decision-making and research-based jobs have moved out of Wales in the past couple of years. The only Medical Research Council establishment in Wales has been closed down—the pneumoconiosis research unit attached to Llandough hospital. The only reasonable science establishment funded by the Government, the research vessel services base at Barry, has moved, and we learned this week that—again in Barry—BP is running down its research and development base for the second time.
  I did, however, approve strongly of one feature of the Secretary of State's opening address: he did not use a strangely colonial phrase that he has been using throughout Wales. He has said that it is a good thing for Wales that the economy of the south-east has been overheating, because Wales has benefited from the spin-off —the outward push from the south-east, which can no longer attract workers. The right hon. Gentleman must stop using such language, for what he is saying is that we in Wales will always have the crumbs from the rich man's table. It is not his job to sweep the crumbs from the rich man's table in the south-east into Wales. We want more than crumbs: we want a loaf of bread.
  9.11 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: First, I must say how much I welcome the arrival of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) in the House, although the circumstances are particularly tragic. I know that he will make a good contribution, and if his maiden speech is anything to go by we can expect to hear many entertaining and informative speeches from him over the years.
  I thank the Secretary of State for Wales—although I may look slightly amazed to be doing so—for his action over the phurnacite plant. People in Cynon Valley appreciate his having forced British Coal Products to go through the planning process. As he knows, we have put up with the pollution problems caused by the plant for long enough, and we are very concerned at any suggestion that a new process—virtually untried in England—is to be tried out on us.
  We have been given similar promises in the past. The Ancit plant, for example, was supposed to improve the environment, and after a good many teething problems it made some contribution to improving it in that area, but there is still considerable concern about extensive pollution from the phurnacite plant, because people do not know what British Coal Products intends to do next. Those who recently visited the works in Hamilton, Scotland, were not very pleased at what they saw there, particularly the use of mild heat treatment.
  Over the past few weeks I have been urging Ministers to deal with the situation in Mountain Ash, the second major town in my constituency, which is currently experiencing considerable decline, particularly in its commercial centre.
  358
  Most of the main chain stores in the area are closing down or have already done so. A letter that I received from one of my constituents this week reads:
  "Please help us here in Mountain Ash … if you can. Our main shopping centre is a disgrace—other valley towns are being improved, but ours seems to be the Cinderella of the Valleys. Boots, Woolworths and our Post Office and the gas showrooms are all being closed and the litter is absolutely revolting—not to mention the decrepit condition of the main street buildings. Please, please continue to help us in our fight to improve our town."
  She enclosed a bay leaf from her garden—the Secretary of State is aware that Mountain Ash is also plagued by pollution from the phurnacite—and commented:
  "As you can see, I would have to scrub it before using it for cooking."
  I wrote to the companies that are or have already closed down their branches in Mountain Ash. I received a letter from a representative of Boots saying:
  "For many years the Company has been represented in the Town and as one who was born and bred in Mountain Ash, I can understand the concern of many in the community who will lose the advantages of shopping in a local Boots store.
  For the past three years the Store has experienced a decline in the level of busines and unfortunately, it has now reached such when it cannot sustain a viable operation and therefore I can conform that a decision has been made to cease our representation in the town … I am sure you are aware that the company is continuing to invest in other Valley towns"
  It is the same story with Dewhurst, the butchers, from whom I received a letter which stated:
  "Many of the problems of small towns and neighbourhood centres over crime and vandalism have arisen because there is no longer a heart to the neighbourhood. When there was a butcher, a baker and greengrocer, a dairyman and newsagent, people would shop and meet conveniently and safely. Now, all the day-to-day food traders have gone and there is just an off-licence, a betting shop and a multi-commodity general purpose store. This is not an attractive environment for young children and old people."
  No doubt the Secretary of State saw the Western Mail this week which showed dereliction in Mountain Ash on one of its pages. That dereliction is indicative of the problems of high unemployment and low wages in the area. The Secretary of State is well aware that the Cynon valley has been identified by all the indices as the poorest district in Wales. Sixty per cent. of households live on less than £4,000 per year—that is a shocking figure—while a quarter live on incomes between £4,000 and £8,000, more than half the people have no savings and only one in five has savings worth more than £1,000. Many exist on small benefits because of the area's high unemployment.
  However the Secretary of State or the Government present the figures, unemployment in the Cynon valley has gone up this month, and the figure is already much too high as we have the highest male unemployment in Wales. One in six of the people live in unfit houses and half of houses need repairs costing £1,000 or more. Moreover, the kind of jobs available in the Cynon valley—there are not many compared with other parts of Wales—tend to be low paid and part time, so people are exchanging poverty line benefits for poverty line wages.
  Low pay is rife throughout the Welsh economy in both the public and private sector. There is a double pressure on the wages of the low paid because public sector cash limits keep low wages down. Many people in the Cynon Valley are employed by the public sector. Discarding wage regulation drives public sector wages down even further. There is a smug, arrogant assumption that we should ask only enough for the low paid to get by on, as though they, unlike everyone else, do not want to live a full and

  359
  rewarding life. Under the present Government, the rich have received tax breaks while those who are already poor have been punished and goaded into effort by the imposition of a harsh, inflexible benefit system.
  In Wales, one in four men earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold, and average male earnings are the lowest of any region in the country. I am sure that the Secretary of State cannot applaud that. The situation is even worse for women, whose average earnings are a mere 66 per cent. of the national male average. Six out of 10 women in south Wales earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold and with the abolition of the wages councils such small protections as exist will disappear.
  Wales has suffered particularly badly from the staff reductions in the wages inspectorate. Nine years ago there were seven inspectors and an office in Cardiff. That office has now closed and its responsibility has been transferred to Bristol and Manchester. As a consequence, illegal wage rates are widespread. Last year, inspectors visited only 9 per cent. of establishments, so Welsh employers can expect a visit only once in 11 years and it is estimated that one in three pay illegal rates.
  The position for women in Wales is particularly bad. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales has said:
  "Who would have believed, 20 or 30 years ago, that we would have lady bus drivers? Of course, with power-assisted steering and all the electronic aids, one does not have to be a muscle-bound man to swing vehicles around. Whether driving buses or operating computers in the office, and so on, a woman is on an equal plane with a man for any job. In some circumstances, she is better placed. Just ask Hitachi and other electronic firms that want to have components put together. The small fingers then come into their own."—[Official Report, 2 March 1987; Vol. 111, c. 628.]
  That is indicative of the Government's attitude towards women at work in Wales. They have low paid part-time jobs and their wages are disgraceful.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: First, I echo the words of the many hon. Members who have paid tribute to the two friends and colleagues who have passed on. We all feel a grievous loss at the death of Brynmor John, who was such a wise and generous friend to many of us. He would have been proud to hear his successor's maiden speech today, with its mixture of humour and passion. He would have enjoyed that.
  Sir Raymond Gower, as I well know because I was a former constituent of his and represented a neighbouring constituency, was another consummate constituency Member of Parliament. His last representations were, as ever, on behalf of his constituents, on two issues about which we saw eye to eye. These were the need to save Sully hospital and to plan a positive role for it in the future Health Service, and the need to preserve research vessel port services in Barry. The best memorial to him would be for Ministers to pay heed now to the case that he made on both issues.
  Today's debate began with an attempt by the Secretary of State to decry the criticisms of his stewardship as a form of ritual dance between Government and Opposition in which he himself had formerly participated from the Opposition Benches. He may have merely gone through the motions when he was in opposition, but he must understand here and now that we are serious in our criticisms. Our criticisms of his programmes have been
  360
  both detailed and fully justified. The Secretary of State did a disservice to the work of the House and to public service when he said at the beginning of the debate that he regarded it as a game, although we had long suspected that that was his view. We regard being in opposition as a serious, important and responsible job, and it was in that spirit that we approached today's debate.
  Our seriousness about Wales has been demonstrated through the 10 locust years, not just when things were going well. I was involved in the redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff, the considerable efforts to encourage home-grown industry, to attract incoming firms and to develop Cardiff as a financial centre, so I know how long a struggle that was. That is just one example, and my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) described another with passion and enthusiasm. I know the very positive lead that our local authorities have given and how hard they have worked in my area and other parts of Wales to co-operate with the private sector to the benefit of their local areas and of Wales. That has also involved seeking support from Europe and from the Welsh office. That co-operation is vital, and it is shameful that the Secretary of State has rewarded the common sense of our councils by cutting back on their rate support grant contributions. It is even more shameful that he should claim the fruits of our labours as though the credit were his alone.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made it clear that we would praise positive proposals from the Government, but we shall also pinpoint their failings. That response is called for by several of the self-satisfied contributions that we heard from Conservative Members today. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) said, appropriately, that he always recycles his speeches and showed it by going around in circles when he spoke. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) gave us a typical bit of partisan knockabout and opened the Vale of Glamorgan by-election a little prematurely in a way that I would describe as robust but foolhardy. It was like mounting a kamikaze attack in an unarmed glider, and his answer preceded him in the humorous but serious way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) showed the quality of debate that we shall enjoy hearing from him in the future. I welcomed my hon. Friend's excellent contribution as much as I welcome him to the vigorous and lively team that we have on the Welsh Opposition Benches.
  In contrast with some Conservative Members, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who courteously explained that he had to leave the debate, spoke generously of the confidence of Labour Members following the Pontypridd by-election, and he was right. He also rightly criticised the poll tax, the Water Bill and the reform of the National Health Service, and condemned the Government's excessive belief in market forces. I welcome his honesty on each of those points and I note that Conservative Members are listening rather more quietly now. The hon. Gentleman tried to distance himself and the Secretary of State from the Government, but I must point out that both of them bolster the majority which gives the Prime Minister the sense of being above criticism and encourages her and the Cabinet's extremism.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West and the Secretary of State share responsibility for the very measures that the hon. Gentleman criticised. He was right

  361
  to say that there is a sense in the country that the things which are best done by collective action should continue so to be done. The people of Wales say that enough is enough. Let the hon. Gentleman and any others who have had enough of the Government activities show in the Division Lobby that they mean what they say.
  I issue that challenge particularly in respect of the Water Bill, which is wholeheartedly rejected by the people of Wales. The bardic steamroller should recognise the telling criticisms voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and others in today's debate, but will the Government be defeated on that Bill or will there be another nominal revolt like that on the eyesight and dental charges, which allowed some Conservative Members the luxury of protest so long as it did not put the Government's majority at risk?
  There is an attempt by the Secretary of State and his Ministers to create a myth with which to kid the Welsh people that somehow they act as a buffer against the worst excesses of Thatcherism and that we should be grateful to them for bringing a gentler, kinder branch of Conservatism to Wales than is brought to the rest of Britain. The legend of King Arthur has far more truth in it than the legend of Walker the Wet, and the packaging of the Tory message will not stop it hurting our people in Wales.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have eloquently outlined a range of issues and concerns in Wales which the Secretary of State completely ignored today. What legacy will he leave the people of Wales? He talks a great deal about records, so I am sure that he will be satisfied with his expected entries in the "Guiness Book of Records"—for the largest output of press releases, the most exhaustive use of superlatives, the most consistent overuse of the word "initiative", and the lowest creativity and impact of any ministerial team.
  What of education in Wales? When the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) galloped to the rescue of the small beleaguered band of Welsh Tories, he called for money to be spent on Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin. He is right. As one whose children have been through and benefited from them I believe passionately that they provide the positive and constructive key to the future of the Welsh language. However, we also want proper funding of education, decent school standards for all our communities from nursery to higher education, and the removal of the loans barrier which threatens to undermine access to higher education.
  With regard to incomes and wealth in Wales under this Secretary of State, more of those who are in work in Wales are now earning less than the Council of Europe threshold compared with 1979, a year that the right hon. Gentleman likes to mention when the figures favour him. The 1988 figures show that Wales is the lowest of all regions in respect of the weekly earnings of full-time employees, and that is without taking into account the increasing dependence on part-time work.
  I will illustrate that by describing the situation of a constituent of mine. The death of the husband left his widow, Mrs. Linda Moles, in limbo because of a change in the age of entitlement for widow's benefit from 45 to 40. The Government argued that she, by a matter of hours, did not qualify for a widow's pension. When it became
  362
  clear that the Government had got it wrong, a ministerial decision was apparently taken to fight her and others like her through the whole appeals apparatus. I was delighted to hear today that she had won that appeal—and quite right, too. The Secretary of State for Wales should tell his Cabinet colleagues to let well alone and to restore the entitlement of those widows of several years' standing who have had their widows pensions snatched from them after perhaps 12 or 13 years of widowhood.
  Pensioners who have lost £18·10 per week per couple and £11·40 per week for a single pensioner will have their own view of the Secretary of State's legacy to the people of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members should know that to have been a member of a Government who have stolen from the widows, the old, the poor and the young will be a major part of that legacy.
  As for law and order and the environment, the Prime Minister has shamelessly pretended to have an interest in the environment and claims to support the rule of law. Yet the Secretary of State is part of a Government who are notorious for breaking the law, even their own laws, and has himself been guilty of introducing retrospective legislation during the last year to steal money from local authorities—for example, nearly £3·5 million from the people of south Glamorgan. Nowhere is the Government's record worse than in their neglect of the environment. They are reluctant to meet EEC minimum standards until dragged to the door of the European Court, guilty of complacency over the dumping of toxic waste, and infamous throughout Europe for being negative and obstructive. Welsh Office Ministers must share the blame for all that.
  The long-standing issue of ReChem, repeatedly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), is but one scandal which demonstrates the complicity of the Secretary of State for Wales in this shameful neglect. We have on numerous occasions asked the right hon. Gentleman to intervene on behalf of Wales with his colleagues in the Cabinet, but he fails to do so. Despite its excellent record, the environmental research station at Bangor is being torn apart. The Secretary of State has so far failed to intervene to save research vessel services at Barry, even though that is a significant source of employment and expertise. The right hon. Gentleman is allowing, if not encouraging, asset stripping on a grand scale.
  This week I questioned the Secretary of State for Energy about plans to use a new process which would utilise low-grade coal and bring environmental benefits at Aberthaw, surely a development that should be encouraged. In fairness to that Minister, he has spoken to me since then and has shown greater interest and enthusiasm than he did at the Dispatch Box but he also said that he had received no representations from the Secretary of State for Wales on the matter. That is shameful because the Secretary of State for Wales should be taking a lead on jobs, energy and the environment, all of which are affected.
  Two topics, above all, demonstrate the abject failure of the Conservative party to look after the interests of the people of Wales—the attack on the National Health Service and the sell-off of our water industry. Water privatisation gives the lie to any claim that this Government are good for Wales. There are so many details which are dangerous and wrong about that piece of

  363
  dogmatic, crazy legislation that I shall concentrate on just one aspect today—the right of Welsh people to a say about Welsh water.
  First, however, I digress to remind the House of the Walker technique. As with the so-called valleys initiative, it is to leak a rumour, to announce an announcement and then, when asked about it, to say that it is premature, but to issue a modest half-denial, then to let things go quiet for a while and then to repeat the process, with an announcement of an imminent announcement, a shy denial and another notch in the legend of Walker the Wet. It is a technique for packaging a product which does not exist and seeking credit for action without having to do anything. The Secretary of State knows the truth of that.
  Rumour exists that the Secretary of State for Wales plans to give away council houses to the tenants living in them. Hand over the deeds and the keys and the problem is gone—that seems to be the idea—but the owner of any older house knows that will not solve everything. Inner cities, towns and rural areas all contain privately owned houses which need more money spent on them than most private owners can afford. That is why we have home grants for home owners and tax relief on mortgages, although that is under threat in the Thatcherite revolution.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Is not the hon. Gentleman delighted at a piece of legislation which, for the first time under any Government, will give the people of Wales, no matter how low their income, 100 per cent. grants to improve old houses? Does he not agree that that is a radical reform that will benefit Wales?
  Mr. Michael: I am always delighted at an improvement, but the Secretary of State has taken away grants from many other people in Wales. By stealing money from local authorities, he has taken away opportunities for people in Wales to have their own homes. He is guilty of neglecting the homeless in Wales. In any event, to return to the matter which embarrasses the Secretary of State, the Chancellor will not allow council houses to be given away without a price and such a solution would still leave local councils and communities with the scandal of homelessness and the lack of homes. The Western Mail described the Secretary of State as being coy on the matter. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State admitted in a recent reply that the Government
  "have no immediate plans to make changes under the right-to-buy scheme."—[Official Report, 27 February 1989; Vol. 148, c. 17.]
  Nevertheless, the rumours persist.
  I can give the Secretary of State an easier alternative. If it is such a good idea to give the people of Wales what they have already paid for, let him give them Welsh Water. All he needs to do is to issue 2,836,000 shares—one for every man, woman and child in the Principality—without their having to make any payment. Alternatively, he could issue 100 or 1,000 shares each, as that would look even more generous—2,836 million shares to the people of Wales—and give them to us. They would be transferable only to the Government only on death or removal from the Principality. Reservation could be made for a fresh issue of shares—the water birthright—to each baby born in the Principality or to people who come to live in Wales. Shareholders could elect representatives in each area—we could call them local councils—and send them to the board of Welsh Water so that all the shareholders could have a voice in the industry.
  364
  The Secretary of State could then live up to the title of his book and trust the people. The Government say that there is an advantage in operating the water industry as a plc. That system would be a plc and would have all those advantages, if they exist, so the Government could not object. It could borrow to invest, which the Ministers tell us is a good thing, but the people of Wales would still own that which we own now.
  Let the Secretary of State put his money where his mouth is and give the Welsh water industry to those who own it now—the people of Wales. That will not happen, of course, because the Chancellor will not let it happen and the Cabinet will not let it happen. The Secretary of State is part of the team who will not let it happen. He knows that the Chancellor desperately needs the income from selling another bit of our birthright to fund his mismanagement of our economy. That is what it is all about—the Tories have the dogma and we pay the cost.
  The time in Committee considering the Bill has been instructive, as the Government's case for privatisation has crumbled and fallen apart. Our plea for a Welsh rivers authority has been rejected, there is no credibility left in the Government's claims that the measure will help our environment, improve water quality or clean up our rivers and beaches. None of that will happen unless the public pay. Our environment, our public access, our water supplies, even our health, are under threat from that measure.
  Our health will be further under threat by the Government's plans to abandon any pretence of wanting to develop a high quality, all-purpose, universal Health Service. The Welsh Office document on the future of the Health Service showed that far from working for patients, as its title suggests, it is a plan for furthering dogma at the expense of public health. The creaking and groaning evident in the Health Service now has been deliberately created by Conservative neglect. If a week is a long time in politics, 10 years is a political lifetime—and for that length of time the Conservative party has used funding arrangements, Cabinet power, administrative arrangements and the nomination of its own quiescent loyalists to undermine our Health Service
  If the Secretary of State does not believe the Opposition, let him examine the Western Mail commentary of Monday which gives example after example of problems with waiting lists in Wales. The White Paper will do nothing to help people on waiting lists any more than it will help the Health Service as a whole. Indeed, it will make the planning and delivery of a high-quality service harder than ever before.
  The Minister's answer last week was:
  "The diagnosis and treatment of patients is and will continue to be a matter for the professional judgment of doctors."—[Official Report, 21 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 608.]
  That cannot be so if the doctor is constrained by his computer forecast and monthly cash flow and he cannot give his single-minded concentration and commitment to the health care of his patients. I do not say that costs should be disregarded, but the Government pendulum has swung too far towards the extreme and the Secretary of State for Wales has swung with the worst of them.
  Health Service planning is dependent on the 10-year plan currently being considered, but I am no longer sure what credence to be placed in them. I want a coherent, long-term plan for my area on which we can depend. I

  365
  want to see problems overcome in south Glamorgan, because there are problems with the plan as drafted. The third district general hospital in Cardiff docks cannot be afforded without undermining Llandongh hospital, killing off Sully hospital, distorting the whole service. A decision is also needed now because the idea is casting a blight on a piece of development land which is desperately needed in the Cardiff bay area, but it is vital that it should be the right decision and part of the right overall plan for the Health Service in south Glamorgan and in Wales as a whole, within a coherent approach which puts patients first and does not depend on dogma and political fashion in the way that the White Paper does.
  Some time ago, the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) gave the game away when he was quoted as saying that the problem with the National Health Service was that there was no relationship between what we pay and the service that we receive. I had always thought that it was a virtue to get the treatment that we need at the time when we need it—when we fall ill—and the people of Wales feel the same. The Secretary of State and his colleagues have failed to defend our Health Service against people like the Prime Minister, just as he has failed to defend our water, environment, education service, housing and local government in Wales. As on so many other issues, his proposals are an abject copy of the proposals in England. He has failed the people of Wales.
  9.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Ian Grist): All I can say is that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has not undermined my faith, or that of my family, in the Health Service. I have to go for an operation in a few months' time. It was a disgraceful attack, and very disappointing because I think that the hon. Gentleman can do a great deal better.
  Today has taken the usual course of a Welsh day debate—we have had constituency representations and hobby horses from all sides, as might be expected.
  No hon. Member made a more notable contribution than the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). I too made my maiden speech on St. David's day 15 years ago but I only wish that I had had half the assurance—and even half the majority—of the hon. Member. He will know, as indeed he has told us, of the gap that he is filling through the death of his predecessor, Brynmor John, a man held in respect and affection by all his colleagues on both sides of the Chamber. We look forward to hearing the hon. Member on many occasions in the future. I feel sure that we shall not be disappointed and he may then expect a more lively response than he received today.
  I cannot mention constituency representation without paying a deep personal tribute to our old friend and colleague, Raymond Gower. I feel sure that I speak for all my parliamentary colleagues when I say that we shall greatly miss Raymond and that uncertain support which he sometimes gave Ministers on his own side, or the often sympathetic attacks which he launched in days gone by on Labour Ministers. Raymond was ever looking for compromise, for the best part in us all and not the worst. We all know how warm and caring a friend we have lost.
  366
  But what a change Raymond saw during his 38 years in this House in the economic and social condition of Wales, and at no time during that long period was change more basic or more rapid than during the past 10 years. As we have been reminded, none of us who was in the House 10 years ago can ever forget St. David's day 1979. That was a fateful day.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Grist: No. I have just started my speech and my time has been cut short as it is.
  On St. David's day 1979 the Labour Government, the Liberal party, Plaid Cymru, the media and the clerical crcchach all proved that they were wholly out of step with the people of Wales and that it was the Conservative party alone which understood how Wales felt about devolution and the future of the United Kingdom. Clearly the opinion of the man and woman in the street, and certainly the poll in the streets of Pontypridd, show that devolution still gets the lowest marks of any subject.
  Where do the opposition parties now stand on devolution? Are we to be forced to accept a Welsh assembly under any future Labour Government—or perhaps three assemblies? Are we to be refused any chance to vote again on such a proposition? Surely the only reason the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) did not vote against the Welsh Bill was the promise of a referendum. I trust that he has not changed his mind on that, however much he may have wavered on the question of devolution itself.
  I remember a most interesting broadcast debate in which the right hon. Gentleman and I were partners against the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and the then Labour Member for Wrexham, Mr. Tom Ellis. The right hon. Gentleman spent most of his time fending off a Trotskyist member of his own association who protested about the right hon. Gentleman being on a platform with me.
  Mr. Foot: I have heard almost every word of this debate. Would the Minister be good enough to give us the employment and unemployment figures for 1979 and the figures for today and tell us what conclusions he draws from the comparisons?
  Mr. Grist: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman quite a few figures before I have finished.
  We have never doubted that on that St. David's day 10 years ago the Conservative party spoke for the hopes and fears of most of our fellow citizens. We understood the burning desire of our neighbours to own their own homes. Now, 68 per cent. of people own their own homes, compared with 59 per cent. when we took office. But giving council tenants the right to buy their own homes was opposed by the Labour and Liberal parties. Now we are told that they no longer oppose the right to buy. How is that for recognising reality?
  As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) admitted, Opposition Members seem to hanker after the old corporatist, controlled, planned society from which we have rescued the country only for Mr. Jacques Delors to revive their hopes. Now we hear that the Labour party is in favour of our membership of the EEC. Perhaps we, or at least the electorate, ought to be told.
  Mr. Morgan: Before the Minister leaves the subject of council houses, could he tell the House how it can be a good idea for people to buy their council houses when the Government are preventing people from building any more houses? How are the next generation to benefit from that wonderful gift?
  Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is again showing that he does not understand why so many of his constituents living in former council houses wished to own those homes. Would he like to tell them that he opposes such a scheme? Does he think that selling those homes to the people living in them reduced the number of houses? Of course it did not.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said proudly that the Opposition were saying no to the free market. That is an extraordinary claim for any political party. That is the reason why in 1975 and 1976 this country took such a dive and why we had to cut capital expenditure on roads and housing. Hon. Members may remember the A470. That road made it to Winchurch but never got any further. It was not until a Conservative Government came to power that it got to Merthyr. The Labour Government had to go to the International Monetary Fund on their knees. That was the level to which the Labour Government brought us. Our time in the Chamber thereafter was filled by endless debates on devolution. That was the one thing that kept the Labour party going.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) quite rightly made a plea on behalf of her constituency. A great deal has been spent on it. We appreciate the points which she made about the phurnacite plant. She will know that under projects of regional and national importance there was a capital allocation of £850,000 for each of the three years to 1988–89 to bring the railway to Aberdare. She will know about the Aberdare bypass, which has been paid for. In housing, she will know about the five enveloping schemes costing £3·3 million, when her own authority could not spend its money until it was shown how by the Welsh Office civil servants. She will know that since 1984 expenditure of over £565,000 on urban development grants, leading to private sector investment of £1·216 million, has created or safeguarded 153 permanent and 63 temporary jobs.
  As for Welsh Development Agency units, from May 1979 to the end of January 1989, 53 units, comprising 521,000 sq ft, were completed. Since 1976, seven land reclamation schemes, comprising 40 acres and costing £600,000, have been completed. There are three projects in progress involving 294 acres. There are seven projects in the programme but not yet in progress, involving 300 acres and estimated to cost £3·3 million. The hon. Lady will know about all those and many more things which are being brought to Cynon Valley. It is now connected to the A470, which had not reached the valley under her party. That is opening up the area and we are providing the factories and spare places which she wants.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), who is sadly not with us, talked about the Welsh language. They will know that grants for the Welsh language will rise by almost 40 per cent. in the coming financial year. That shows our intent for the language. We have a problem in ensuring an adequate supply of Welsh-medium teachers. The demand for Welsh-medium teachers for bilingual secondary schools
  368
  has been growing for some time. We awarded 30 supplements of £1,200 last autumn to encourage more students to train in Welsh. Those were taken up and we intend to offer supplements again this year. We intend to take other steps to satisfy the demand for Welsh teaching.
  Hon. Members have raised time and again our proposals for the Health Service. When my right hon. Friend announced his proposals for Wales in the White Paper, he said that the Health Service had served the people of Wales well; indeed it has. The level of achievement over the last decade has been remarkable. Between 1979 and 1988, the number of staff directly concerned with patient care increased by over 17 per cent. So did the pay of staff in the Health Service, whereas it fell under the Labour Government.
  I do not know how the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who stood in my place in those days, felt as the pay of nurses, consultants and everyone else in the Health Service went down. How did he feel when the number of out patients dealt with in Welsh hospitals fell by 3 per cent. during his period as a Minister, whereas under this Government 88,000 new out-patients have been dealt with? Nearly 100,000 more in-patients and 45,000 more day cases have been dealt with under this Government. Yet Opposition Members have the gall to talk about cuts in the Health Service. Would they willingly tell the people of Wales or Britain that we should go back to the Health Service that we had in 1979? Is that really what they would hold up as their banner? Not at all.
  All that has been achieved at the same time as we have been improving dramatically the service in Wales for people with mental illnesses and mental handicaps. Our all-Wales mental handicap strategy is widely recognised as a unique and innovative development which is bringing considerable improvements to the lives of thousands of people with mental handicaps, and their families. We have established in our mental handicap strategy something which is admired not just in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom but in other countries. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will appreciate and understand that.
  We published our draft strategy for the development of mental illness services in May last for a six-month period of consultation. The responses to our proposals have been very favourable and encouraging. We will publish a final version later this spring, and we shall move to the new strategic planning framework in the financial year 1990–91. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Griffiths report?"] I can promise hon. Members that that will be dealt with in the coming year. In helping the least capable people in our society—the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill—the Welsh Office has set a fine example, not just in Britain but abroad.
  Mr. Rowlands rose—
  Mr. Grist: No, I shall not give way. I have far too many points to reply to.
  Like many other hon. Members, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) failed to understand the competitive basis of our water privatisation proposals. There will most certainly be competition. Nor did he appreciate that the Director General of Water Services will control price rises and lay down the conditions under which the new water authorities will operate.
  Mr. Ron Davies rose—
  Mr. Grist: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and others guyed the idea that Welsh Water, the new plc, could be owned by the people of Wales. Opposition Members may have a surprise coming to them because it is our intention to give the people of Wales every opportunity to take a stake in their own water company in a way that has not been possible before.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Grist: No, I will not.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North called for a north-south road—a rather old idea. The Government have undertaken 47 major motorway and trunk road schemes and 140 miles of roads have been provided. Spending on new capital schemes and structural renewal and maintenance exceeds £1 billion since 1979. Sixteen bypasses have been completed. Four are in and 25 more are programmed for the 1990s. Sixteen miles of road are presently under construction on schemes costing some £270 million. That remarkable development, the Conway tunnel, costing over £160 million, is due to open in 1991.
  Mr. Geraint Howells rose—
  Mr. Grist: No, I shall not give way.
  I sum up the Government's record by saying that there has been record home ownership of between 59 and 68 per cent. A record number of patients has been treated. There has been a record number of consultants, nurses and doctors. There has been a record number of patients on renal dialysis—the highest in Europe at 55 per million of the population. There has been a record number of Welsh students in universities and higher education—25 per cent. up on the figure when we took office. There has been a record number of new company formations. A record amount has been spent on training, about which we have heard precious little today. Spending on training has risen from £60·7 million in 1979–80 to nearly £150 million today.
  There has been a record number of exciting new developments, such as Cardiff bay, Swansea marine, the Ford plants at Bridgend and Swansea, the Newport
  370
  barrage, the valleys programme, the Ebbw Vale garden festival, and the A55. All those projects are bringing hope, new life and new interest to Wales.
  The Government are transforming the Principality. They are transforming it from the declining employee-centred economy that it had become over several generations, to a thriving modern society which has faith and confidence in itself. That confidence comes as jobs are created by Welsh-based men and women who are already eager to strike out on their own account rather than wait for the Government, or whoever, to bring them work and benefit from outside like some sort of cargo cult. In that respect, I fully support the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. He talked a great deal of sense and I welcome what he had to say.
  This Administration are intent on reforming educational standards. Enterprise agencies are appearing. This is a world in which Marxism is becoming increasingly passé, whether in China, Moscow, Poland or Hungary. All those countries are privatising and discovering the need for profits and losses and that there is no need for the Labour party's old-fashioned approach. I believe that they know that, otherwise there would not be such a deafening silence about renationalising former state-owned businesses and firms, or so little talk about reinforcing municipal monopolies or hamstringing private coach and bus companies. It is not just that they could not afford to repurchase British Gas or the National Freight Corporation; they no longer have the stomach for it.
  If the Labour party no longer stands for state ownership, or even for unilateral or other disarmament, what does it stand for? I cannot believe that, in their hearts, Welsh men and women really see the right hon. Member for Islwyn as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, or the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside as a replacement for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. My right hon. Friend has brought a new spirit and a new confidence to political and public life in Wales.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Competition Policy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor].
  10 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising the important subject of competition policy in the United Kingdom, particularly as it relates to the public interest and to the workings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In developing my case, I wish to ask the Minister a number of relevant and important questions.
  Is he satisfied that the Government's preoccupation with competition issues will not lead to substantial parts of British industry being put at risk by the level of investment in United Kingdom companies by highly geared entrepreneurs? It appears to be recent Government policy to have regard only to the financial difficulties likely to flow from high gearing and low interest cover where such financial difficulties could have an adverse effect on competition. Why do the Government no longer consider that the possibility of financial failure of itself involves real public interest issues?
  Does the Minister think that companies with extremely complex and opaque shareholding structures, established in countries such as Australia, that do not have the same disclosure demands as this country, should be forced to make full disclosure of their precise shareholding structure and of directors' remuneration before being permitted to acquire United Kingdom companies? In particular, should an overseas company with a record of very different, and less acceptable, accounting standards be considered by the London international stock exchange for a full listing and share quotation?
  Does my hon. Friend the Minister feel that overseas companies attempting to take over British companies with substantial assets and large numbers of employees should first adopt accounting standards and conventions practiced in the United Kingdom? I believe that this is very much a matter of public interest.
  Does the Minister agree that the needs of highly geared companies for cash flow mean that there is inevitably a potential adverse effect for the consumer and the employees in acquisitions by such companies, since this will inevitably create a need for higher prices on the one hand and lower costs on the other? For example, in the case of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and Elders IXL, Scottish and Newcastle would be likely to shed some 3,500 jobs.
  For the benefit of my hon. Friend, let me say that if Elders is permitted to proceed with its bid for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and is successful in taking over the company at £5 per share, Elders will be paying approximately £2 billion for the company. This would cost it £260 million a year in interest. As the Scottish and Newcastle profit is likely to be about £160 million in 1989–90, the interest cost of Elders IXL borrowing, above the company profitability, would be £100 million per annum. This would equate, first, to a sell-off of some £800 million worth of assets of Scottish and Newcastle and, secondly, redundancy for 3,500 employees. In short, this is what an Elders IXL takeover could mean for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, for British industry and for employment in this country.
  372
  Is not the Minister concerned that the proliferation of bids from companies based outside the United Kingdom may result in important areas of British industry being controlled from outside the United Kingdom, thereby moving the centre of decision-taking outside our country, with adverse consequences for United Kingdom regions and for the infrastructure of services provided in those regions, which are so often dependent on local demand?
  Companies with high levels of gearing and low levels of interest cover by reference to normal United Kingdom standards tend, in time—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister knows this—to face financial difficulties. Such pressures also lead such companies to seek acquisitions which are rich in cash flow and assets and where extraordinary profits on break-up can help fund the companies requirement for dividends and debt servicing. Is that not just typical of the record and reputation of Elders IXL? The activities of certain foreign companies, notably Australasian companies, in the United Kingdom takeover market, having high gearing and low interest cover levels, is a matter of deep concern to me, the House and the British public.
  There is, in many quarters of finance and industry in Britain, a considerable unease over the motivation and influence of that group of Australasian entrepreneurs whose sights appear to be set on raiding United Kingdom assets. Can we be happy that the unfettered activities of those modern-day buccaneers are achieving anything constructive for the future of the United Kingdom economy, or is their motivation largely self-interest, with the inherent risk remaining that assets will be moved offshore and United Kingdom taxes skilfully avoided to the long-term disadvantage of this country.
  Taxation has been an issue in Australia where, inter alia, Elders has been a thorn in the flesh of the tax authorities. They have been in considerable disagreement about the amount of tax paid by the Elders group of companies into the Australian national coffers. There must be a likelihood as already recently demonstrated by Equiticorp and Mr. Holmes á Court, to name but two, of serious risk to others in the financial strategies of those companies.
  A good example of highly geared Australian companies seeking to acquire United Kingdom industrial interests is the present attempt by Elders IXL to acquire Scottish arid Newcastle Breweries. Elders is a company with various cross-shareholdings, common directorships and other links with numerous further companies. A company called Harlin, which is based in Monaco, has some 20 per cent. of Elders ordinary share capital undiluted together with various options. Another company called Petitio owns a further 18 per cent. of Elders undiluted share capital. Petitio is owned 50:50 by AFP Investments Ltd. and Goodman Fielder Watty. Harlin and Petitio together control nearly 40 per cent of Elders undiluted share capital and if Harlins options were exercised it would control nearly 46 per cent. of undiluted capital.
  It is crucial to understand the shareholding structure in order to appreciate the indebtedness and crippling level of gearing that surrounds Elders IXL. Harlin has gearing of some 600 per cent. and Petitio has a gearing of nearly 200 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that gearing ratios show the ratio of debt to shareholders' funds. Fairly calculated, the gearing ratio of Elders is

  373
  about 218 per cent. now and will rise to just under 400 per cent. on the acquisition of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. That is a ratio of nearly 4:1.
  Harlin is a rather interesting company. Elders' 1988 report stated that Harlin was jointly owned by senior executives of Elders and their associates, the Elders superannuation fund and AFP Investments. However, it appears that all the shares in the company, as at February 1988, were held by the directors of Elders, the majority being owned by John Dorman Elliot. At that time the company was known as Pyalong Ltd.
  What is worrying is that that appalling monumental indebtedness and fearsome gearing is not getting any better for Elders IXL, as can be seen from its interim figures for the six months to 31 December 1988, which appeared in mid-February. It announced an increase in profits of 12 per cent., although that depended on a low tax charge of about 20 per cent. of profits. Profits before tax and abnormal items would be down by 18 per cent., and, before interest, down by 23 per cent. The supposed increase in post-tax profits of 12 per cent. was stated by Elders to represent an increase in earnings per share of 5 per cent. However, for the present statement, Elders has recalculated earnings per share on the basis of the number of shares outstanding at the end of the period. Had it continued to apply the basis that was used last year, earnings per share would have fallen by 5 per cent.
  That shows the sort of fraudulent activities that that company is prepared to get up to hide its true indebtedness and gearing.
  In September 1986, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—I refer to the Elders-Allied Lyons report—asked, first, that the Bank of England and the stock exchange should consider whether the appearance of highly leveraged bids in the London market made desirable the introduction of any new powers of control; and, secondly, if so, whether effective control could be exercised by reference to levels of capital gearing or interest cover. Thirdly, it suggested that the Department of Trade and Industry, represented by my hon. Friend the Minister, and the appropriate City regulatory authorities might consider whether any change was desirable in the rules to require the consent at a general meeting of the shareholders of the bidding company before a bid may be completed.
  Will the Minister report on what consideration has been given by him and his Department—and with what result—to whether any such new powers of control or rules are desirable? If it is considered undesirable to introduce guidance or new powers of control in relation to gearing and interest cover for all companies, large or small, would it nevertheless be desirable in relation to large takeovers, in which significant United Kingdom assets, substantial United Kingdom employment and other issues are involved, for minimum standards of gearing and interest cover to be insisted on by the Government of this country?
  Does the Minister support the concept of a future British brewing industry which two or three mega-companies dominate, as in Australia, where Elders and the Bond Corporation supply over 90 per cent. of the beer market? Is that in the public interest? Is that not a danger to competition? More particularly, is the Minister aware of the statement by Elders which was reported in The Sunday
  374
  Times of 12 February of this year that Britain will follow other major beer markets such as Australia, America and Canada, which are characterised by market leaders with up to 40 per cent. market shares, and that it expects to be able to drive up its share of the United Kingdom beer market to more than 40 per cent.?
  The House should know that in Australia there is a body called the National Companies and Securities Commission—rather like the United States Securities and Exchange Commission—which, in 1988, conducted an inquiry into Elders' relations with the Broken Hill (Proprietary) Co. Ltd.—Australia's largest company.
  Is the Minister aware that the NCSC report was highly critical of Elders and that, had its detailed findings been known in time, the MMC might not have given Elders the clearance that it gave at the time? Elders now claims that that clearance by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is proof positive of its fitness to own important parts of United Kingdom industry; hence its attempts to acquire Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and also its attack upon Metal Box.
  More particularly, from the NCSC report, is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that Elders was in a position to present itself to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the Allied Lyons referral only as a company strengthened by the subscription of BHP to 1 billion Australian dollars of capital by, first, inducing at least two of the banks to participate in the loan to finance that transaction by misrepresentations as to the true nature of Elders' intentions; secondly, failing to disclose to the banks the forthcoming issue of preference shares to BHP for 1 billion Australian dollars; and, thirdly, "green mailing" BHP to make that subscription using leverage which Elders had acquired by its acquisition of a 19·9 per cent. interest in BHP?
  Is the Minister aware that Elders caused the terms of the separate undertaking it had given to the banks in relation to Allied Lyons to be given in a side letter for the purpose of shielding its terms from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that the NCSC declined to accept the evidence of Elders on some matters and that the evidence it gave conflicted directly with the evidence given on behalf of at least one of the banks?
  In allowing Elders to acquire Courage in the autumn of 1986, after the publication of the NCSC report, did my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department take into account the findings of the NCSC report; and, if not, why not? If they did, why was it not thought right for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to be asked to reconsider the issues in the light of the detailed findings of the NCSC concerning Elders?
  Does the Minister consider it desirable for one major brewer—Elders-Courage—to achieve its desire to control one of the three major suppliers of cans to the British brewing industry? I refer to Metal Box. That may have the result of denying a source of can supply to the rest of the United Kingdom brewing industry and may increase the concentration in the supply of beer and cans. I put a straightforward question to the Minister: does he think it desirable for one major brewer—Elders-Courage—to purchase a major supplier of cans to the British brewing industry? Is that what competition is about?
  I shall now move briefly to the issues raised by the unsavoury events of the morning of 10 November 1988. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to my hon. Friends for coming to this debate and showing their

  375
  support for what I am about to say. I was speaking about the morning of 10 November 1988 when Elders chose to fly in the face of accepted City conduct by ignoring the gentlemen's agreement between industry, the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry that after a reference no further purchases of the shares of the company being bid for should be made.
  That shameful 45 minutes of casino trading was described by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry merely as "regrettable", but was apparently considered by Elders to be acceptable financial conduct. It resulted in Scottish and Newcastle Breweries suffering from actions that have now been rendered impossible by the Department's new practice of issuing what are known in the City as "Elders orders". Such practice is now reflected, as the Minister will know, in clause 100 of the new Companies Bill. In the light of that, does the Minister not consider it outrageous for dealers and market makers associated with a bidder in a bid situation to have sold short to the bidder shares in the target at considerable profit to the parties concerned? I put that question to him, and I hope that I will receive an answer.
  Where holdings of material influence are acquired by bidders prior to, or after, a bid being referred, can the Minister assure the House that in the event of an adverse finding by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission he will take all the necessary steps to ensure that the divestment of such material interest contrary to the public interest will be achieved as swiftly and effectively as possible?
  I fervently hope that at no time, or under any circumstances, will anyone be able to claim that Elders IXL and Mr. John Elliott were in a privileged position because he is the president of the Australian Federal Liberal party, which is the Australian equivalent of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom and because he has employed the services of a former Conservative Member of Parliament who lost his seat in 1987 and who, for a time, served as a Minister in the Scottish Office and in the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Can the Minister give an assurance to those who are deeply interested in the whole issue and in the principles at stake that, if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission finds that the merger between Elders-Courage and Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, creating the largest concentration in beer supply and pub ownership in the United Kingdom, would be against the public interest, the Secretary of State will not overrule the finding of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
  In conclusion, I give a clear message to Mr. John Dorman Elliott, who brags to the Australian press and to the boys back home that he has easy access to No. 10 and to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. His colleages in the Australian Liberal party may be impressed but—and I say this rhetorically—"You cannot buy after hours shares in 10 Downing Street." Again I say to Mr. John Dorman Elliott of Elders IXL that I do not believe that his taking over of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries is in the national interest or the public interest, and that No. 10 Downing Street is certainly not for sale.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has put a number of comments in his characteristically forthright way and has asked a great many questions. I know that this subject is of great concern to him and to the whole House and we have listened with respect to the way in which he has put his views. I am glad to see in the Chamber my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I know that they have a close interest in this matter.
  I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, who said in what I suspect was an optimistic frame of mind that he hopes that I will answer all the questions that he asked. I think that he understands that, because of the subject matter, it simply is not possible for me to do so.
  My hon. Friend spoke principally about the Elders IXL bid for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. Those issues are now in the process of being investigated thoroughly by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The MMC is to report by 8 March this year, which is next week.
  It is for the MMC to decide whether the merger would be against the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on this particular case while it is in the commission's hands, as any such comment might prejudice the conduct of the M MC's inquiries. The MMC has a duty to take all relevant matters into account when preparing its report.
  My hon. Friend—and indeed any other interested person or body—has had ample time to put his views to the commission during the course of its inquiry. I do not ask whether my hon. Friend has done so, but he is experienced in such matters and I am sure that he will have taken that opportunity.
  The reference of this bid to the MMC thus falls full square within our usual policy on mergers—that the main criterion for deciding whether to refer a bid or merger to the MMC should be the effect on competition in the United Kingdom. However, it does not follow that the bid will automatically be blocked. There is a power to block the bid only if the MMC finds it to be against the public interest. If it finds that the merger is not against the public interest, my right hon. and noble Friend has no powers to take any action.
  While competition is the main consideration in considering whether to refer a bid or merger to the MMC, my right hon. and noble Friend retains the power to make a reference on other public interest grounds. I understand, of course, that the uncertainty associated with a merger can be disconcerting for those concerned, especially for the work force of a company that is the object of a bid. I know that all those who are employed by Scottish and Newcastle are making their fears and anxieties known and—perfectly properly—my hon. Friend has written to me on their behalf on several occasions.
  It has been for the MMC to examine the issues put to it over the past months. Although we have made it our policy to make competition the principal consideration when deciding whether to refer a merger, the MMC is not

  377
  restricted by that consideration. It can consider all aspects of the public interest, and has a duty as well as a power to take all relevant matters into account.
  My hon. Friend mentioned takeover bids for companies based in the United Kingdom by companies based overseas. There is perhaps a tendency to infer from the remarks that he has made tonight, and from remarks by others concerned about the issue, that the process is entirely one way. I think that my hon. Friend will know that the reverse is the case. It appears from the past 12 months for which figures are available that Britain is very much on the offensive.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not concerned about straightforward fair competition takeovers of companies here by companies abroad, or vice versa. I am concerned—and I associate my concern with this takeover—about the extraordinary share structure of the company and its massive indebtedness. Will my hon. Friend direct his remarks to those issues?
  Mr. Maude: I think that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot do that, because those are precisely the sort of matters which, no doubt at his instigation and that of others, the MMC is investigating at present. It would be quite wrong of me to express an opinion now.
  My hon. Friend expressed views on overseas takeovers of British companies in general. Over the past 12 months for which figures are available there were considerably more than twice as many takeovers by British companies of overseas companies as the reverse, certainly in terms of value. We are rather good at that in this country; it is a sign of the confidence and expertise of British business. I am sorry that I am not able to answer my hon. Friend's interesting questions, but I think that, with his considerable experience in these matters, he will understand why I cannot do so.
  Mr. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend direct his mind to one or two other questions that I put about the MMC's observations on other occasions, relating to earlier issues referred to it, suggesting that the Government might act?
  Mr. Maude: In so far as those observations relate to a previous inquiry by the MMC into Elders IXL, I think that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot do as he asks. I will, however, set out clearly our views on the general issue of "leveraging". We will not decide to refer a bid or merger to the MMC simply on the basis of leveraging. We regard competition as the principal criterion for referring a bid. If competition is likely to be damaged, or if a serious competition issue is raised by a merger—my hon. Friend made much of competition in respect of this case—we will refer it. Competition, indeed, was the issue that prompted my right hon. and noble Friend to refer the bid. All that that means is that an issue merits full investigation by the MMC, and that is taking place.
  Although it is our policy not to make a reference to the MMC on the basis of leveraging alone, if a bid is referred on competitive grounds—as this bid was—the MMC wil not be debarred from looking into all such relevant matters. I can say no more than that, but my hon. Friend has had the chance to make representations to the MMC.
  Sir Hector Monro: May I take up the issue of the public interest? Will my hon. Friend give me an absolute assurance that he will take into account the fact that a major loss of jobs in Scotland, particularly the loss of one of Scotland's biggest businesses, would be catastrophic?
  Mr. Maude: That issue also will no doubt have been put to the MMC, and, as I have said, the MMC has a duty to take all relevant matters into account—certainly the matters put to it. My hon. Friend has made his point vigorously.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  "The Satanic Verses"
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will invite the Commission for Racial Equality and the local police community liaison committees set up under the Police and Criminal Justice Act to clarify to the leaders of ethnic minority groups that he has no power to ban the publication of Mr. Salman Rushdie's hook, "The Satanic Verses."

  Mr. Hurd
  The Minister of State and I have taken every opportunity to explain the position directly to the Moslem communities. My impression is that their representatives are well aware that I have no power to ban the publication of Mr. Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses". I welcome the press statement by the Commission for Racial Equality, sent to all community relations councils, condemning the Ayatollah's statements, paying tribute to the way Moslems have adapted to the requirements of this country and calling for tolerance. I also welcome what the police are doing to explain the legal position to community leaders through various channels of communication; police community consultative groups are available for this purpose.

  Lynx Ltd.
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate an inquiry into the charitable status of the company known as Lynx Ltd.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that Lynx Ltd. is not a charity.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time spent in custody by prisoners awaiting trial, and what was the comparable figure for 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest readily available information was published in table 2.1 of "Prison statistics England and Wales 1987" (Cm. 547), a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Complaints Against the Police
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year and by police force for each of the last five years the number of civil cases that have been taken out against the police and the number of cases that were proved; what was the disciplinary action taken; what compensation was paid out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information is available centrally only in respect of the Metropolitan police. For that force the available information is as follows:
  182

  Year

  Awards made by the courts

  Total amount paid

  Settlements out of court

  Total amount paid

  1984

  7

  £15,617

  37

  £162,986

  1985

  7

  £13,949

  56

  £193,558

  1986

  10

  £46,836

  52

  £330,332

  1987

  6

  £11,233

  63

  £173,714

  1988

  17

  £107,035

  49

  £250,556

  Corresponding information for other forces, and details of any disciplinary action taken are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Eamonn John Wadley
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his correspondence with the hon. Member for Leyton concerning Mr. Eamonn John Wadley, if he will name the doctors who decided that he could be interrogated; if he will direct them to explain their reasons for disagreeing with Mr. Wadley's private doctor and the police surgeon who regarded such interrogation as not suitable because of Mr. Wadley's state of health; why they made their decision after Mr. Wadley's doctor and the police surgeon had left the scene; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards interrogation of individuals with a history of recurrent mental illness.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 lays down a statutory procedure for investigating complaints against police. Under this procedure it is open to Mr. Wadley to make a complaint, or for anyone else to do so on his behalf, if he considers that there was misconduct on the part of a police officer during the time he spent in police custody.

  Guidance to the police on interviewing suspects who are mentally ill or mentally handicapped is contained in the code of practice for the Detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers, issued in accordance with the 1984 Act.

  Drugs
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the value of drugs seized by the police, for the most recent five years for which figures are available, in(a) Derby, (b) Preston, (c) Darlington, (d) Slough, (e) Luton and (f) Gloucester.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Criminal Justice Legislation
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the findings of the working group in connection with proposals for changes to criminal justice legislation.

  Mr. John Patten
  I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the working group set up last year to advise on changes in the law relating to the right of silence. My right hon. Friend expects to receive the working group's report around Easter, and to arrange publication thereafter.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library revised
  183
  tables 2 and 3 of the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 1987" (Cm. 515) relating to the number of procedures recorded under safety studies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The errors are regretted. Revised copies of the tables have been placed in the Library today. Corrected figures will be published in the 1988 statistics in the middle of this year.

  Broadcasting (Gaelic and Welsh)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of hours in(a) Gaelic and (b) Welsh broadcast by (i) BBC1 and BBC2 and (ii) ITV, C4 and S4C in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: The relevant broadcasting organisations have provided the following information. The figures given are for new programming only and do not include the significant number of repeat programmes shown in each category each year.

  Table 1

  Transmission hours for Gaelic language programmes

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  BBC

  20·0

  21·5

  30·0

  42·0

  16·0

  Grampian14

  19·5

  19·5

  28·5

  43·5

  32·0

  Scottish Television24

  23·0

  21·5

  26·5

  28·5

  29·0

  TOTAL

  62·5

  62·5

  85·0

  114·0

  77·0

  Persons received into prison service establishments in England and Wales as unsentenced prisoners: by outcome of court proceedings and ethnic origin, 1986

  Percentage

  Outcome

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese Arab Mixed Origin

  Other, not recorded, refusal

  All persons

  Found not guilty or not proceeded against

  4

  8

  9

  7

  6

  4

  Non-custodial or freed on rising

  31

  28

  24

  31

  33

  30

  Received under sentence

  54

  46

  51

  49

  28

  52

  Outcome not recorded

  12

  18

  16

  13

  34

  13

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  (Number of receptions)

  (53,180)

  (6,307)

  (1,174)

  (1,303)

  (1,523)

  (63,487)

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the composition of the remand and sentenced prison population by ethnic background of(a) Holloway, (b) Brixton, (c)

  Population1 of specified Prison Service establishments on 30 June 1988: by establishment, type of prisoner and ethnic origin

  Number

  Establishment and type of prisoner

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other, not recorded, refusal

  All origins

  Holloway:

  Untried

  118

  79

  5

  9

  53

  264

  Convicted unsentenced

  28

  5

  —

  3

  5

  41

  Sentenced

  101

  50

  2

  5

  6

  164

  Non-criminal

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  184

  Table 2

  Transmission hours for Welsh language programmes—shown on S4C3

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  BBC

  443

  495

  568

  466

  546

  ITV

  400

  442

  508

  454

  480

  Independent producers

  192

  184

  206

  217

  253

  TOTAL

  1,035

  1,121

  1,282

  1,137

  1,279

  1These figures include some material made by Scottish Television and broadcast by Grampian.

  2These figures include some material made by Grampian Television and broadcast by Scottish Television.

  3S4C, the Welsh Fourth Language channel transmits programmes.

  4ITV

  Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of people remanded in custody and classified as(a) white, (b) West Indian, Guyanese, African, (c) Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and (d) Chinese, Arab and mixed origin were given a non-custodial sentence during 1987, or for the latest date available;

  (2) what percentage of prisoners who were remanded in custody and who were classified as (a) white, (b) West Indian, Guyanese, African, (c) Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and (d) Chinese, Arab and mixed origin were eventually acquitted or not proceeded with in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: The information for 1986 is given in the table. The latest information, for 1987, is a less reliable guide because for a large proportion—one fifth—the outcome of court proceedings is not recorded.

  Wormwood scrubs, (d) Wandsworth, (e) Pentonville, (f) Birmingham, (g) Manchester and (h) Liverpool for the latest date available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: The latest readily available information is given in the table.
  185

  Establishment and type of prisoner

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other, not recorded, refusal

  All origins

  All prisoners

  249

  135

  7

  17

  64

  472

  Brixton:

  Untried

  411

  156

  15

  16

  15

  613

  Convicted unsentenced

  113

  40

  5

  1

  8

  167

  Sentenced

  226

  59

  10

  5

  1

  301

  Non-criminal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All prisoners

  750

  255

  30

  22

  24

  1,081

  Wormwood Scrubs:

  Untried

  324

  201

  26

  19

  19

  589

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sentenced

  354

  67

  20

  12

  8

  461

  Non-criminal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All prisoners

  678

  268

  46

  31

  27

  1,050

  Wandsworth:

  Untried

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Convicted unsentenced

  55

  2

  —

  1

  2

  60

  Sentenced

  1,073

  298

  41

  44

  21

  1,477

  Non-criminal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All prisoners

  1,128

  300

  41

  45

  23

  1,537

  Pentonville:

  Untried

  169

  84

  16

  8

  6

  283

  Convicted unsentenced

  87

  6

  4

  3

  —

  100

  Sentenced

  353

  57

  8

  6

  6

  430

  Non-criminal

  15

  5

  2

  3

  1

  26

  All prisoners

  624

  152

  30

  20

  13

  839

  Birmingham:

  Untried

  332

  66

  35

  8

  17

  458

  Convicted unsentenced

  32

  6

  5

  —

  4

  47

  Sentenced

  461

  79

  26

  19

  5

  590

  Non-criminal

  6

  2

  5

  —

  1

  14

  All prisoners

  831

  153

  71

  27

  27

  1,109

  Manchester2:

  Untried

  515

  39

  23

  24

  12

  613

  Convicted unsentenced

  143

  8

  —

  1

  4

  156

  Sentenced

  928

  43

  27

  14

  3

  1,015

  Non-criminal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All prisoners

  1,586

  90

  50

  39

  19

  1,784

  Liverpool:

  Untried

  6

  —

  —

  —

  3

  9

  Convicted unsentenced

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Sentenced

  1,306

  26

  7

  14

  21

  1,374

  Non-criminal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All prisoners

  1,318

  26

  7

  14

  24

  1,389

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate.

  2 Remand centre and local prison.

TRANSPORT

  Short Sea Europe Conference
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will be sending a representative to the short sea Europe conference on 14 to 15 March.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes.

  Grid-lock Traffic Jams
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to prevent grid-lock traffic jams; and when he intends to implement action throughout the country.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The term "grid-lock" relates mainly to traffic jams that occur in city centres. Often these are the result of particular incidents such as breakdowns.186
  The police have primary responsibility for controlling the: movement of traffic. Local highway authorities are. responsible for the construction and management of most urban roads. They and the police are able to call on a wide range of traffic management techniques and technology to ease traffic flow.

  In London, where congestion is particularly heavy, my right hon. Friend has issued a statement which sets out his policies for improving traffic conditions. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Picnic Areas
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will give the number of picnic areas with toilet facilities proposed by his Department, the cost per site and the anticipated dates of opening;
  187
  (2) what considerations he has given to appointing a private contractor to operate the picnic sites proposed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We propose the provision of six further picnic sites on all-purpose trunk roads in England. The estimated cost per site ranges between £52,000 and £300,000. Five of the sites are due to open before the end of 1989, and the sixth is planned to open in 1992.

  Our policy is to arrange for the general management and maintenance of picnic areas to be carried out by county councils as agent authorities. A small catering facility is also provided at many picnic areas. About half of the existing 26 sites have one and it is intended to provide one at each of the six proposed sites. Private contractors are appointed to operate all such catering facilities. The contractors are selected by competitive tender.

  Ferries (Vehicle Weights)
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to discuss with our EEC partners a requirement for all vehicles using roll-on roll-off passenger vessels to be weighed; and whether he will consider extending this to non-passenger vessels.

  Mr. Portillo
  There have been discussions with European shipping administrations about the United Kingdom regulations requiring the weighing of goods vehicles before loading on passenger ro-ro vessels. Whilst most Administrations have appreciated the value of our regulations, the extent to which they are likely to take such measures themselves is not clear.

  I have no plans at present to extend the regulations to non-passenger ro-ro vessels.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to extend the requirements of Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 1275 concerning the weighing of vehicles using roll-on roll-off passenger vessels to foreign registered ships.

  Mr. Portillo
  A draft order extending the Merchant Shipping (Weighing of Goods Vehicles and Other Cargo) Regulations 1988 to non-United Kingdom ships will be laid this week. Subject to the appropriate parliamentary approval the new regulations will come into force on 31 March.

  Chelmsford Bypass
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when emergency telephones will be installed on the A12 bypass at Chelmsford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is not general policy to site emergency telephones on non-motorway trunk roads given the other telephone facilities frequently available. We are to announce shortly a limited number of sites where we propose to install such telephones because of the particular need for them there. It is not currently planned to site one on the A12 bypass at Chelmsford.

  British Island Airways
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date the appeal was lodged by British Island Airways to his Department regarding the 188
  Gatwick-Glasgow, Gatwick-Edinburgh and Gatwick-Manchester routes; when he will make his decision; and what is the reason for the delay.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The appeal was lodged on 23 August 1988. It was one of a number of cases resulting from licensing decisions which followed the merger of British Airways and British Caledonian. My right hon. Friend's decision on the appeal was issued on 22 February.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988 will be brought into operation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Act requires that the regulations to give effect to the legislation have first to be approved by Parliament. We have today published draft regulations, together with an explanatory memorandum, for public consultation. Copies have been placed in the Library. Comments are invited by 2 May.

  Our intention is to bring the draft regulations before the House shortly, with a view to their coming into effect during the summer.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Single European Market
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of opportunities that exist for the wood processing industry in the United Kingdom on the completion of the single internal market in Europe in 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  The reduction in administrative and technical barriers will provide opportunities for companies throughout the United Kingdom in many business areas and industries. The Government are making every effort to ensure that United Kingdom companies take the necessary action to prepare for the single market.

  Dolls' House Furniture
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to lay an order prohibiting the manufacture, sale and display of doll's house furniture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  No. I am consulting about the implementation of the European Community dangerous imitations directive 87/357/EEC. The directive prohibits the supply of articles, which, because of their similarity to foodstuffs, endanger health and safety of consumers, especially children. The regulations will not apply to food imitations that do not constitute a hazard, but concern has been expressed about the possibility that the directive may affect imitation food supplies with dolls' houses. All comments made during the current consultation will be carefully considered before final decisions on implementation are made.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to seek to amend the Financial Services Act 1986.
  189
  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has today published a consultative document proposing two amendments to the Financial Services Act. The first amendment would provide a new basis for the assessment by the Securities and Investments Board of the rules of a self-regulating organisation. The second amendment would enhance the ability of the board and of recognised self-regulating organisations, when carrying out functions under the Act, to rely upon other regulators of the same or similar kinds of financial services. It is intended to effect any changes by means of amendments to the Companies Bill currently being considered in another place. Comments are invited on the proposals by 31 March. A copy of the consultative document has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Telephone Calls (Overcharging)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will call for a report from the Director General of Telecommunications providing figures, expressed in percentage terms of total calls, of failure rates of British Telecom metering equipment resulting in overcharging for telephone calls for the latest period for which figures are available(a) in the Stroud exchange area, (b) in the Sevenoaks area, and (c) nationally.

  Mr. Maude
  The Director General of Telecommunications already takes a close interest in the accuracy of metering. On 29 June 1988, he announced the establishment of a new scheme for the approval of public telecommunications operators' metering and billing systems. Under this scheme, the British Approvals Board for Telecommunications will grant approval to systems which meet a performance standard and the British Standards Institution will undertake routine independent monitoring of quality control procedures. The scheme is currently being implemented. I understand that the director general is already considering the particular issues that my hon. Friend raises and that he will write to my hon. Friend directly once his considerations are complete.

  Directory Inquiries
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will direct Oftel to discuss with the chairman of British Telecom whether there has been any diminution in the standard of service and efficiency offered by British Telecom's directory inquiries unit following the transfer of all standard directory telephone numbers on to computer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Director General of Telecommunications already keeps such matters under review. It is for him to decide which issues he should raise with British Telecom, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's interest to the director general's attention.

  British Telecom's six-monthly quality of service reports include information on directory inquiry services. I understand that the latest report is available in the Library of the House.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the price of firm gas charged to large industrial gas users in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Spain, (d) Luxembourg, (e) Belgium, (f) Italy, (g) West Germany and (h) Holland; what is the price per therm in each of these countries; and what effect any disparity in these figures has upon British industry's competitive position in the European Community, the world and in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the recent study by the Office of Gas Supply "The EEC Industrial Gas Market" for data on the six main gas-consuming countries of the EEC; comparable figures for Spain and Luxembourg are not available. The relative price of gas is only one of many factors affecting British companies' competitive position.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the effect that British Gas's present policies relating to the pricing of firm gas to large industrial users has upon British industry's competitiveness in(a) the European Community, (b) the world and (c) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on gas (Cm. 500) indicated that British Gas's policy of extensive discrimination in the pricing of firm gas placed an arbitrary cost disadvantage on some of its large industrial users, thereby distorting competition in the markets in which they operate. Part of the action taken following publication of the report, as announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 19 October 1988, is to require British Gas not to supply gas to any one contract customer on terms which are more or less favourable than the terms on which it supplies other contract customers with similar volumes, load factors, provision for interruptibility and other relevant conditions of supply.

  Nicaragua and Kampuchea
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the value of exports to, and imports from, Nicaragua for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the value of exports to, and imports from, Nicaragua as a proportion of the European Community's total figure for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what was the value of exports to, and imports from, Kampuchea for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what was the value of exports to, and imports from, Kampuchea as a proportion of the European Community's total figure for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is in the tables:
  191

  United Kingdom and European Community trade1

  (i) Exports

  million ECUs

  Total EC exports to:

  United Kingdom exports to:

  World2

  Nicaragua

  Kampuchea

  Nicaragua

  Kampuchea

  1986

  341,934

  150·2

  2·3

  11·0

  0·3

  1987

  339,338

  132·5

  2·7

  11·2

  0·6

  1988 January to June3

  170,465

  39·0

  1·5

  3·7

  0·3

  (ii) Imports

  million ECUs

  Total EC imports from:

  United Kingdom imports from:

  World2

  Nicaragua

  Kampuchea

  Nicaragua

  Kampuchea

  1986

  334,564

  146·7

  0·4

  2·4

  0·1

  1987

  340,058

  84·6

  0·3

  1·2

  0·1

  1988 January to June3

  183,950

  43·3

  0·1

  0·3

  0·0

  1 Special trade.

  2 Trade with non-EC countries.

  3 EC excludes Greece.

  Source: Eurostat.

  Thanet Working Group
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Thanet working group and action taken following publication of the Thanet working group report.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of a progress report by the working group, entitled "Thanet into the 1990s". I am grateful to those in the local authorities and other organisations who have played their part in the activities of the group and the production of this report.

  The business improvement services scheme which DTI launched less than a year ago, has been a success. Two companies supported by this scheme have gone on to win national prizes for marketing and enterprise. Our enterprise initiative business consultancy scheme has also been attractive to Thanet firms. Up to the end of 1988, more than 30 companies had received application forms and a dozen business reviews, for which the DTI pays the full cost, had been completed. The DTI's enterprise and education initiative adviser for Kent is paying special attention to the needs of Thanet.

  Thanet now enjoys European Community employment area status. A major business park development is in train as the working group recommended. United Kingdom and foreign-owned firms are starting to take an interest in the area. Communications are being improved.

  Many of the recommendations that the working group put forward just over a year ago have been followed up, but there is still work to be done. We know that local communities and agencies will continue to tackle the area's development needs with commitment and enthusiasm.

  The DTI south-east's area office in Reigate and our office in Margate, in Thanet itself, are well placed to offer advice and help and necessary contact with all Departments.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Indirect Taxation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of central Government revenue was raised by indirect taxation in the latest year for which 192
  figures are available; and what information he has on the corresponding figures for the other member states of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Major
  The latest directly comparable OECD figures are for 1986. They show the percentage of total general Government taxes and social security contributions derived from indirect taxes.

  Percentage of total taxes and social security contributions derived from indirect taxes

  1986

  Belgium

  25

  Denmark

  39

  France

  35

  Federal Republic of Germany

  30

  Greece

  50

  Italy

  28

  Netherlands

  27

  Spain

  35

  United Kingdom

  43

  Source: Economic Trends, January 1989.

  Casinos
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was received in the latest available year from(a) the licensing of casinos and (b) the taxation of casinos gaming.

  Mr. Lilley
  In the financial year 1987–88, a total of £58,000 accrued from the licensing of gaming premises and £61 million from the duty on gross gaming yield.

  VAT
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make an announcement concerning the rate of value added tax that he will apply to the supply of water and sewerage services respectively to commercial and industrial users, and other items currently not subject to that tax, in accordance with the ruling of the court of the European Economic Community of 21 June 1988, and state for each commodity the range of tax permitted by that ruling together with the range of estimated annual yields.
  193
  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on 6 February at columns 548–50.

  EC Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what approach or request has been received by Her Majesty's Government from the Commission of the European Economic Community concerning resources for the expansion of its fraud inspectorate; and what response he has made to such requests.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Commission proposed additional posts for anti-fraud work in the 1988 and 1989 preliminary draft budgets. The posts were part of a wider staffing bid which the United Kingdom was not able to accept in full. But the Government have consistently supported the Commission as regards the anti-fraud posts.

  VAT (Zero-rating)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the assurances given by Her Majesty's Government on the alteration of zero-rating includes domestic water supplies, books, magazines and periodicals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 28 February 1989]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in the debate on indirect tax harmonisation on 11 May 1988 at column 412.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Statistics
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total public and private aid and investment from the United Kingdom to under developed countries during 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The figures are not yet available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times plastic bullets have been used since they came into use; what were the circumstances at each incident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested by the right hon. Member has been held in the Library since August 1984. Details of incidents prior to this period are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I am writing to the hon. Member with the information for 1988, in which 3,109 plastic baton rounds were fired and I shall place a copy of my letter in the Library. The higher number of plastic baton rounds fired during 1988 than in 1987 was largely in response to widespread rioting in West Belfast during March and August.

  Emergency Provisions Acts
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he proposes to accept the recommendations made by Lord Colville in his review of the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987.

  Mr. Tom King
  I warmly welcome Lord Colville's report. It contains a number of important recommendations both for the short and medium term. In particular I welcome his recommendations that certain powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 can now be allowed to lapse. These are section 24, under which the security forces have the power to call upon assemblies to disperse, paragraph 4 of schedule 3 under which the Royal Ulster Constabulary may impose directions on the conduct of funerals, and paragraph 5 of schedule 3 under which the Secretary of State has a power to close licensed premises, clubs and so on by order. The draft order and regulations that have been laid before the House today will allow these provisions to lapse, apart from one section of paragraph 4 of schedule 3 which gives the Royal Ulster Constabulary the power to require people taking part in funerals to travel in vehicles.

  The fact that these provisions are being allowed to lapse demonstrates the Government's purpose in keeping the emergency law under review, and in making adjustments where these are justified. I will be giving careful consideration over the coming months to some other recommendations in Lord Colville's report which have implications for the longer term.

  Prisoners (Education)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provisions are made for prisoners wishing to continue their studies while in prison at all levels of education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1989]: There is an education service in every prison and young offenders' centre in Northern Ireland, and, except for those who are in custody for very short periods, all prisoners—including those on remand—are offered continuing education on a voluntary basis throughout the period of their imprisonment. This enables the majority of prisoners to continue with studies that may have been interrupted by their arrest and subsequent imprisonment. It also allows adult prisoners, not previously involved in any educational activities, a second chance to further their education. The service is orientated towards the needs of the individual and all programmes and courses reflect those needs.

  The range of subjects taught runs from adult basic education through to Open university level and prisoners are prepared for the various public examinations—for example, GCSE; A-levels; Royal Society Arts; City and. Guilds of London Institute. Statistics available for the 1987–88 academic year show that about 47 per cent. of the. total prison population were involved in some form of education. Of this, 28 per cent. were enrolled in basic education, 55 per cent. were enrolled in examination classes and the remaining 17 per cent. were enrolled in social-leisure classes.

  In addition, 86 were involved in Open University degree courses, five of whom completed their degrees in this academic year.
  195
  A comprehensive library service is available to all prisoners, with 35,000 books on loan from the various education and library boards. About 60 per cent. of the prison population use this facility.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the ratio of teachers to prisoners in Northern Ireland over the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1989]: A total of 12 full-time and approximately 70 part-time teachers are employed in providing the education service to prisoners. This number has remained fairly constant over the past five years and works out at a student-teacher ratio of between 1:5 and 1:6. Problems of security, control and layout of Northern Ireland prisons militate against a more economical ratio such as might be expected in mainstream education.

WALES

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to make provision for the use of Welsh in forms relating to the community charge.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The introduction of the community charge provides an excellent opportunity to enhance the use of the Welsh language in local government administration. Under existing legislation district councils are not obliged to provide rate demands in Welsh and, while many choose to do so, others do not.

  We propose that, as a minimum, all those liable for the community charge will have a right to receive their community charge demand in Welsh if they require it. District councils who choose to send out demands in English will have to state clearly on that demand that a version in Welsh will be available on request. We will be prescribing the content of both the English and Welsh demands by regulation so there will be no translation burden for local authorities.

  We will also be prescribing a bilingual version of the demand which local authorities will be encouraged to adopt. I hope that eventually all authorities will issue bilingual demands as a matter of course. But if they wish, they will be able by resolution of the council to use the English or Welsh versions instead. Even if some councils choose to use the English version of the demand, Welsh speakers in those areas will be able to request a community charge demand in Welsh.

  I propose that similar arrangements should apply for the issue of non-domestic rate demands from April 1990.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Scottish Universities (Funding)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received seeking the establishment of a Scottish university funding committee.

  Mr. Jackson
  None since debates on various amendments during the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the percentage change in average class size and the total number of pupils in nursery, primary and secondary education since 1979.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested is given for maintained schools in England in the table. Class sizes relate to those taught by one teacher during a selected period on the day of the census count in January. They do not necessarily represent the pattern of classes over the academic year as a whole. The average class size in maintained nursery schools is not available centrally.

  Percentage

  January each year

  1979

  1988

  Change

  Average size of class taught by one teacher

  Primary1

  25·9

  25·4

  -1·9

  Secondary1

  21·0

  19·9

  -5·2

  Total pupils on roll in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools (Thousands)1

  8,438·9

  6,965·0

  -17·5

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  Logica Report
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the management consultants Logica, commissioned by his Department to carry out a study of information requirements relating to teachers, to report; and if he will publish that report.

  Mr. Butcher
  The final report from Logica Consultancy Ltd. was considered by the Department's information systems steering committee on 24 February 1989. Work is now in hand to enable the Department to make proposals to local education authorities and others. Meanwhile I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  >University Salaries
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to set up a review of university salaries; and what terms of reference he intends for such a review.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will take steps to intervene in order to assist a settlement in the current dispute regarding the remuneration of university teachers; and what proposals he has for bringing about a meeting of committee A, or asking the chairman of committee A to exercise his powers as an arbitrator.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is in correspondence with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers, about their dispute.

  Under the existing arrangements committee A brings together representatives of the vice-chancellors and of the university teachers on a voluntary basis. My right hon. Friend is not represented on committee A and is not involved in decisions whether to convene it.
  197
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science why university teachers have so far received no pay award for 1988; and what sum of money he has allocated to the University Grants Committee for salaries in(a) 1988 and (b)

  Mr. Jackson
  University lecturers received a pay increase of 7·4 per cent. from 1 March 1988 following one of 16·6 per cent. with effect from December 1986. Salary levels are currently under discussion. Grants to the UGC are based on an assessment of universities' needs as a whole and do not, as a rule, treat salaries separately. The Government exceptionally provided conditional additional funding amounting to £40 million in 1987–88, £56 million in 1988–89 and £71 million in 1989–90 in respect of the 1987 academic pay restructuring settlement. The Government have also allocated sums of £3·1 million in 1988 and £2·8 million in 1989 to enable the universities to meet the extra costs of paying salaries to clinical academics in line with settlements following the reports of the review body for doctors and dentists.

  Grade

  11 January 1980

  1 April 1983

  1 January 1986

  1 February 1989

  Grade 5 (Chief Information Officer)

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Grade 5 (Assistant Secretary)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 7 (Principal Information Officer)

  3

  1

  2

  2

  Senior Information Officer

  5

  5

  5

  6

  Information Officer

  7

  8

  8

  11

  Assistant Information Officer

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Graphics Officer (Higher)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Graphics Officer (Lower)

  4

  6

  5

  5

  Senior Executive Officer

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Executive Officer

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Administrative Officer

  11

  8

  9

  5

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  4

  3

  3

  Total numbers

  38

  37

  37

  39

  2 Total estimated salary costs

  £557,550

  £539,765

  £546,935

  £611,952

  1 Figures for 1979 are not available.

  2 Calculated at current average salary rates for each grade.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the size of the total labour force each year since 1970, calculated from the labour force survey data; what was the percentage change each year; and if he will estimate the size of the total labour force for the current year and for each year up to 1995.

  Mr. Lee
  Consistent estimates of the size of the labour force in past years and projections for the future, based on a number of sources including the labour force survey, are available only for the civilian labour force, and back to 1971. They are given in the table:

  Civilian labour force in Great Britain

  Level (thousand)

  Annual/ Change (per cent.)

  Estimates

  1971

  24,895

  —

  1972

  24,953

  0·2

  1973

  25,125

  0·7

  1974

  25,269

  0·6

  Teachers (Salaries)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he is making in setting up new permanent machinery for the negotiation of the salaries of teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 31 January at column 159

  Departmental Publicity and Press Work
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total number of officials engaged upon information publicity and press work in his Department; at what grades; and at what estimated cost, for the years 1979, 1983, 1986 and 1989.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: Information in the precise form requested is not available. The total number of officials engaged in information, publicity and press work on the dates shown below was as follows:

  Level (thousand)

  Annual/ Change (per cent.)

  1975

  25,305

  0·1

  1976

  25,702

  1·6

  1977

  25,901

  0·8

  1978

  25,949

  0·2

  1979

  26,021

  0·3

  1980

  26,198

  0·7

  1981

  26,242

  0·2

  1982

  26,045

  -0·8

  1983

  25,907

  -0·5

  1984

  26,428

  2·0

  1985

  26,639

  0·8

  1986

  26,735

  0·4

  1987

  27,161

  1·6

  Projections

  1988

  27,538

  1·4

  1989

  27,690

  0·6

  1990

  27,790

  0·4

  1991

  27,872

  0·3

  1992

  27,928

  0·2

  1993

  27,959

  0·1

  1994

  28,001

  0·2

  1995

  28,073

  0·3

  Source: "Employment Gazette", May 1987 and March 1988.
  199
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate for 1979 and the most recently available date for the number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees with a length of service of (i) up to six months, (ii) from six months to one year, (iii) from one year to two years and (iv) over two years, giving the figures separately for men and women.

  Employees—length of time continuously employed by current employer—Great Britain, Spring 1987 estimates

  thousands

  Men

  Length of employment

  Full-time1

  Part-time2

  All3

  Full-lime1

  Part-time1

  All3

  Less than 6 months

  857

  146

  1,005

  512

  686

  1,200

  6 months less than 1 year

  745

  103

  852

  487

  513

  1,003

  1 year but less than 2 years

  968

  93

  1,064

  604

  592

  1,198

  2 years or more

  8,063

  370

  8,458

  3,212

  2,717

  5,938

  All employees4

  10,674

  714

  11,399

  4,822

  4,515

  9,356

  1 basic usual hours (i.e. excluding paid and unpaid overtime and meal-breaks) of 31 hours or more per week

  2 basic usual hours of 30 hours or less per week.

  3 includes those employees who did not state hours worked.

  4 includes those employees who did not state length of time continuously employed by current employer.

  Comparable estimates are not available from the 1979 LFS.

  Wages Councils
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a breakdown by wages

  Table A: Prosecutions for underpayment

  Division

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  London

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Eastern

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  South West

  4

  2

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  North West

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Northern

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  9

  8

  8

  4

  2

  2

  2

  2

  4

  10

  Table B: Establishments found to be underpaying 1979–85

  Division

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  London (East)

  431

  495

  440

  391

  441

  324

  298

  London (West)

  249

  259

  270

  294

  339

  354

  357

  South East

  521

  769

  749

  764

  871

  703

  670

  Southern

  585

  576

  450

  441

  494

  475

  556

  Eastern

  685

  941

  848

  726

  727

  914

  688

  South West

  1,010

  1,201

  1,070

  954

  1,078

  1,033

  929

  Midlands (East)

  634

  771

  623

  532

  573

  534

  430

  Midlands (West)

  605

  674

  598

  666

  543

  552

  712

  North West (East)

  946

  879

  613

  648

  704

  560

  529

  North West (West)

  1,115

  1,060

  688

  652

  865

  886

  804

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,156

  1,119

  871

  964

  941

  1,026

  818

  Northern

  893

  902

  736

  552

  630

  721

  815

  Scotland (East)

  710

  687

  529

  515

  525

  480

  488

  Scotland (West)

  597

  750

  556

  349

  389

  365

  361

  Wales

  832

  1,071

  1,033

  821

  722

  534

  609

  Totals

  10,969

  12,154

  10,074

  9,269

  9,842

  9,461

  9,064

  Table C: Establishments found to be underpaying 1986–88

  Division

  1986

  1987

  1988

  London

  608

  270

  317

  South East

  646

  503

  537

  Eastern

  974

  405

  462

  South West

  832

  961

  1,156

  Midlands

  943

  525

  747

  North East

  1,397

  541

  869

  200
  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 28 February 1989]: Estimates from the 1987 labour force survey (LFS) of the number of full and part-time employees in Great Britain, by the length of time continuously employed by their current employer, are shown in the following table:

  inspectorate division of the information given in his answer of 17 January, Official Report, column 182, regarding the establishments underpaying and prosecutions for underpayment of wages council rates.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is given in the tables:

  Division

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  805

  511

  631

  Northern

  844

  404

  369

  Scotland

  656

  323

  509

  Wales

  500

  —

  —

  Totals

  8,205

  4,443

  5,597

  201
  Note: The statistics of underpayments have been separated into two tables because the divisional boundaries were changed in 1986.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the levels of employment and changes in employment levels for each wages council for each year from 1979 to 1988.

  Comparison of the 1979, 1982 and 1987 estimates of coverage by wages councils

  Number of workers covered

  1979

  1982

  1987

  Wages council

  All workers

  Excluding under-21s

  Retail trades (non-food)

  563,700

  512,800

  745,000

  Licensed non-residential establishment

  470,000

  508,700

  492,000

  Retail food and allied trades

  522,800

  519,300

  465,000

  Licensed residential establishment and licensed restaurant

  530,000

  555,300

  379,000

  Clothing1

  294,500

  252,800

  147,000

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  121,900

  116,400

  96,000

  Hairdressing undertakings

  128,600

  135,600

  64,000

  Laundry

  39,200

  33,700

  26,000

  General waste materials reclamation

  20,200

  19,300

  13,000

  Toy manufacturing

  23,300

  18,900

  11,000

  Aerated waters

  14,900

  15,000

  5,500

  Boot and shoe repairing

  7,900

  7,100

  5,000

  Hat cap and millinery

  7,800

  6,800

  4,000

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  5,000

  5,200

  4,000

  Made-up textiles

  6,500

  4,800

  3,000

  Linen and cotton handkerchief and household goods and linen piece goods

  5,600

  5,200

  2,500

  Rope twine and net

  4,000

  4,000

  2,500

  Perambulator and invalid carriage

  2,100

  1,500

  2,000

  Fur

  5,100

  4,500

  1,500

  Button manufacturing

  3,300

  2,100

  1,000

  Sack and bag

  1,800

  1,400

  1,000

  Lace finishing

  700

  800

  900

  Flax and hemp

  2,300

  1,400

  500

  Ostrich and fancy feather and artificial flower

  1,500

  1,400

  500

  Cotton waste reclamation

  400

  500

  300

  Coffin furniture and cerement-making

  500

  300

  200

  TOTAL

  2,783,600

  2,734,800

  2,472,400

  1 In 1979 there were seven councils covering the clothing manufacturing trade.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the statistics on wages council employment and compliance

  Table 1

  Establishments Covered by Wages Councils on Register—as at January 1988

  Divisions

  London

  S. East

  Eastern

  S. West

  Midlands

  N. West

  Yorks & H'side

  North

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Wages Councils

  Aerated Waters

  7

  14

  57

  16

  111

  25

  24

  22

  66

  342

  Clothing Manufacture

  3,006

  159

  306

  301

  1,282

  937

  452

  214

  307

  6,964

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  764

  255

  258

  345

  373

  406

  277

  70

  130

  2,878

  Button Manufacturing

  18

  4

  4

  4

  18

  4

  3

  1

  1

  57

  Coffin Furniture and Cerement Making

  1

  —

  —

  2

  8

  2

  5

  0

  2

  20

  Cotton Waste Reclamation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  28

  8

  3

  2

  42

  Flax and Hemp

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  8

  Fur

  147

  8

  3

  7

  14

  28

  11

  3

  36

  262

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  124

  74

  107

  151

  291

  308

  240

  99

  137

  1,531

  Hairdressing Undertakings

  4,482

  3,181

  3,302

  4,106

  5,362

  5,171

  3,029

  1,968

  2,840

  33,441

  Hat Cap and Millinery

  25

  2

  44

  5

  12

  14

  8

  11

  2

  123

  Lace Finishing

  —

  —

  —

  1

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74

  202
  Mr. Nicholls
  Statistical returns of the number of workers in Great Britain employed in establishments within scope of wages councils are not collected, but periodic estimates are made. The results of exercises conducted in 1979, 1982 and 1987 are shown in the table. The figures in the third column exclude young people under 21 who are in scope of t he legislation but for whom the councils are not empowered to fix minimum rates.

  with wages council rates in 1988, in the same format as in the reply given on 4 March 1988, Official Report, columns 731–36.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is given in the following tables:
  203

  Divisions

  London

  S. East

  Eastern

  S. West

  Midlands

  N. West

  Yorks & H'Side

  North

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Laundry

  215

  281

  79

  114

  105

  68

  67

  35

  122

  1,086

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief

  2

  1

  3

  3

  10

  80

  9

  1

  5

  114

  Made-up Textile

  34

  13

  36

  31

  51

  34

  42

  18

  33

  292

  Ostrich and Fancy Feather

  12

  1

  6

  4

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  30

  Perambulator and Invalid Carriage

  3

  2

  5

  3

  11

  4

  6

  1

  1

  36

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring

  180

  55

  52

  38

  42

  52

  39

  14

  37

  509

  Rope Twine and Net

  —

  1

  5

  12

  5

  20

  18

  5

  19

  85

  Sack and Bag

  20

  —

  7

  5

  14

  20

  12

  2

  6

  86

  Toy Manufacturing

  17

  16

  45

  30

  35

  40

  32

  15

  9

  239

  Retail Non-Food Trades

  20,069

  11,990

  9,840

  12,085

  19,457

  13,350

  8,712

  4,495

  8,840

  108,838

  Retail Food and Allied Trades

  11,770

  13,100

  10,066

  12,853

  13,339

  15,891

  10,018

  7,199

  10,881

  105,117

  Licensed Non-Residential

  6,263

  5,962

  6,363

  9,323

  12,406

  9,540

  6,452

  4,001

  5,429

  65,739

  Licensed Residential and Restaurant

  5,023

  3,901

  3,595

  6,842

  3,591

  3,355

  2,013

  1,418

  3,890

  33,628

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment

  4,143

  2,049

  1,540

  2,585

  1,746

  1,977

  1,324

  851

  1,497

  17,712

  Total

  56,325

  41,069

  35,728

  48,867

  58,357

  51,354

  32,801

  20,451

  34,301

  379,253

  Table 2

  Establishments checked and underpayments found in wages council trades—1

  Wages councils

  Establishments checked by all methods

  Percentage of register checked

  Establishments checked by visit

  Percentage of register checked by visit

  Establishments found underpaying

  Percentage of all establishments checked underpaying

  Percentage of establishments visited underpaying

  Aerated waters

  31

  9·0

  21

  6·1

  2

  6·4

  9·5

  Clothing manufacture

  603

  8·6

  559

  8·0

  128

  21·2

  22·8

  Boot and shoe repairing

  245

  8·5

  166

  5·7

  18

  7·3

  10·8

  Button manufacturing

  7

  12·2

  6

  10·5

  —

  —

  —

  Coffin furniture and cerement making

  3

  15·0

  2

  10·0

  —

  —

  —

  Cotton waste reclamation

  4

  9·5

  4

  9·5

  —

  —

  —

  Flax and hemp

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fur

  18

  6·8

  18

  6·8

  2

  11·1

  11·1

  General waste materials reclamation

  150

  9·7

  111

  7·2

  11

  7·3

  9·9

  Hairdressing undertakings

  2,392

  7·1

  1,654

  4·9

  330

  13·7

  19·9

  Hat, cap and millinery

  26

  21·1

  23

  18·6

  —

  —

  —

  Lace finishing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laundry

  125

  11·5

  97

  8·9

  20

  16·0

  20·6

  Linen and cotton handkerchief

  12

  10·5

  11

  9·6

  4

  33·3

  36·3

  Made-up textile

  32

  10·9

  25

  8·5

  2

  6·2

  8·0

  Ostrich and fancy feather

  3

  10·0

  2

  6·6

  —

  —

  —

  Perambulator and invalid carriage

  2

  5·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  43

  8·4

  37

  7·2

  6

  13·9

  16·2

  Rope, twine and net

  8

  9·4

  6

  7·0

  —

  —

  —

  Sack and bag

  12

  13·9

  11

  12·7

  —

  —

  —

  Toy manufacturing

  24

  10·0

  23

  9·6

  2

  8·3

  8·6

  Retail non-food trades

  9,649

  8·8

  4,219

  3·8

  1,130

  11·7

  26·7

  Retail food and allied trades

  9,860

  9·3

  5,713

  5·4

  2,143

  21·7

  37·5

  Licensed non-residential

  5,063

  7·7

  3,503

  5·3

  1,016

  20·0

  29·0

  Licensed residential and restaurant

  2,631

  7·8

  2,143

  6·3

  405

  15·3

  18·8

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  1,530

  8·6

  1,218

  6·8

  378

  24·7

  31·0

  Total

  32,474

  8·6

  19,573

  5·2

  5,597

  17·2

  28·6

  Table 3

  Workers covered by wages councils and results of checks—1988

  Wages councils

  Number of workers covered by Wages Order (Est. 1988)

  Workers whose pay was checked by all methods

  Workers whose pay was checked by visit

  Workers found underpaid

  Percentage underpaid of all workers checked

  Percentage underpaid of all workers checked by visit

  Arrears paid

  Arrears not pursued at workers request

  Arrears not pursued for other reasons

  Total arrears assessed as due

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Aerated waters

  5,500

  2,798

  390

  13

  0·4

  3·3

  336

  —

  —

  336

  Clothing manufacture

  147,000

  12,662

  11,083

  453

  3·5

  4·0

  31,015

  10,469

  7,546

  49,030

  Boot and shoe repairing

  5,000

  759

  548

  20

  2·6

  3·6

  1,623

  652

  —

  2,275

  204 205

  Wages councils

  Number of workers covered by Wages Order (Est. 1988)

  Workers whose pay was checked by all methods

  Workers whose pay was checked by visit

  Workers found underpaid

  Percentage underpaid of all workers checked

  Percentage underpaid of all workers checked by visit

  Arrears paid

  Arrears not pursued at workers request

  Arrears not pursued for other reasons

  Total arrears assessed as due

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Button manufacturing

  1,000

  163

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coffin furniture and cerement making

  200

  42

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cotton waste reclamation

  300

  54

  54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Flex and hemp

  500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fur

  1,500

  220

  220

  2

  0·9

  0·9

  150

  120

  1,654

  1,924

  General waste materials reclamation

  13,000

  1,425

  1,163

  12

  0·8

  1·0

  2,204

  —

  167

  2,371

  Hairdressing undertakings

  64,000

  8,063

  5,515

  418

  5·1

  7·5

  41,742

  6,822

  6,397

  54,961

  Hat cap and millinery

  4,000

  651

  599

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lace finishing

  900

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laundry

  26,000

  4,044

  2,696

  42

  1·0

  1·5

  3,685

  347

  2,730

  6,762

  Linen and cotton handkerchief

  2,500

  404

  396

  49

  12·1

  12·3

  2,766

  2,771

  —

  5,537

  Made-up textile

  3,000

  540

  440

  8

  1·4

  1·8

  125

  —

  —

  125

  Ostrich and fancy feather

  500

  33

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perambulator and invalid carriage

  2,000

  139

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  4,000

  161

  147

  8

  4·9

  5·4

  474

  107

  —

  581

  Rope twine and net

  2,500

  300

  234

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sack and bag

  1,000

  154

  124

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Toy manufacturing

  11,000

  583

  571

  4

  0·6

  0·7

  23

  —

  259

  282

  Retail non-food trades

  745,000

  95,502

  17,849

  1,731

  1·8

  9·6

  156,327

  69,883

  24,049

  250,259

  Retail food and allied trades

  465,000

  121,718

  21,598

  4,052

  3·3

  18·7

  321,851

  158,094

  74,568

  554,513

  Licensed non-residential

  492,000

  33,200

  22,541

  2,532

  7·6

  11·2

  160,502

  23,012

  22,590

  206,104

  Licensed residential and restaurant

  379,000

  30,898

  26,524

  753

  2·4

  2·8

  67,220

  5,304

  13,685

  86,209

  Unlicensed Place of refreshment

  96,000

  8,526

  6,182

  763

  8·9

  12·3

  52,149

  18,165

  11,934

  82,248

  Total

  2,472,400

  323,091

  119,123

  10,860

  3·3

  9·1

  842,192

  295,746

  165,579

  1,303,517

  Table 4

  Checks carried out and underpayments found in wages inspectorate divisions—1988

  Division

  Establishments checked by all methods

  Percentage of register checked

  Establishments checked by visit

  Percentage of register checked by visit

  Establishments found underpaying

  Percentage of all establishments checked underpaying

  Percentage of establishments visited underpaying

  London

  3,732

  6·6

  1,893

  3·4

  317

  8·5

  16·7

  South East

  2,539

  6·2

  1,654

  4·0

  537

  21·2

  32·5

  Eastern

  5,415

  151

  2,509

  7·0

  462

  8·5

  18·4

  South West

  3,586

  7·3

  2,512

  5·1

  1,156

  32·2

  46·0

  Midlands

  4,999

  8·6

  2,609

  4·5

  747

  14·9

  28·6

  North West

  4,085

  7·9

  3,198

  6·2

  869

  21·3

  27·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,123

  9·5

  1,931

  5·9

  631

  20·2

  32·7

  Northern

  1,686

  8·2

  1,004

  4·9

  369

  21·9

  36·8

  Scotland

  3,309

  9·6

  2,263

  6·6

  509

  15·4

  22·5

  Great Britain

  32,474

  8·6

  19,573

  5·2

  5,597

  17·2

  28·6

  All branches of mulitiple firms are recorded under the division in which the Head Office is located. Account has to be taken of this when comparing divisional figures.

  Table 5

  Workers whose pay was checked in wages inspectorate divisions—1988

  Division

  Workers whose pay was checked by all methods

  Workers whose pay was checked by visit

  Workers found underpaid

  Per cent, underpaid of all workers checked

  Per cent, underpaid of all workers checked by visit

  Arrears paid

  Arrears not pursued at workers request

  Arrears not pursued for other reasons

  Total arrears assessed as due

  £

  £

  £

  £

  London

  54,501

  13,365

  513

  0·9

  3·8

  65,756

  5,588

  7,186

  78,530

  South East

  13,089

  8,635

  975

  7·4

  11·3

  87,439

  27,315

  7,810

  122,564

  Eastern

  50,221

  14,996

  895

  1·8

  5·7

  79,713

  21,590

  47,460

  148,763

  South. West

  20,855

  14,015

  2,204

  10·6

  15·7

  133,376

  58,255

  30,952

  222,583

  Midlands

  36,503

  18,222

  1,425

  3·9

  7·8

  113,335

  50,908

  26,455

  190,698

  North West

  94,318

  19,369

  1,697

  1·8

  8·7

  144,990

  52,505

  14,531

  212,026

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  22,405

  10,741

  1,270

  5·7

  11·8

  72,947

  44,466

  6,088

  123,501

  Northern

  8,827

  5,553

  784

  8·9

  14·1

  60,465

  6,734

  9,139

  76,338

  Scotland

  22,372

  14,228

  1,097

  4·9

  7·7

  84,171

  28,385

  15,958

  128,514

  Great Britain

  323,091

  119,123

  10,860

  3·4

  9·1

  842,192

  295,746

  165,579

  1,303,517

  The numbers of workers in branches of multiple firms are recorded under the division in which the Head Office is located. Account has to be taken of this when comparing divisional figures.
  206

  "How to be Better off in Work"
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many copies of his Department's booklet "How to be Better off in Work" were printed, and at what cost; how many copies were distributed to his Department's offices; and, of these, how many were issued to the public and how many remain in stock.

  Mr. Lee
  The production and distribution of the booklet were as follows:

  Number of booklets printed

  3,000,000

  Cost

  £98,395

  Number of booklets distributed to Employment Service Offices

  1,768,000

  The balance is in stock.

  A publicity campaign to explain in-work benefits ran from 15 August to 24 October 1988. It is recorded that some 550,000 copies were issued to the public during that period.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will revise his Department's booklet "How to be Better off in Work", to include(a) an example of an income support claimant with a mortgage, (b) mention of the taper affecting withdrawal of benefits as wages rise and (c) a warning that claimants who take low-paid employment who then leave because they are financially worse off risk a 26-week period of reduced income support.

  Mr. Lee
  The purpose of the booklet "How to be Better off in Work" is to show unemployed people that finding a job need not mean losing out on benefits. The booklet is intended to be a simple illustrative guide. It would not be possible to cover within this format every circumstance which might affect an individual's entitlement. That is why unemployed people are advised in the booklet to contact their local unemployment benefit office or jobcentre for further information.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will revise his Department's booklet "How to be Better off in Work", to take account in the family examples given of costs of travelling to work, and the loss of free school meals and free milk for the under-five-year-olds abolished by the Social Security Act 1988; what rates were used, and why different rent and rates figures were used for each example in the current edition of the booklet.

  Mr. Lee
  Travel-to-work costs are not included in the examples in the booklet "How to be Better off in Work", as they vary widely and many people do not have to pay them. The examples clearly state that only the out-of-work families are entitled to free school meals and milk tokens. The rent and rates figures were based on the 1987 average of all local authority rent and rates in Great Britain uprated by the retail prices index which gives a figure of £27·14; the booklet gives examples both above and below this figure.

  Disabled People (Factories Act 1961)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had with disability organisations on the proposal to repeal section 119A of the Factories Act 1961; which organisations were consulted; and if he will make a statement.
  208
  Mr. Cope
  My Department issued a consultation paper last November setting out proposals for alternative arrangements to replace section 119A of the Factories Act 1961; copies have been placed in the Library. Comments were invited by 28 February 1989. Annex 4 of the paper lists the organisations representing disabled people who were sent the document when it was first issued. A copy was subsequently supplied to the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training places in each Training Agency area have been filled with starts with training managers, and what percentage that is in each case of total employment training places contracted in each Training Agency area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Employment training places

  Area office

  Filled places at 17 February

  Filled places as a percentage of total contracted places in December

  South East Region

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  995

  54·3

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  1,357

  53·2

  Essex

  1,380

  38·4

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1,900

  59·0

  Kent

  1,987

  52·4

  Surrey

  370

  32·0

  Sussex

  1,290

  42·7

  London Region

  Inner London North

  4,951

  67·7

  Inner London South

  2,480

  52·3

  London East

  2,001

  69·2

  London North

  2,881

  70·0

  London South

  1,259

  73·0

  London West

  1,051

  72·0

  South West Region

  Avon

  1,858

  48·0

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,035

  71·0

  Dorset and Somerset

  1,612

  54·0

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  1,172

  40·0

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  5,406

  50·1

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  1,972

  42·4

  Dudley and Sandwell

  2,248

  46·0

  Staffordshire

  2,945

  60·0

  The Marches, Hereford/Worcester

  2,181

  52·1

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  2,532

  47·0

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  1,438

  70·0

  Derbyshire

  2,247

  51·1

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  2,287

  52·0

  Lincolnshire

  1,114

  55·0

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  2,456

  59·5

  Nottinghamshire

  2,619

  48·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  3,825

  61·0

  Humberside

  4,576

  79·1

  North Yorkshire and Leeds

  3,558

  53·5

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  4,768

  59·0

  Wakefield, Doncaster and Barnsley

  4,789

  70·0

  209

  Area office

  Filled places at 17 February

  Filled places as a percentage of total contracted places in December

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  2,570

  51·0

  Cumbria

  1,173

  54·1

  Lancashire

  3,872

  54·0

  Central Manchester

  3,260

  35·2

  Greater Manchester North

  2,236

  34·5

  Greater Manchester East

  2,105

  54·0

  Merseyside

  6,182

  37·4

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  4,900

  51·1

  County Durham

  3,955

  56·0

  Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle

  3,229

  43·0

  Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead

  4,867

  49·4

  Wales

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  3,300

  52·1

  Gwent

  1,676

  43·0

  Gwynedd, Clywd and Powys

  2,420

  45·0

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  3,845

  47·0

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  2,183

  47·0

  Central and Fife

  2,278

  47·0

  Glasgow City

  3,279

  33·3

  Grampian and Tayside

  2,006

  46·0

  Highlands and Islands

  597

  35·1

  Lanarkshire

  1,847

  39·1

  Lothian and Borders

  2,686

  51·1

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  1,988

  33·1

  Retail Trades (Working Conditions)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has made any survey of working hours and conditions in the retail trades with reference to(a) the extent of reduction of working hours to levels which put them outside statutory employment rights, and (b) the extent of unpaid working time imposed on check-out operators and sales staff by any requirements to work beyond closing hours but counting their paid hours only up to closing time.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: My right hon. Friend has not made any such survey, but information on working hours is available from the labour force survey. In general, pay is a matter for employers and employees, provided that in wages council trades the total amount paid to workers for all time worked is not less than the minimum due.

ENERGY

  Employment Potential
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what work his Department has undertaken on the employment potential which would accrue in the course of achieving his target of £8 billion annual savings in the national energy bill.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is very difficult to assess the precise employment potential of energy efficiency measures. However, projects under the community insulation programme have provided work experience and 210
  training for the long-term unemployed, and improved energy efficiency enables industry to become more competitive which facilitates economic growth and creates new job opportunities.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Energy if he has any information as to the manner by which gas supply industries in(a) Holland, (b) France, West Germany, (d) Italy, (e) Belgium, (f) Spain and (g) Luxembourg calculate the price to be charged for the supply of firm gas to large industrial users; and how British Gas calculates such a price.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Yes. I refer my hon. Friend to the chapter on pricing principles in the report "The EEC Industrial Gas Market" published by the Office of Gas Supply in January 1989. I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what controls he has over the prices of gas charged by British Gas to large industrial consumers.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  None. Under the proposed modification to British Gas's authorisation published on 30 January, the Director General of Gas Supply would have control over the structure of British Gas's price schedule for large industrial customers. The actual level of prices however would remain a matter for British Gas.

  Gas
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to estimate when British Gas will have less than a 90 per cent. share in the supply of piped gas in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is a matter for the Director General of Gas Supply to monitor the gas market as he sees fit. However I will, of course, take a close interest in such work.

  Grimethorpe Power Station
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his future plans in respect of Grimethorpe power station; if he has any plans to provide Government funding to assist research at this plant to continue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is at present considering carefully a request from British Coal for financial support for additional trials to be carried out at the Grimethorpe experimental facility. I am not yet able to make a statement.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Oman (British Base)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the agreement made in 1958 with the Sultan of Oman in which the air base in that country was handed over to British control for 99 years still applies in its original form or has been updated: and if he will make a statement.
  211
  Mrs. Chalker
  The RAF maintained an air base on Masirah island until the late 1960s.

  South Africa (Sanctions)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of Nelson Mandela's continued imprisonment, he will reconsider his opposition to economic sanctions against South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

  Short-range Nuclear Missiles
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards a NATO agreement on short-range nuclear missiles.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Short-range nuclear missiles play an important role in NATO's strategy of flexible response: the Alliance is united in its resolve to keep its weapons up to date as necessary. Discussions on how this is to be done are under way in the Alliance.

  EC Central American Meeting
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the last European Community central American meeting which he attended in Honduras; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the last European Community central American meeting which he attended in Honduras; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We will make available to the House the economic and political communiqués which we expect the conference to adopt when it concludes on 1 March.

  Islamic Fundamentalism
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the consequences for international stability of Islamic fundamentalism in(a) Iran and (b) Afghanistan.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We fully support the right of the Iranian and Afghan peoples to choose freely their own representative Governments and to run their own affairs. If they choose Islamic fundamentalist Governments that is their right.

  Central America (Visit)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he discussed during his recent visit to central America.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State does not return from his trip to Costa Rica, Honduras and Guatemala until 6 March.

  Iran
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the state of diplomatic relations with Iran.
  212
  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. and learned Friend's statement in the House on 21 February.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The usual forecast was deposited in the House earlier today. At present eight meetings of the Council of Ministers are planned for March.

  The Environment Council will meet on 2 March. It will discuss two draft directives on genetically modified organisms; limits on emissions from municipal waste incineration plants; discharges of dangerous substances in water; limits on emissions of sulphur dioxide; the prospects for further reductions in CFCs; transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste, and possibly the conservation of the African elephant.

  The Industry Council meets on 6 March to consider three items on Community support for small and medium enterprises: a Commission paper on the establishment of the enterprise directorate, DG XXIII; the third report on the action programme and an evaluation of Europartenariat (trans-national co-operation between small firms). It will also hold a general orientation debate on the industrial aspects of high definition television and possibly a preliminary discussion of the Commission's proposed Council decision on HDTV, which is due to be discussed in detail at the Telecommunications Council on 27 April.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 6, 7 and possibly 8 March and again on 20, 21 and possibly 22 March to discuss 1989 CAP price fixing proposals, New Zealand butter and sheepmeat, aid for the conversion of agricultural production, and the forestry action programme. It may also consider the proposal on preservatives for use in foodstuffs.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 13 March to consider the Commission's quarterly review of the economic situation in the Community; to discuss fraud against the EC budget in the context of the Court of Auditors' annual report and the discharge of the 1987 budget; and to prepare for the spring IMF/IBRD meetings.

  The Research Council will meet on 14 March. The agenda anticipates the adoption of three R and D programme proposals: large-scale facilities (a plan to facilitate access to large-scale scientific facilities of European interest); JOULE (non-nuclear energy and efficient use of energy) and BRITE/EURAM (research in manufacturing technologies and advanced materials). The Commission hopes that common positions will be agreed on the following programmes: FLAIR, MAST, DOSES, VALUE, MONITOR, and EUROTRA. It is hoped to adopt a decision on a programme of decommissioning of nuclear installations. There will also be an initial debate on the mid-term review of the framework programme (1987–1991).

  The Transport Council on 14 March is expected to continue its discussions on the weights and dimensions of 2, 3 and 4-axled commercial vehicles; the rules governing access to the road haulage profession; a scheme for dealing with overcapacity on certain inland waterways; and

  213
  possible arrangements for introducing road haulage cabotage. It may also discuss the inter-regional air services directive, and allow initial exchanges on the future of Community spending on transport infrastructure, and on road safety issues. The Commission may give an interim report on its negotiations with Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia on the transit through those countries of Community traffic.

  The Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 20 March will probably be asked to give the Commission the guidance necessary to ensure a positive outcome to the April meeting of the GATT round trade negotiations committee. The Council will also discuss EC/Council of Europe relations. In the margins there will be an EC/Malta Association Council to discuss matters of mutual concern arising out of the EC/Malta association agreement, and an informal meeting between Community and EFTA Ministers to discuss future economic co-operation between the EC and EFTA.

ENVIRONMENT

  River Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions there have been under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in respect of alleged river pollution since the implementation of this Act; if he will list such prosecutions in date order and location; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 8 December at column 276 and 11 January at column 659 and to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Home Department, on 3 February at columns 417–18.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the level of funding from each local authority to housing associations in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is shown in the "HIP2 ALL ITEMS PRINT" which was placed in the Library in response to a question from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) at columns 704–5. The figures shown there are as reported by local authorities in their 1988 HIP returns.

  Rats
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the rat population of Great Britain; what measures he is encouraging to reduce it; and whether his Department is investigating the possible growth of a more virulent species of rat.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not held centrally on rat population. The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, places a general duty on local authorities to ensure that their districts are kept free from rats and mice so far as practicable. There is no evidence to show that there has been a growth of a more virulent species of rat.

  Dust and Noise (St. Stephen's House)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to initiate an inquiry into noise measured in all work areas in St. Stephen's house.

  Mr. Chope
  Some noise from the construction of the new parliamentary building and refurbishment of No 1 Cannon row is unavoidable. The contractors are required to follow good working practices. The Cannon row contract restricts particularly noisy work to between 8 am and 10 am. The imposition of any additional conditions or any instructions to stop work could delay completion of this additional accommodation for Members and their staff and cause extra costs. There is no need for an inquiry.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (i) if he will list, for each scheme carried out under the Housing Corporation's programme to provide homeless households with hostel accommodation through a mixture of public and private funding(a) during 1987–88, and (b) during 1988–89, stating in each case (i) the capital cost of the scheme, (ii) the proportion of the capital cost met by HAG, (iii) the first year revenue cost of loan repayments, (iv) the weekly management and maintenance allowance, and (v) the average weekly rent charged to the homeless households;

  (2) if he will list each scheme carried out under the Housing Corporation's programme to provide homeless households with hostel accommodation through a mixture of public and private funding (a) during 1987–88, and (b) during 1988–89, stating in each case (i) the number of units of accommodation provided, (ii) the housing association involved, (iii) the local authority with nomination rights to these units, and (iv) the date of completion of the scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not held centrally, and I have asked the Housing Corporation to supply it direct to the hon. Member.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will keep a record of the households that have their mains water cut off after privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As a condition of their appointment companies will be required to report to the director general each year on unplanned supply interruptions, giving reasons where these have exceeded targets set by them. The director general may also undertake such monitoring of planned interruptions as he considers appropriate—for instance so that he can review the operation of appointees' codes of practice on disconnections for non-payment of water charges.

  The Government have welcomed the proposed revisions to the model disconnection code of practice announced by the water industry on 9 February, which should help to ensure that disconnections are kept to the absolute minimum of those customers who can pay but refuse to do so.

  Exchequer Grants
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of
  215
  Exchequer grant paid to (a) all the inner London boroughs excluding the City of London for each year since

  (a) Aggregate Exchequer Grant—cash terms

  £m

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Inner London boroughs (excluding City of London)

  387

  418

  431

  413

  476

  673

  689

  736

  South East excluding Greater London

  1,685

  1,651

  1,697

  1,760

  1,607

  1,645

  1,656

  1,545

  (a) Aggregate Exchequer Grant—1988–89

  £m

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Inner London boroughs (excluding City of London)

  555

  559

  552

  503

  550

  753

  732

  736

  South East excluding Greater London

  2,417

  2,210

  2,172

  2,144

  1,858

  1,840

  1,759

  1,545

  Cash values have been converted to constant 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Croxteth Hall and Country Park
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of Croxteth hall and country park, Merseyside.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) on 22 December, at column 437, I said that we would be consulting the district councils and other interested parties on the proposed transfer of Croxteth hall and country park to Liverpool city council with a ringfenced endowment of £3 million. The consultation period ended on 27 January 1989 and I have considered the responses very carefully.

  Although not all districts felt able to agree with our proposals, there was majority support for transfer of the estate. We remain of the opinion that transfer to Liverpool city council with an endowment is the only realistic available option that will provide for the long-term future of Croxteth. It is a valued facility with considerable countrywide support and should be maintained for all the people of Merseyside to use.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has therefore laid before Parliament an order giving effect to the transfer and endowment on 1 April 1989.

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

  Mr. Trippier
  I have today arranged for details of the rent arrears outstanding to English local authorities as at 1 April 1988 to be placed in the Library.

  The 16 per cent. overall increase during 1987–88 is very disappointing and highlights yet again the poor performance of a minority of authorities. No less than 38 per cent. of the total arrears of £226 million (and 66 per cent. of the increase during the year) is attributable to just 10 authorities, nine Labour-controlled inner London boroughs and Liverpool.

  This sorry state of affairs can be attributed only to poor housing management. That is the conclusion of independent reports by both the Audit Commission and the centre for housing research, University of Glasgow.
  216
  1981–82 and (b) the south-east, excluding Greater London for each year since 1981–82, showing the amounts in cash terms and at 1988–89 prices.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:

  The control of rent arrears is a vital part of good housing management. Lack of proper control is doubly unfair on those tenants who do pay their rents—it deprives authorities of money that could be used to keep their stock in good order; and it pushes rents higher than they need to be. It is unfair, too, on ratepayers who are called upon to underwrite this blatant inefficiency. We do not intend to let this state of affairs persist. Our proposals for a new financial regime will prevent subsidisation of the housing revenue account from the general rate fund. We are also considering further measures to raise management standards. But I must stress that the responsibility lies with authorities to collect the rent due to them properly and efficiently, for the benefit of all their tenants and ratepayers.

  Football Membership Scheme
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, columns 987–88, if he will reject the recommendations of his working party report for non-United Kingdom passport holders who wish to attend league matches and international matches in England and Wales.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 28 February 1989]: It has always been our view that everyone, including foreigners, who intends to visit Football League matches, should be a member of the scheme. However, we have also accepted that special arrangements should be made for occasional foreign visitors to attend a particular game. Clubs could issue temporary membership cards in advance of the match. It is possible that the presentation of passports might have a part to play in this process. That is for the Football Membership Authority to consider.

  It will be for the Football Membership Authority to consider appropriate arrangements in consultation with the clubs and, in the case of international matches, the Wembley authorities, and to submit its proposals to the Secretary of State for approval.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish, for each local authority in England, the community charge for 1989–90 which is consistent with the expenditure and grant assumptions in the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement, showing the estimated budget figures for 1988–89 and the percentage change between the two figures.
  217
  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 14 February 1989]I have placed the information requested in the Library.

  The community charges shown assume that local authorities will spend according to the assumptions used for the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement and rate accordingly, and that non-domestic rate income increases in line with the RPI. When 1989–90 budget returns have been received, I will publish a further set of illustrative charges. If these show charges higher than those I have placed in the Library today, this will be entirely the result of the individual authorities deciding to spend more than was assumed.

  Government Officers
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of office buildings acquired by Her Majesty's Government in the London SW1 area since 1980, the additional square footage now available and the number of civil servants now working in these new offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 23 February 1989]: The present size of the Government office estate in the London SW1 postal district is approximately 754,000 sq m. Equivalent figures for 1980 for this postal district are not available. Details of the number of civil servants working in SW I are not available, but for Greater London as a whole the total floor space in offices on PSA's estate works out to an average of 18·8 sq m per non-industrial civil servant.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Forestry
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what number of forestry projects are currently taking place in Essex.

  Mr. Ryder
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 January 1989 the Forestry Commission has, under its grant scheme, approved 45 new applications for planting grants in Essex.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of forestry projects currently taking place in Cleveland and Durham.

  Mr. Ryder
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 January 1989 the Forestry Commission has, under its grant schemes, approved 16 new applications for planting grants in Cleveland and Durham.

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid reference

  Species1

  Woodlands sold in Kent

  Challock Woodlands

  Brook Wood

  19·0

  TR 069 439

  C

  Burnt Oak Wood

  2·3

  TQ 950 438

  C

  Cadman's Wood

  13·5

  TR 082 428

  B

  Handen Wood

  9·4

  TR 052 367

  C

  Longbeech Wood

  41·4

  TQ 971 502

  C

  March Wood

  42·0

  TQ 945 433

  C

  Newlands Wood

  24·0

  TQ 955 432

  C

  Norland and Pierland Wood

  35·0

  TR 024 358

  C

  Church Wood

  25·0

  TQ 570 632

  C

  College Wood

  17·0

  TQ 676 652

  B

  Court Farm (Churchlands)

  16·0

  TQ 669 649

  C

  Covet Wood (land at)

  0·1

  TR 178 497

  C

  Covet Wood (land at)

  0·3

  TR 173 494

  C

  218
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of forestry projects currently taking place in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Ryder
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 January 1989 the Forestry Commission has, under its grant schemes, approved 14 new applications for planting grants in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of forestry projects currently taking place in the county of Avon.

  Mr. Ryder
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 January 1989 the Forestry Commission has, under its grant schemes, approved eight new applications for planting grants in Avon.

  New Forest
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made towards ensuring the future well-being of the New Forest.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In 1986, with the future well-being of the New Forest foremost in mind, the Forestry Commissioners set up the New Forest review group consisting of representatives from the Forestry Commission, the Countryside Commission, the New Forest district council, the Verderers of the New Forest, Hampshire county council and the Nature Conservancy Council, with the following terms of reference:to appraise the aims and effectiveness of the measures already taken to safeguard the New Forest;
  to consider whether these measures need to be changed or developed;
  to identify whether further measures may be necessary to maintain the character of the New Forest;
  to report within two years, making recommendations.

  The report was published in January 1989 and its recommendations are being considered by the Forestry Commissioners.

  Woodlands (Kent)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all woodlands in Kent either sold or proposed for sale by the Forestry Commission since the passage of the Forestry Act 1981 and state, for each such woodland the(a) acreage, (b) map reference and (c) species composition, by percentage.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information is given in the following tables:
  219

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid reference

  Species1

  Ford Manor Estate:

  Bowshot Wood (part)

  2·5

  TQ 433 421

  B

  Jules Wood/Grey bury

  24·0

  TQ 436 422

  B

  Middleroom, Coalhearth (parts)

  18·5

  TQ 435 430

  B

  Hurst Wood

  16·5

  TQ 568 405

  B

  Hurst Wood Platt

  66·0

  TQ 628 550

  C

  Joydens Wood and Gattons Wood

  127·0

  TQ 500 718

  B

  Little Sharsted Wood

  6·0

  TQ 944 585

  C

  Maplescombe Farm Woods

  53·6

  TQ 563 626

  B

  Quornden Wood

  13·0

  TQ 477 533

  C

  Rochester and Monk Wood

  294·0

  TQ 680 650

  B

  St. Julian's Wood

  17·0

  TQ 545 525

  C

  Sharsted Wood and Plantation

  82·9

  TQ 946 581

  B

  Spring Wood Dene Park

  5·0

  TQ 597 501

  C

  Squerryes Court

  85·0

  TQ 440 520

  C

  Woodlands proposed for sale in Kent

  Eggringe Wood (land at)

  3·3

  TR 094 508

  B

  Flimwell Outliers:

  Crouches Wood

  9·0

  TQ 705 353

  C

  Furnace Wood etc.

  68·0

  TQ 735 354

  C

  Lillesden Wood

  5·0

  TQ 714 358

  B

  Priors Heath Wood

  7·0

  TQ 708 348

  C

  Renacre Wood

  26·0

  TQ 945 440

  C

  Shoreham Wood

  101·5

  TQ 505 615

  B

  1 The species composition is not available in any more detail than B for mainly broadleaves and C for mainly conifers.

  Water Quality
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available in the Library the recent report quoted by the clerk and chief fishery officer of the Eastern sea fisheries joint committee in the chapter on pollution in his annual report for 1989 in which he refers to Government actions on standards of water quality applicable to sewage in the interim period during which the water public limited companies are established.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. The report to which I believe the hon. Member is referring was neither prepared for nor published by Her Majesty's Government.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place corrected copies of the report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and BEIC working group on salmonella and eggs in the Library.

  Mr. Ryder
  An error was made in transcribing one of the paragraphs of the "conclusions" section of the report from an earlier draft into the final version. A corrected version, clearly distinguishable by its orange cover, has been placed in the Library of the House. The body of the report and the summary of its recommendations were in no way affected.

  Research
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has of the number of redundancies amongst scientists resulting from the switch in AFRC funding of research away from its own institutes to universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that no redundancies are expected over the next two years as a result of AFRC's plans to increase its support for research at higher education institutions.
  220
  The position in later years will depend on the decisions that the council takes in the light of the future level of allocations to the AFRC from the science budget.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safety precautions exist in respect of RAF aircraft on low-flying exercises in the vicinity of nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my predecessor gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on 19 November 1987,Official Report, column 452.

  Royal Military Police
  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of Royal Military policemen who have passed out from the RMP training barracks in Chichester in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of RMP men and women who have passed out from the RMP training course at Chichester, having completed their basic provost course, are as follows:

  Men

  Women

  1979

  179

  65

  1980

  291

  45

  1981

  210

  32

  1982

  160

  37

  1983

  182

  52

  1984

  245

  41

  1985

  294

  26

  1986

  302

  37

  1987

  172

  52

  1988

  157

  58

  221
  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the principal operational responsibilities of the Royal military police; and what is the total number of military policemen currently in service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The principal operational responsibilities of the Royal military police in peace, on transition to war and in war are to:

  a. enforce the law with the military community and assist with the maintenance of military discipline;

  b. assist and support the Services and other law enforcement agencies;

  c. provide an assistance, advice and information service to the military community and the public;

  d. provide a crime prevention service to the military community;

  e. provide a close protection service;

  f. provide operational Provost Support.

  The total number of regular military police currently in service is 2,411 which may be broken down as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Officers

  149

  6

  Other Ranks

  1,977

  279

  Total

  2,126

  285

  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he uses to assess the quality of training and defence contribution of the Royal military police; and if these are currently being met.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The role of the Royal military police is to provide the provost support required by the Army, meeting legal obligations and operational requirements at least cost. RMP training is framed against these criteria and its effectiveness is judged by theatre commanders throughout the Army. The training programme itself is reviewed continuously in the light, inter alia, of feedback from theatre commanders and to reflect changes in policy and law as they arise.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence proposals he has to replace military police personnel with private security guards at any Ministry of Defence establishments in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The use of private security firms in guarding establishments is an option open to the Ministry of Defence in cases where their use can satisfy certain security criteria.

  We have no proposals at present to replace military police personnel in this way. However, such an arrangement might be considered at an establishment following a change in the use of the premises and a reappraisal of the security circumstances.

  Clyde Submarine Base (Security)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will strengthen the Ministry of Defence police establishment at the Clyde submarine base in the light of the break-ins by civilians at Faslane.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The numbers of MOD police required at individual locations as well as physical security arrangements are reviewed regularly in the light of current policing and security needs. Additional MOD police have recently been provided at the Clyde submarine base.

  Police
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Defence Police Federation on the future size of the Ministry of Defence police establishment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) on 23 February 1989 at column 760.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Defence Police Federation on the future deployment of Ministry of Defence Police personnel at Ministry of Defence establishments in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Defence Police Federation is a member of two joint committees which provide it with the opportunity to raise questions on a wide range of issues including complementing.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the replacement of retiring Ministry of Defence police personnel.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Recruitment targets are set to attract the numbers necessary to meet these levels, taking account of natural wastage through retirement and other causes.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present approved establishment for the Ministry of Defence police; how many staff are currently in post; and what is the proposed establishment for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The strength of the MOD police on 1 February 1989 was 4,772 (inclusive of dedicated civilians, and of manpower provided to repayment users). The requirements for MOD police are reviewed regularly in the light of policing and security needs and it is not MOD policy to provide details of future manning levels.

  Security Staff
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of private sector security staff commissioned by his Department on each of the past three years to guard Ministry of Defence establishments in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The number of private security guards employed at MOD establishments is variable. The totals in the last three years were approximately:

  Number

  1986–87

  200

  1987–88

  200

  1988–89

  250

  Thermal Imaging
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what examination he has made of the effects of installing thermal imaging equipment at those high security military bases where firearms, ammunition, missiles and warheads are stored.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Security at all Ministry of Defence establishments is under continuous review and the
  223
  use of thermal imaging equipment has been considered, together with other aids to physical security which have become available through advances in technology. The cost-effectiveness of such equipment has to be taken into account in our response to the assessed security threat at any particular establishment.

  Security
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed the security arrangements at RAF Honington and at the United States airbases at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath; whether he has any proposals to improve the present levels and methods of preventing or detecting access by unauthorised personnel; how the guarding duties of the RAF Regiment, the auxiliary air force, the Ministry of Defence police and the civil police are co-ordinated; and under which senior officer's direct command they are.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The security of a military establishment is the responsibility of its commanding officer, who is normally responsible for any necessary liaison with the civil police. In the case of bases made available to United States forces, the RAF commander is responsible for liaison with the civil police. Security at RAF Honington, as at other Ministry of Defence establishments, is kept under continuous review—and I understand that the same applies to RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath—but it is not our practice to comment in detail on such matters.

  A90 Project
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received from Mr. Michael Phillips of Haden Young on developments in the A90 contract.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment had been made of the progress of the A90 project prior to its amendment to a cost-plus basis.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 10 appendix 4 of the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General—"Control and Management of the Trident Programme"—HC 27.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has discussed with Sir Ronald Mason the role of managers and scientists at AWE Aldermaston in the development of the A90 construction project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to basing the design and construction techniques used for the A90 project closely on similar projects in the United States of America.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In response to a report in 1978 by an independent expert, Sir Edward Pochin, which highlighted deficiencies in existing aging facilities at AWRE, MOD instituted a study to examine the available options to 224
  ensure the retention of nuclear warhead research and development and fissile component manufacturing capabilities. This study concluded that the best course would be to build a new facility based on the TA55 plutonium facility at Los Alamos scientific laboratory. In 1980 the then Secretary of State approved the construction of the new facility together with associated minimum remedial work essential for the United Kingdom location.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any allegations have been received by him concerning the conduct of the A90 project by any participating contractors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I assume the hon. Member has in mind the allegations made in the recent "World in Action" programme. The contract in question is the responsibility of the Property Services Agency which I understand is currently investigating the claims made in the programme.

  EMP Simulators
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the largest vehicle which can be subjected to test by the EMP simulators at Aldermaston atomic weapons establishment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The working dimensions of the EMP simulators at AWE are 25 m long, 11 m wide, and 6 m high. The facility will accommodate all current service land vehicles.

  Procurement
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met members of the Defence Manufacturers Association to discuss matters relating to procurement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On 6 December 1988 at a meeting of the National Defence Industries Council.

  Aviation Medicine Training Centre
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the proposed move of the Royal Air Force aviation medicine training centre from RAF North Luffenham, Rutland, to RAF Mount Batten, Plymouth, which was originally notified to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton by ministerial letter D/US of S(AF) RNF 19/2/11 of 27 January 1987.

  Mr. Neubert
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  No. 144 Signals Unit
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it remains his intention to move the RAF No. 144 Signals unit from RAF Wattisham to RAF North Luffenham, Rutland, in early 1989, as originally notified to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton by ministerial letter D/US of S(AF) RNF 4844 of 10 March 1988; and whether he will give details of the number of personnel who will be transferred in such a move.

  Mr. Neubert
  The move of No. 144 Signals unit from RAF Wattisham to RAF North Luffenham is being reviewed following a reassessment of the unit's role.

  Conscription
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost of conscription for
  225
  an 18-month period of (a) all males and (b) both males and females of 18 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Government have no plans to reintroduce conscription.

  Contractors
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now list in the Official Report the precise amounts paid to each of the contractors listed on page 15 of "Statement of the Defence Estimates 2", Cm 344-II, by his Department in the financial year 1986–87.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: The payments made to each of these companies in the year ended 31 March 1987 in respect of headquarters contracts were as follows:

  Company

  Payments £ million

  British Aerospace plc (Aircraft)

  320

  British Aerospace plc (Dynamics)

  610

  The General Electric Co. plc

  850

  The Plessey Co. plc

  365

  Rolls Royce Ltd.

  425

  Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.

  345

  The British Petroleum Co. plc

  100

  Ferranti plc

  200

  Hunting Associated Industries plc

  205

  Racal Electronics plc

  105

  Royal Ordnance plc

  245

  Thorn-EMI plc

  155

  Vickers plc

  115

  Westland plc

  135

  British Railways Board

  58

  British Telecommunications plc

  56

  Dowty Group plc

  66

  ESSO United Kingdom plc

  91

  Lucas Industries plc

  61

  General Motors Ltd.

  51

  Pilkington Bros, plc

  69

  Philips Electronic and Associated Industries Ltd.

  54

  The "Shell" Transport and Trading Co. plc

  52

  Short Bros plc

  67

  STC plc

  76

  Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd.

  77

  Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd.

  92

  Austin Rover Group Ltd.

  47

  British Airways plc

  33

  BTR plc

  27

  Civil Aviation Authority

  25

  Digital Equipment Co. Ltd.

  35

  F R Group plc

  37

  GKN plc

  38

  Marshall of Cambridge (Engineering) Ltd.

  47

  Paccar UK Ltd.

  27

  Smiths Industries plc

  28

  United Scientific Holdings plc

  38

  Vosper Thorneycroft (UK) Ltd.

  38

  Avon Rubber plc

  10

  BET plc

  21

  The British and Commonwealth Shipping Co. plc

  13

  British Shipbuilders

  14

  Cambridge Electronic Industries plc

  16

  Coats Viyella plc

  18

  Control Data Ltd.

  10

  Cossor Electronics Ltd.

  21

  Clanfield Institute of Technology

  14

  Cray Electronics Holding plc

  12

  DRG plc

  22

  Frazer-Nash Group Ltd.

  12

  Harland and Wolff plc

  11

  Hawker Siddeley Group plc

  12

  Hewlett Packard Ltd.

  14

  Honeywell Ltd.

  12

  226

  Company

  Payments £ million

  Mobil Holdings Ltd.

  11

  Northern Engineering Industries plc

  11

  Petrofina (UK) Ltd.

  10

  RCA Ltd.

  21

  Remploy Ltd.

  11

  Singer Link Miles Ltd.

  12

  Systems Designers plc

  13

  UK Universities

  12

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  13

  The Weir Group plc

  19

  Yarrow plc

  14

  Apricot Computers plc

  6

  BBA Group

  6

  BMARC Ltd.

  9

  Bodycote International plc

  5

  Caledonian Aviation Group plc

  5

  CAP Group plc

  7

  The Charente Steamship Co. Ltd.

  7

  Chemring Group plc

  7

  Chloride Group plc

  6

  Commercial Shearing Inc.

  5

  CONOCO (UK) Ltd.

  10

  Courtaulds plc

  7

  David Brown (Holdings) Ltd.

  5

  F. L. Smidth and Co. (Holdings) Ltd.

  7

  Ford Motor Co. Ltd.

  7

  George Blair plc

  8

  Gibraltar Shiprepair Ltd.

  7

  Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co. (GB) Ltd.

  8

  Hall Russell Ltd.

  8

  Hogg Robinson Group plc

  6

  Humber Shiprepairers Ltd.

  6

  IBM United Kingdom Holdings Ltd.

  8

  Inchcape plc

  9

  J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.

  9

  John Brown plc

  7

  Logica plc

  7

  MacTaggart Scott (Holdings) Ltd.

  5

  M. L. Holdings plc

  5

  Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd.

  5

  Massey Ferguson Holdings Ltd.

  7

  Meggitt Holdings plc

  6

  Portsmouth Aviation Ltd.

  5

  The Rank Organisation plc

  9

  Readicut International plc

  5

  RFD Group plc

  6

  RHP Group plc

  5

  Ropner plc

  9

  Saft (UK) Ltd.

  7

  Schlumberger Measurement and Control (UK) Ltd.

  7

  Total Oil Holdings Ltd.

  5

  Tozer Kemsley and Millbourn Holdings plc

  8

  Watsham's plc

  6

  Waverley Electronics

  6

  Wills Group plc

  5

  Note: The figures below £100 million are rounded to the nearest £1 million and those above £100 million are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

SCOTLAND

  Rating Reform
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the latest forecast about the impact of the community charge on single pensioners.

  Mr. Lang
  It is estimated that over 80 per cent. of single pensioner households in Scotland will benefit from the introduction of the community charge.
  227
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the administration of the poll tax registers in Scotland, as regards variations adopted with regard to the furnishings of dates of birth.

  Mr. Lang
  Section 13(1)(d) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended by the Local Government Finance Act 1988, requires the community charges register for each registration area to specify the date of birth of each natural person registered therein. Statutory responsibility for compiling these registers rests with the community charges registration officer for each area and it is for them to decide, within the framework of the powers given to them, how best to carry out their functions.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from organisations and individuals seeking to have poll tax liability removed from all persons who are mentally or physically impaired.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from Members of Parliament, interested organisations and individuals about the liability for the community charge of people with various forms of physical and mental disability.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the level of community charge in Lothian region.

  Mr. Lang
  Since the beginning of this year my right hon. and learned Friend and I have received about 30 representations on the level of the community charge in Lothian region. All have expressed dismay at the unacceptably high level of charges imposed in Lothian region.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what use is being made of the Bellwin scheme to help local authorities deal with the consequences of the storm damage in Scotland on 13 February.

  Mr. Lang
  It is too soon to say whether it would be appropriate to invoke the Bellwin scheme in relation to the recent storms.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of the cost of the clearing-up operations following the storm of 13 February.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to announce details of his response to local authorities and other interested parties within the Highlands and Islands on financial assistance following the flooding and storm damage of this winter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the financial implications of the recent severe weather in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  It is too soon to assess the full extent and cost of damage and restoration work arising from the 228
  recent flooding and storms. Rather than initiate discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, my right hon. and learned Friend has sought detailed reports directly from those authorities in the Highlands affected by the flooding, and from housing authorities, so that he can make an assessment of the situation as soon as possible. He made it clear in the House on 14 February that if other authorities make representations about excessive costs, he will consider these on the basis of principles for financial assistance well established in previous years. A decision on whether special financial assistance would be appropriate for any area will be made as soon as reports have been received and assessed.

  Procurator Fiscal Service
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of 'State for Scotland how many representations he has received on the National Audit Office report into the procurator fiscal service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received on the National Audit Office report into the procurator fiscal service; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Five representatives have been received by the Lord Advocate on the National Audit Office report on the prosecution of crime in Scotland and review of the procurator fiscal service. Since the report of the Public Accounts Committee has not yet been published, it would be inappropriate to make a statement.

  Transport Links
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the future adequacy of transport links between the central belt and the north-east of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have received several representations about rail links about the future adversity of trunk road links between the central belt and north-east of Scotland. Over the last few years the Government have made it a major priority to upgrade the A94 to dual carriageway standard. That committment is now nearly fulfilled.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate for the number of people with Alzheimer's disease in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Alzheimer's disease is one of a number of degenerative brain disorders which occur in later life. It is not possible to give accurate estimates of the numbers of people with these conditions because of the very gradual onset of symptoms and changes in the diagnostic classifications as a result of research in this area. Recent studies have, however, suggested that between 112,000 and 160,000 people in Scotland may have dementia of varying severity in one form or another of whom between one half and two thirds may have Alzheimer's disease.

  Education (Renfrewshire)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has recently received in relation to the provision of school education in Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from parents of pupils attending St. Aelred's high school, Paisley and others expressing opposition to a proposal by Strathclyde regional council to close the school. That proposal has been submitted by the education authority to my right hon. and learned Friend for his consent.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applicants for section 4 grants under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, have been approved; what was the value awarded for each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on 16 February. Prior to 1984–85 the approvals were:

  Financial year

  Number of approvals

  Value of assistance (£ million)

  1980–81

  126

  2·2

  1981–82

  165

  2·7

  1982–83

  188

  3·3

  1983–84

  250

  5·5

  I have no statement to make on the operation of section 4 in Scotland.

  Church of Scotland
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from the church and nation committee of the Church of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Claim of Right
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received about the "A Claim of Right for Scotland" document.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received concerning the document "A Claim of Right for Scotland".

  Mr. David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what further representations he has received about the "A Claim of Right for Scotland" document.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the right hon. Member and the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) on 9 November 1988 at column 228. No further representations have been received.

  Scottish National Party
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has recently received from the Scottish National party about the future government of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
  230
  Mr. Rifkind
  None.

  Scottish Constitutional Convention
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the Scottish constitutional convention.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet the Scottish constitutional convention.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey).

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had concerning the Scottish constitutional convention.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No representations have been received since my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) on 9 November 1988 at column 228. Both letters referred to in that reply advocated the establishment of a Scottish constitutional convention.

  Scotland (Government)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will deposit in the Library copies of all the speeches he has made on the structure of government in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No. Copies of speeches which I have made in the House on the structure of government in Scotland are recorded in the Official Report and are thus available for reference. I often refer on other occasions to aspects of the structure of government in Scotland, but no comprehensive record of these comments is available.

  Forestry (Perthshire)
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of forestry projects currently taking place in Perthshire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 January 1989, the Forestry Commission has, under its grant schemes, approved 71 new applications for planting grants in Perthshire.

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the president of the Law Society of Scotland and the dean of the Faculty of Advocates.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has at present no such engagement, but has had a recent meeting with the president of the Law Society and the dean of the Faculty of Advocates on Monday 19 December 1988.

  Devolution
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for legislation to devolve power to an elected Scottish Assembly.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to introduce legislation to devolve further powers to Scotland.
  231
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he intends to bring forward to improve the democratic accountability of government in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray).

  Forest Parks
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans are in progress to enhance public usage of forest parks.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are now 12 forest parks in Britain, the latest being Tummel forest park which was declared by the Forestry Commission last year. A free leaflet publicising the parks was issued by the commission last June. Plans for encouraging increased public use of the forest parks include the provision of further recreational facilities, the development of an attractive style of signing—already introduced at certain forest parks—and the production of a new series of forest park guidebooks.

  Harbours
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of the number of harbour developments in Scotland funded by European Community assistance since 1979; what is the total level of funding associated with these developments; and what is the cost associated with each development.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of harbour development projects in Scotland since 1979 which received financial assistance from the European Community totalled 144. The total cost of these developments amounted to £97·5 million to which the European Community contributed £34·7 million. A list of individual projects could be provided only at disproportionate costs, but projects ranged in cost between £10,000 and £5 million.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now take steps to assess the level of demand for a Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have received four letters since June 1987, culminating in October last year in representations about the claim of right document advocating the establishment of a Scottish constitutional convention.

  NHS White Paper
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has had from area health boards on the White Paper on the future of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I received an encouraging and positive response at my meetings with health board chairmen, general managers and senior professionals, held at the time of the launch of the White Paper "Working for Patients" (Cm. 555), We shall now be working closely with health boards and others to ensure that the White Paper proposals are effectively implemented.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a detailed analysis of the implications of the chapter of the Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients" which relates to Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend will shortly be issuing to interested parties various working papers giving further details of our proposals for the Scottish Health Service set out in chapter 10 of the White Paper "Working for Patients" (Cm. 555). I shall ensure copies of these are made available in the Library.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he will be publishing working papers detailing the changes resulting in Scotland from the "Working for Patients" White Paper, similar to those issued by the Department of Health;

  (2) whether the consultation period on the "Working for Patients" White Paper will be extended in Scotland to take account of the current lack of working papers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The first in the series of six Scottish working papers will be published shortly. It is intended to complete the consultation process by the end of May, which we regard as a reasonable time scale.

  Investment
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the number of inward investment announcements in Scotland over the past year; what has been the level of investment secured; and if he will give the number of jobs associated with these projects.

  Mr. Lang
  In 1987–88, the latest complete year for which figures are available, there were 88 decisions to locate in Scotland. These projects were associated with total planned investment of £337 million and 11,852 jobs.

  Scottish Independence
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many written representations he has received since June 1987 advocating an independent Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Seventeen.

  NHS (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of resources for direct patient care he expects to be released through competitive tendering in the National Health Service.
  233
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Contracts awarded so far will release £15·6 million over the next three years for reinvestment in direct patient care. This is equivalent to the cost of around 2,600 bypass operations or 5,300 hip replacement operations or could buy around 1,500 renal dialysis machines.

  Local Services (Payment)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning alternative means of paying for local services.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations over the years suggesting alternatives to the unfair and discredited domestic rating system.

  Public Housing (Springburn)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision he is making to improve public housing for families in Springburn.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the statutory housing authority, Glasgow district council is responsible for determining its own policies and programmes for dealing with improvements to its housing stock. This year the council received a gross capital allocation of £89·3 million for investment in its own housing stock. The council also has additional resources available through a covenant scheme providing £140 million over a five-year period.

  The Housing Corporation has made £4·4 million available in the current year to the Springburn and Possilpark housing association programme, of which £3·8 million will go towards family housing and owner-occupation. The association has five rehabilitation schemes on site, at a total cost of £5·5 million, which will provide 165 housing units, 104 of which will be for general needs.

  The association is also progressing a new build scheme for shared ownership which will provide 49 units at a cost of £1·6 million, towards which the corporation has committed a subsidy of 15 per cent.

  The Scottish special housing association is landlord of 848 properties in Springburn and has recently completed a new build development of 26 amenity flats in the area.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of applications for the purchase of council housing in Scotland; what is the proportion of houses in Scotland now under owner-occupation; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  During 1988 a monthly average of over 4,100 council house purchase applications were received. Over 44 per cent. of Scottish houses are now in owner-occupation. The sustained high level of 234
  applications from public sector tenants seeking to exercise the right to buy is clear evidence of the continuing success of the Government's right-to-buy policy.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the total of tenants to have purchased a property under the right to buy to reach 150,000.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  From information available to date, the number of local authority and new town tenants who have purchased houses under the right to buy legislation between October 1980 and December 1988 is over 108,000. Since April 1979 total sales of public sector stock to sitting tenants in Scotland are over 144,000. This figure may reach 150,000 within the next few months.

  Japanese and Korean Investment
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what action he has taken to encourage Japanese and Korean investment in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Through Locate in Scotland, the Government continue successfully to encourage companies from the far east to establish themselves in Scotland. To further increase the effectiveness of Locate in Scotland operations in the Japanese and other far eastern markets, two new posts have been established in Tokyo within the past 12 months. An additional far east post was also created at Locate in Scotland headquarters in Glasgow last year.

  Elderly People (Housing Management)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will introduce legislation to allow residents of private housing developments for older people to change their management agency following a ballot.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent(a) on teachers' salaries and (b) books and learning materials in the past year and five, 10, 15 and 20 years ago in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information in the tables is taken from local authority financial returns; details for 1967–68 are no longer held.

  Table 1

  Expenditure on teachers' salaries

  £000 at 1987–88 prices

  Year

  Expenditure

  1972–73

  580,115

  1977–78

  688,345

  1982–83

  731,209

  1987–88

  791,410

  235

  Table 2

  Expenditure on supplies and services

  £000 at 1987–88 prices

  Year

  Text and library books

  Equipment and materials

  Provisions

  Other supplies and services

  Total supplies and services

  1972–73

  19,726

  24,069

  212

  3,845

  47,852

  1977–78

  9,956

  —

  604

  29,838

  40,398

  1982–83

  9,406

  19,475

  344

  7,299

  36,524

  1987–88

  8,396

  20,585

  266

  4,552

  33,799

  Note: In 1977–78 expenditure on equipment and materials was not separately identified in local authority financial returns.

  Self-employed People
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet representatives of the National Federation of Self-Employed; and what matters he intends to discuss.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Limited. I met representatives of the federation in July of last year and I will continue to correspond with the federation on issues of mutual concern.

  Wood Products
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the level of demand for wood products has been over the past year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The apparent consumption of wood and wood products in the United Kingdom in 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, was 49·4 million cu m of wood raw material equivalent. This does not include recycled waste paper and residues of United Kingdom origin.

  Ancillary staff: Estimated average hours worked and average weekly pay1

  Males

  Females

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  Grade2

  Pay scale

  Hours

  Pay

  Hours

  Pay

  Hours

  Pay

  Hours

  Pay

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Non-supervisors and chargehands

  A

  46

  130

  30

  78

  42

  114

  23

  60

  B

  45

  132

  25

  68

  42

  114

  26

  71

  C

  46

  156

  26

  85

  42

  134

  26

  79

  D

  50

  172

  —

  —

  44

  157

  30

  102

  Supervisors

  I

  46

  137

  —

  —

  43

  140

  27

  84

  II

  47

  168

  —

  —

  41

  135

  28

  88

  III

  47

  167

  —

  —

  41

  129

  —

  —

  IV

  47

  169

  —

  —

  42

  150

  —

  —

  1 Pay is based on 1987–88 rates.

  2 Grades with fewer than 20 staff are omitted.

  Resource Management
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current status of the resource management initiative at Inverclyde royal infirmary and Bangour general hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Pilot projects are being undertaken at both Inverclyde royal hospital (Argyll and Clyde health board) and Bangour general hospital (Lothian health board) and valuable experience on the introduction of resource management has already been gained from the work at these sites. Initially work

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scotland has received from the European regional development fund since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  Awards totalled £738 million between 1979 and 1988.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the number of ancillary staffs employed in the National Health Service in Scotland as at 30 September 1988, excluding nurse auxiliaries, (b) the number of whole-time equivalents in Scotland, (c) the average hours of ancillary staffs, whole-time, by grade together with average pay by grade and (d) the average hours of part-time ancillary staffs by grade and average pay; broken down by male and female for of each of categories (b), (c) and (d).

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are 30,439 ancillary staff employed by the National Health Service in Scotland at 30 September 1988, a contracted whole-time equivalent of 22,068 of whom 6,176 were males and 15,892 females. Average hours and average weekly pay are shown in the tables.

  concentrated on the development and introduction of suitable information systems with a computerised patient administration system at the core and various related "feeder" systems, some clerical and some computerised. However, there is still a need for futher work at both sites before the resource management objectives can be met. In particular, there is a requirement for a clinical information system to provide consultants with the detailed information they require. Further work is also required on the development of treatment costings.

  Argyll and Clyde health board has recently proposed an extension of the project at Inverclyde following the installation of a clinical information system which will give

  237
  clinicians a lead role in the exercise. These plans include an increase in the administrative support necessary to operate resource management. The Scottish Home and Health Department and the directorate of health service information systems (DHSIS) of the Common Services Agency will be sharing the costs of this project with the board, initially on a 50–50 basis, and contracts are about to be signed.

  Lothian health board is also looking at ways of extending the Bangour project. An essential corollary of any resource management initiative is the provision of clinically informative data and in Lothian there are established clinical auditing systems which can be built upon. These will be taken account of in the board's proposals which are currently being prepared and the Department and DHSIS will consider the extent of further financial support which should be provided for this project from central funds.

  Solicitors (Interim Payment)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce arrangements for interim payment to a solicitor for work done under a section 1 certificate.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamiliton
  The Scottish Home and Health Department is currently discussing such a possibility with the Law Society of Scotland.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give consideration to relaxation of the criteria governing determination of hardship provisions under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1988 where(a) a pursuer, and (b) a defender to a small claims process has been in receipt of advice and assistance cover in respect of such small claims and where property has been recovered or preserved by such pursuer or defender.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I see no need to do so. The regulations provide that in cases where the recovery provision might, in the opinion of the solicitor, cause grave hardship or distress to the client or could be effected only with reasonable difficulty because of the nature of the property, the solicitor may apply to the board for authority not to enforce payment of his fees or outlays out of any property recovered or preserved.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recommendations his Department has received from the Scottish Legal Aid Board on the need for additional resources to enable it to discharge its statutory functions; and what response has been made.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamiliton
  Following representations from the Scottish Legal Aid Board, additional funds have been made available for legal aid adminstration increasing this year's provision from £4·96 million to £5·09 million. In addition, the planned expenditure on the Scottish legal aid fund has been increased—subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate—from £52 million to £54 million to meet increased demand.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to amend the Legal Aid 238
  (Scotland) Act 1986 to remove the disentitlement to payment of solicitors for work necessarily and reasonably done.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Act contains no such provision.

  Prisons (Staff Inspections)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reintroduce staff inspection to Scottish prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish prison service operational manpower unit will begin a staff inspection on the residential and operations functional areas of Edinburgh prison on 6 March. Similar staff inspections at Perth, Glonochil and Shotts prisons are planned during the coming year. The programme of inspections was suspended during the introduction of the fresh start restructuring exercise.

  Penal Institutions (Visiting Committees)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many penal institutions in Scotland have visiting committees; and if he will list the numbers serving in each such committee.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Every penal institution in Scotland is served by a visiting committee. The table lists the numbers serving on each:

  Prison visiting committees

  Establishment

  Number of members

  Aberdeen

  12

  Barlinnie

  35

  Cornton Vale

  29

  Dungavel

  13

  Edinburgh

  25

  Glenochil

  22

  Inverness

  14

  Low Moss

  11

  Noranside

  12

  Penninghame

  14

  Perth

  22

  Peterhead

  13

  Shotts

  13

  Young offenders institution visiting committees

  Establishment

  Number of members

  Castle Huntly

  10

  Cornton Vale

  10

  Dumfries

  11

  Glenochil

  12

  Greenock

  9

  Polmont

  7

  Friarton prison is served by a sub-group of Perth prison visiting committee. Longriggend remand institution is served by a sub-group of Barlinnie prison visiting committee.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to encourage attendance at meetings of visiting committees of penal institutions in Scotland.
  239
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am anxious to encourage members of visiting committees to play an effective role in the work of their committees. In January 1989, the Scottish Home and Health Department organised a conference at which every visiting committee was given the opportunity to be represented. Delegates to the conference discussed the duties of visiting committee members and the issue of training. A comprehensive manual of guidance for all visiting committee members has been prepared by the Scottish Home and Health Department and will be issued shortly. This emphasises the need for regular attendance by members at penal establishments. Moreover the Scottish Home and Health Department gave support to the establishment, in September 1988, of an Association of Visiting Committees for Scotland, with the aim of encouraging and supporting visiting committee members in their duties.

  Establishment

  Complement at 1 April 1988

  Staff currently in post or training1

  Difference plus/minus

  1. Aberdeen

  104·0

  110

  +6·0

  2. Barlinnie

  485·0

  497

  +12·0

  3. BSU

  16·0

  15

  -1·0

  4. Castle Huntly

  67·0

  64

  -3·0

  5. Cornton Vale

  179·5

  184

  +4·5

  6. Dumfries

  112·5

  121

  +8·5

  7. Dungavel

  67·0

  63

  -4·0

  8. Edinburgh

  360·0

  383

  +23·0

  9. Friarton

  48·0

  51

  +3·0

  10. Glenochil

  387·5

  380

  -7·5

  11. Greenock

  146·5

  155

  +8·5

  12. Inverness

  86·5

  97

  +10·5

  13. Longriggend

  149·5

  155

  +5·5

  14. Low Moss

  121·0

  124

  +3·0

  15. Noranside

  63·0

  64

  +1·0

  16. Penninghame

  33·5

  31

  -2·5

  17. Perth

  319·0

  329

  +10·0

  18. Peterhead

  260·5

  270

  +9·5

  19. Polmont

  232·5

  252

  +19·5

  20. Shotts

  325·5

  331

  +5·5

  21. SPSC

  29·0

  28

  -1·0

  TOTAL

  35,93·0

  3,704

  +111·0

  1 Staff in post or in training exceed the complement because of the need to anticipate the reduction of prison officers' contracted hours by 2 hours per officer per week from 1 April 1989.

  Prison Industries
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to increase the turnover in prison industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  So far as is consistent with the needs of security and providing balanced regimes for inmates, I will continue policies to maximise manufacturing efficiency. Measures are being taken to ensure that working hours reflect, as closely as possible, those of private sector industry, that staff and inmates are properly trained and that contracts are completed on time and to the required quality standards.

  The Scottish prison service is planning to increase the value of industrial production by £275,000 in 1989–90.

  Penal Institutions (Workshops)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prison officers are employed in supervising workshops; and in which penal institutions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Industrial workshops in prisons are supervised by civilian industrial managers and assistant managers. There are 18 such staff. Under their supervision 176 uniformed prison officers are employed as instructors in the workshops. In addition 50 prison officers work as relief instructors to cover annual leave and sick leave of instructional staff.

  Penal Institutions
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the staffing establishment of each penal institution in Scotland together with staff vacancies in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table sets out the current position.

  Schools (Associated Places)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cost to his Department of the assisted places scheme in each school in Scotland which benefited in the latest year for which figures are available and the number of pupils involved in each school.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is as follows:

  School

  Total expenditure in 1987–88 school year

  Number of pupils

  Albyn School for Girls, Aberdeen

  26,852

  15

  Belmont House School, Newton Mearns

  30,926

  17

  Craigholme School for Girls, Glasgow

  42,158

  30

  241

  School

  Total expenditure in 1987–88 school year

  Number of pupils

  Daniel Stewarts & Melville College, Edinburgh

  1,054,034

  560

  Mary Erskine School, Edinburgh

  George Watsons College, Edinburgh

  Dollar Academy

  99,923

  57

  Edinburgh Academy

  94,858

  38

  Fernhill School, Glasgow

  64,669

  42

  Fettes College, Edinburgh

  93,060

  26

  Fort Augustus Abbey School

  110,700

  43

  George Heriot's School, Edinburgh

  397,293

  221

  Glasgow Academy

  79,471

  42

  Glenalmond College, Perthshire

  124,965

  35

  Gordonstoun School, Morayshire

  82,209

  22

  The High School of Dundee

  309,400

  170

  The High School of Glasgow

  100,843

  58

  Hutchesons' Grammar School, Glasgow

  1205,125

  148

  Keil School, Dumbarton

  117,456

  57

  Kelvinside Academy, Glasgow

  102,809

  54

  Kilgraston (Convent of the Sacred Heart)

  98,374

  51

  Kilquhanity House School, Castle Douglas

  34,354

  17

  Laurel Bank School, Glasgow

  128,202

  60

  Lomond School, Helensburgh

  88,898

  43

  Loretto School, Musselburgh

  81,711

  23

  Merchiston Castle School, Edinburgh

  167,206

  49

  Morrison's Academy, Crieff

  1267,297

  156

  The Park School, Glasgow

  116,530

  54

  Rannoch School, Perthshire

  68,081

  25

  Robert Gordon's College, Aberdeen

  181,119

  54

  Rudolf Steiner School of Edinburgh

  98,283

  58

  St. Aloysius' College, Glasgow

  231,765

  137

  St. Columba's Kilmacolm, Renfrewshire

  97,841

  47

  St. Denis & Cranley School, Edinburgh

  41,471

  20

  St. George's School for Girls, Edinburgh

  31,512

  16

  St. Leonard's School, St. Andrews

  53,692

  22

  St. Margaret's School for Girls, Aberdeen

  23,404

  13

  St. Margaret's School for Girls, Edinburgh

  107,711

  54

  Strathallan School, Forgandenny, Perthshire

  122,736

  34

  Wellington School, Ayr

  174,600

  41

  Westbourne School for Girls, Glasgow

  151,647

  71

  Total

  5,303,185

  2,680

  1 Provisional figures.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to seek to change the law on Sunday trading in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  With one small exception relating to hairdressers and barbers, the restrictions on Sunday trading in the Shops Act 1950 do not apply in Scotland. I have no present plans to change the existing law.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the law on Sunday trading in Scotland from(a) the Keep
  242
  Sunday Special campaign and (b) the Shopping Hours Reform Council; what analysis of the economic consequences of implementing these representations he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received the proposals of both the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Shopping Hours Reform Council. He has no plans to implement the proposals of the Keep Sunday Special campaign which would impose new restrictions on Sunday trading in Scotland. The proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council on Sunday trading are not intended to extend to Scotland. He has, therefore, made no analysis of the economic consequences of implementing the proposals.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be issuing a document detailing his proposals for changes to general practitioners' terms of service and remuneration system.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall shortly be writing to all general practitioners in Scotland with a report setting out the proposed changes to GPs' remuneration and terms of service as they would apply in Scotland.

  Child Care (Fife)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the discharge by Fife regional council of its statutory responsibilities for child care.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Scottish Office officials have undertaken extensive discussions with officials of Fife regional council concerning the discharge by the authority of certain statutory functions relating to the use of voluntary and compulsory measures of care for children, together with relations between the social work department and the children's panel. In the course of these discussions, clear differences of view have emerged as to whether the practice followed by the social work department is consistent with the best interests of children at risk and with the provision of effective support to the children's hearings system in the region. I have concluded after careful consideration that, with a view to resolving these issues, it would now be right for me to constitute an inquiry under section 99 of the Children Act 1975. The terms of reference are as follows:1. To inquire into the policies pursued by Fife regional council through its social work department in discharging its functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and related legislation
  in the use of voluntary and compulsory measures of care for children, and
  in particular, in the advice given to children's hearings before they decide on or review compulsory measures of care for children referred to them.
  2. To assess the extent to which the regional council's current policies relating to these matters and the Department's interpretation and application of them meet the best interests of children at risk.
  3. To make recommendations for any modification of the child care policies of Fife regional council and their interpretation and application in the best interests of children.
  4. To report to the Secretary of State.

  I have invited Sheriff Brian Kearney to undertake the inquiry. Sheriff Kearney will be assisted by Professor Elisabeth Mapstone, OBE, professor of social administration and social work, University of Dundee.
  243
  I hope that it will be possible for the inquiry to be completed within three months.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income-Related Benefits
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update tables I b, 5b and 7b of the paper entitled "The Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits" published in October 1987 to show the position after October 1989, taking into account benefit upratings and the additional payments for pensioners aged 75 years and over.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the reply can be supplied only at disproportionate cost. There was no prescribed procedure for uprating supplementary benefit, housing

  Total staff

  Female staff

  1 Ethnic minorities staff

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  Grades 1 to 7

  1,066

  149

  13·9

  12

  1·1

  SEO and HEO

  6,885

  2,195

  31·8

  63

  0·9

  EO

  23,245

  13,543

  58·2

  534

  2·3

  AO and below

  61,749

  46,221

  74·8

  2,752

  4·4

  Others2

  3,280

  812

  24·7

  125

  3·8

  Total

  96,225

  62,920

  65·3

  3,495

  3·6

  1 Ethnic minorities figures are based on questionnaires voluntarily completed by staff.

  2 eg Industrial and professional staff.

  Benefits
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent by way of benefit on(a) all families with children aged under 16 years for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Separate information on family support for families with children aged under 16 years is not available. In 1988–89, it is estimated that, excluding unemployment benefit, social security support for all families with children totals almost £8·6 billion. Of this, approximately £3·4 billion is being provided for lone parents.

  Social Security Act 1986
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the first year's operation of the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 27 January at columns 802–3.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had with disability organisations concerning proposed criteria for the forthcoming review of disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Ian Bruce, director-general, Royal National Institute for the Blind, has recently written to me on behalf of his and seven other disability organisations to ask about plans for a review of disability benefits after the publication of all the reports by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on its surveys of disability. My 244
  benefit or family income supplement—different elements of these schemes were uprated in different ways and by different indices at different times. It is therefore impossible to say what the rates of these benefits would have been in April 1989 if reforms had not been introduced. A simple mechanistic uprating in line with the retail price indices would be unrealistic.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of officers in each grade and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Moore
  Information in the form required is not available because records are held on a combined basis with the Department of Health. Information for both Departments as at 23 February is given in the table:

  response makes it clear that I would welcome the opportunity to meet Mr. Bruce and his colleagues to listen to views and reactions on the OPCS reports already published and their implications. I have sent a copy of my reply to the right hon. Member.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to increase the age limit for mobility allowance; and how many people reaching the age of 75 years in the current year stand to have their mobility allowance withdrawn from 1 April.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on 13 February at column 63. No existing beneficiaries will reach age 75 before 29 November.

HEALTH

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate in cash terms for the current year the cost of the teaching hospitals based in London and other national resources for the National Health Service based in London.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect information in the form requested. But London is a centre for a wide range of services a number of which are of national importance. Costing returns submitted to the Department by district and special health authorities in London for major hospitals in teaching districts and postgraduate teaching
  245
  hospitals respectively show that total revenue expenditure attributable to those hospitals amounted to some £656 million in 1986–87.

  For further information on the expenditure and statistics relevant to individual London teaching hospitals I refer the hon. Member to the Department's annual publication "Health Services Costing Returns" (the latest being for 1986–87), copies of which are in the Library.

  AIDS
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department is conducting of early intervention strategies for AIDS and HIV infection in the United States of America;

  (2) what proposals there are for assessment of early intervention strategies with the aim of restraining, slowing down or stopping the development of AIDS in people who are HIV anti-body positive including (a) complementary/ alternative medicine, (b) therapies, (c) diet and (d) psychological approaches.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Medical Research Council is the main Government agency for biomedical research. It is conducting a clinical trial of zidovudine in early HIV infection, but no other early intervention is seen to be ready for evaluation by clinical trial. The MRC keeps abreast of results of clinical trials in HIV infection both from the United States of America and elsewhere.

  Doctors and Dentists
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) dentists born and trained in the Republic of Ireland have taken up National Health Service posts in the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not immediately available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Phlebotomists and Venepuncturists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to equalise the scale of wages paid by health authorities to phlebotomists and venepuncturists.

  Mr. Mellor
  The pay of phlebotomists and venepuncturists is a matter for negotiation in the appropriate Whitley council.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what directives he intends issuing to general practitioners to ensure effective plans are made to inform relatives of patients suffering from diabetes and glaucoma that eye tests will be free provided that general practitioners provide confirmatory certification.

  Mr. Freeman
  From 1 April 1989 close relatives aged 40 and over of patients with glaucoma will be eligible for an NHS sight test. A leaflet describing the importance of regular eye checks for this group, their eligibility for an NHS sight test and the method of making a claim will be sent to general practitioners and health authorities for display in waiting rooms and out-patient departments. It is also intended to write to hospital doctors asking them to 246
  supply copies for patients with diagnosed glaucoma to pass to their relatives. Regular eye-testing for diabetic retinopathy is appropriate only for people already known to have diabetes and they are eligible for NHS sight tests.

  MMR Immunisation
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report any preliminary figures available for the uptake of MMR immunisation in each health authority in England during the first three months of the MMR being available.

  Mr. Freeman
  Immunisation uptake figures are reported and recorded on an annual (financial year) basis. Rates for health authorities in general, following the introduction of MMR vaccine, will not, therefore, be available for some time. Reports from a sample of districts who have co-operated with the communicable disease surveillance centre are being analysed and the results will be made public as soon as possible. However, the distribution of doses of the vaccine from 1 October to the end of January (1·2 million against a maximum requirement from the two priority groups of children of 400,000) indicates a very high uptake level and a likely acceleration of the "catch up" period for other children.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of officers in each grade and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We do not have information in the form requested because records are held on a combined basis with the Department of Social Security. Information for both Departments as at 23 February is given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in his reply to the hon. and learned Member today.

  Fullerton Hospital, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the proposed sale of Fullerton hospital for old people at Denaby, Doncaster, will be taken into account in the local health authority's general manager and senior manager's performance-related pay scheme.

  Mr. Mellor
  The assessment for performance-related pay will take account of all the objectives which have been set for the manager concerned. We do not hold centrally information about the objectives set for individual managers. For this purpose property sales or planned hospital closures would normally be set in the context of wider objectives such as improving the use of ark authority's resources or developing new patterns of service and the assessment would reflect the achievement of these wider objectives.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide details of placements of elderly persons in(a) private residential homes per county in England and (b) private nursing homes in England.

  Mr. Mellor
  Provisional information on the number of elderly people supported by local authorities in private
  247
  residential accommodation for elderly and younger physically handicapped people as at 31 March 1987 is given in the table. The numbers of elderly people receiving treatment in private nursing homes under contractual arrangements is given in "Patients Receiving Treatment Under Contractual Arrangements with Institutions Outside the NHS in England, National and Regional Summaries" (form SH9). The latest available data relates to 31 December 1986. A copy is available in the Library.

  Number of residents aged 65 and over supported by local authorities in private homes for elderly people and younger physically handicapped people, as at 31 March 1987 (provisional).

  Local Authority

  Supported residents aged 65 and over in private homes

  Cleveland

  4

  Cumbria

  1

  Durham

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2

  North Tyneside

  1

  South Tyneside

  0

  Sunderland

  4

  Humberside

  0

  North Yorkshire

  1

  Barnsley

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  Sheffield

  0

  Bradford

  4

  Calderdale

  0

  Kirklees

  15

  Leeds

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  Lancashire

  1

  Bolton

  0

  Bury

  0

  Manchester

  0

  Oldham

  2

  Rochdale

  6

  Salford

  0

  Stockport

  0

  Tameside

  0

  Trafford

  0

  Wigan

  0

  Knowsley

  5

  Liverpool

  4

  Sefton

  19

  St. Helens

  0

  Wirral

  1

  Hereford & Worcester

  1

  Shropshire

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  Warwickshire

  4

  Birmingham

  8

  Coventry

  0

  Dudley

  0

  Sandwell

  1

  Solihull

  0

  Walsall

  2

  Wolverhampton

  7

  Derbyshire

  0

  Leicestershire

  4

  Lincolnshire

  4

  Northamptonshire

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  Berkshire

  6

  Buckinghamshire

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Essex

  0

  248

  Local Authority

  Supported residents aged 65 and over in private homes

  Hertfordshire

  0

  Norfolk

  10

  Oxfordshire

  6

  Suffolk

  3

  Camden

  27

  Greenwich

  0

  Hackney

  34

  Hammersmith

  3

  Islington

  23

  Kensington

  6

  Lambeth

  0

  Lewisham

  22

  Southwark

  16

  Tower Hamlets

  34

  Wandsworth

  27

  Westminster

  15

  City of London

  6

  Barking

  0

  Barnet

  24

  Bexley

  0

  Brent

  9

  Bromley

  1

  Croydon

  0

  Ealing

  39

  Enfield

  1

  Haringey

  20

  Harrow

  0

  Havering

  1

  Hillingdon

  4

  Hounslow

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  30

  Merton

  12

  Newham

  0

  Redbridge

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  Sutton

  1

  Waltham Forest

  21

  Dorset

  0

  Hampshire

  22

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  0

  Surrey

  1

  East Sussex

  0

  West Sussex

  16

  Wiltshire

  5

  Avon

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  Devon

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Somerset

  0

  England

  558

  Health Statistics (Norwich)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence of(a) leukaemia, (b) cot deaths and (c) birth abnormalities in the Norwich area; and what are the national averages.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: Numbers and rates for (a) notifications of newly diagnosed cases of leukaemia, (b) deaths with leukaemia as underlying cause, (c) cot deaths1 and (d) birth abnormalities' for Norwich district health authority and England and Wales in 1987, except registrations of leukaemia for which 1984 is the latest available data.
  249

  Norwich DHA

  England and Wales

  Numbers

  Rate

  Numbers

  Rate

  Registrations of leukaemia 19841

  46

  210·11

  4,307

  28·65

  Deaths from leukaemia 19871

  45

  29·60

  3,650

  27·26

  Cot deaths4

  6

  31·11

  1,528

  32·23

  Number of malformed babies5

  74

  313·71

  13,581

  319·83

  1 Leukaemia assigned to an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision code 204–208.

  2 Rate per 100,000 population.

  3 Rate per 1,000 total births.

  4 Any mention of cot death or similar term on death certificate whether underlying cause or not. Under 1 year of age only.

  5 Information is derived from a voluntary system of notifications at birth or up to 7 days afterwards. It is likely to be an incomplete measure of the total number of babies affected.

  Electromagnetic Radiation
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has undertaken to determine the effects of electromagnetic radiation at extremely low frequencies on human health.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department does not itself undertake research into possible hazards to health from radiation. However, the National Radiological Protection Board is under a statutory duty to inform and advise Government, and others, in relation to any such hazards.

  I understand that the electricity supply industry is currently funding a research programme to investigate any late effects on health from electromagnetic fields. Other research into the subject is continuing, both nationally and internationally, and we shall monitor the results closely.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by district health authority within the Trent regional health authority, how much National Health Service land has been sold in 1987–88 prices for each year since 1979

  Mr. Freeman
  A list of all land and property sold by the Trent RHA was given in my hon. and learned Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 22 December 1988 at columns 401–4. To arrive at 1987–88 prices the figures should be divided by the following gross domestic product (market prices) deflators:

  1979–80—0·56955

  1980–81—0·67460

  1981–82—0·74104

  1982–83—0·79398

  1983–84—0·83014

  1984–85—0·87214

  1985–86—0·91922

  1986–87—0·94988

  These deflators however take no account of the volatility of the property market.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much undeveloped National Health Service land is owned by the Trent regional health authority; and who benefits from the sale of such land.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the amount of NHS land which is undeveloped is not held. However at 31 March 1988 the total land holding of Trent RHA amounted to approximately 4,324 acres, of which just over 800 acres had been declared surplus to requirements and was in the process of disposal. All proceeds from the sale of surplus NHS land are retained by health authorities for reinvestment in the service.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 February concerning the>
  250
  resource allocation working party, Official Report, column 803, what is his best estimate of the likely impact on resources available to the Trent region, of the trends he describes.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The question is a rephrasing of the hon. Member's original question and there is nothing that I can sensibly add to my original answer.

  Ambulance Service (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number of out-patient appointments were cancelled at(a) the Newham general and (b) St. Andrews hospital, Bow, in each of the weeks in January and at first two in February consequent on no ambulance being available; and if he will list comparable figures for each of the divisions of the London ambulance service over the same period, together with respective totals.

  Mr. Freeman
  Out-patient appointments cancelled at Newham general and St. Andrews hospital, Bow, because no ambulance was available, were as follows:

  Week ending

  Newham general

  St, Andrews, Bow

  January 7

  13

  35

  January 14

  24

  18

  January 21

  0

  3

  January 28

  5

  0

  February 4

  1

  4

  February 11

  8

  7

  Out-patient appointments cancelled in each division of the London ambulance service because no ambulance was available were as follows:

  Week ending

  North East

  North West

  South East

  South West

  Total

  January 7

  140

  43

  9

  0

  192

  January 14

  157

  53

  22

  2

  234

  January 21

  69

  62

  14

  3

  148

  January 28

  132

  60

  56

  0

  248

  February 4

  125

  34

  21

  0

  180

  February 11

  87

  56

  9

  8

  160

  Note:

  The North East division is the largest and carries the highest number of patients.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South of 23 February concerning expenditure of the London ambulance service he will itemise the expenditure of £23,967,237 on emergency ambulance service and £7,977,645 on non-emergency services, respectively, in the year 1987–88; and what are the recent sums budgeted for in the year 1988–89.
  251
  Mr. Freeman
  A breakdown of the figures requested could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The figures for the emergency and non-emergency services for 1988–89 will be available when the South West Thames regional health authority produces its final accounts later this year.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what publication the annual expenditure and income of the London ambulance service has been made available to the public; when he expects its budget for the financial years 1989–90 to be agreed; and with what body or bodies he consulted prior to its determination.

  Mr. Freeman
  The budget for the London ambulance service is determined by the South West Thames regional health authority, not by my right hon. and learned Friend. The information requested is published in the authority's annual accounts. It is also included in the Department's publication "Health Services Costing Returns" (latest edition 1986–87) copies of which are in the Library.

  The 1989–90 budget for the LAS is currently the subject of discussion with the other three Thames regions, and district health authorities, community health authorities and family practitioners committees will be consulted before the budget is approved by South West Thames regional health authority.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated or actual proportion of emergency calls to the headquarters of the London ambulance service which were initially referred to a recorded message service during the first and second weeks of February, respectively, together with the highest proportion during a specific day and hour during that fortnight.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected routinely in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mid-Essex Health Authority
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on hospital building and upgrading of existing facilities in the Mid-Essex health authority since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to approach the chairman of Mid-Essex health authority for the information he seeks.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients treated by the National Health Service in the Mid-Essex health authority area in 1979 and the latest available year, respectively.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table:
  252

  Mid-Essex health authority

  1979

  1987–88

  In-patient cases treated

  20,971

  30,218

  Total out-patient attendances, of which

  119,443

  147,698

  new out-patient cases

  34,853

  39,354

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hip replacement operations were carried out in the Mid-Essex health authority area in 1979 and the latest available year, respectively;

  (2) how many cataract operations were carried out in the Mid-Essex health authority area in 1979 and the latest available year, respectively.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to approach the chairman of Mid-Essex health authority for the information he seeks.

  Humana Hospital (Inquiry)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the Bloomsbury health authority inquiry has yet revealed who billed recipients of kidneys received at the Wellington Humana hospital;

  (2) whether the computerised billing records of the Wellington Humana hospital have been made available to the Bloomsbury health authority inquiry.

  Mr. Freeman
  The allegations have been carefully examined. None of the inquiries, including an examination of the hospital's computerised billing, have revealed evidence of the sale or purchase of human kidneys for transplantation. As is normal practice, the bills were sent to the admitting clinician.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of all papers prepared by his Department or by the public health laboratory service for the working group on salmonella and eggs.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: The public health laboratory service represented my Department on this group. I am informed that all its documents were working documents. As such, none were intended for, nor were they in a form suitable for, separate publication.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has of salmonella enteriditis being found in imported eggs.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: I have no evidence that salmonella enteriditis has been found in imported eggs.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
Lord Biddulph Lord Biddulph—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Farm Visits by Schools: Charging Policy
Lord Peston Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is permissible to charge school children for visits to farms during school hours arranged as part of Food and Farming Year.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Education Reform Act maintains the principle of free school education. If educational visits, including those to farms, take place during normal teaching time there can be no charge to pupils or their parents. Any fund raising must be on the basis of voluntary contributions. Charges may be made only if the visit is arranged as an optional extra activity out of school hours.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am aware of the law and, as the noble Viscount will remember, I supported its clarification by what we introduced into the 1988 Act. The question I ask is: as a result have we got matters wrong? Before we clarified the Act a great many of these visits were paid for in rather an informal way and matters were rather blurred. Is the noble Viscount aware that, having clarified the question of charging, for which I do not criticise the Government, many school governors are now worried whether they can levy voluntary contributions? There is therefore a danger— of which farm visits is a good example— that—such visits will not take place, although everyone agrees that they are educationally valuable.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has read Circular No. 2/89 published on 12th January. It sets out the provisions of the legislation and how they will operate. While the basic principles underlying the law are very clear, provisions had to be made to cover every contingency such as a trip that takes place partly during and partly outside school hours. The document also offers practical advice that I believe will be welcomed. It has gained much from the responses to consultation on an earlier draft.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister's reply was very welcome, but will it not also be possible for the Government to help when children visit farms, and to ask farmers to point out the extremely valuable contribution made to their profession by the British Veterinary Association and British veterinary surgeons, so that children understand the value of British vets in British society?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I believe that question is slightly outside the scope of this one; but I am sure that the farming fraternity will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is still some confusion concerning visits to farms that start during school hours but finish outside them? Can the Minister explain how that works? If there are pupils who wish to make a visit but cannot afford it, can the Minister say whether there is any way in which the school can help?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is help available on the last point. The school will help out if it believes that it is necessary to do so. The overriding policy is that the provision during school time has to be free, but optional out-of-hours activities can be charged for if LEAs and schools so choose. Charging is also prohibited for any out-of-hours activities that are required to fulfil statutory duties relating to the national curriculum, religious education or which are part of a syllabus for a prescribed public examination. I do not believe that I can go into more detail, but I am sure that the noble Lord will have his question well answered when he reads the circular.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say whether consideration has been given as to what will happen when schools are under local financial management, when their funds may be a little constrained? Can the Minister point to any particular problems that may arise in that connection, and whether the Government have thought of a resolution to them?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is no question of the Government imposing charges on anyone. What has now been made clear is that LEAs and schools will have the discretion to charge in certain circumstances.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government could not spend that money better than by providing for town children to visit farms to see how they operate?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a view.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as the noble Viscount is aware, I raised the Question in order that the subject may be aired. Is he aware that some of us have received a number of letters on the subject? At the moment I have one with me from the National Farmers' Union. It makes precisely the point that I make; namely, that in seeking to clarify the law,
"The Government may well have reduced the opportunities for schoolchildren to learn about farming at first hand."
Will the noble Viscount draw the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the possible problems that will be emerging here, and ask that his department keeps an eye on these matters so that there is not exactly the reverse effect, in terms of dealing with charging, from the one that we wanted?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to what has been said in the House today.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that there are a number of farmers who are only too delighted to have parties of schoolchildren seeing their farms and who make no charge at all?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware of that.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is always the question of transport? I hope that he will look again at my question as regards local financial management, because his answer did not exactly address the question that I put.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly do that. As regards transport there may be occasions when a parent or a group of parents will ask a school to grant their children leave of absence so that they may participate in an activity arranged in school hours by an organisation other than the LEA or governing body. Under Section 118(4) of the Act, a third party will be able to levy charges direct on the parents for services provided. The LEA and the school governing body will not be parties to that transaction.

Lip-reading Provision
2.43 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that enough people are being trained as lip-readers and whether there is adequate financial assistance for the training of lip-reading teachers.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, lip-reading classes are usually provided within local adult education services. It is for education authorities to assess local demand, and the Government do not collect information centrally on the availability of lip-reading provision. LEAs may use funds under the training grants scheme to support teachers on lip-reading courses.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. Is he aware of the wide disparity of provision of lip-reading classes in different areas of the country and the wide range of fees charged? Some classes are free, some charge a nominal amount of £I a term and some charge as much as £40 a term.
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords, but the Government cannot dictate what fees should be charged by LEAs for adult education courses. Many offer concessionary rates for particular groups within the community.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is enough assistance being given to training in other communication skills such as finger spelling for the deaf-blind and lip-reading and lip-speaking for the deaf, both of which are supported by the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the employment service which runs the personal reader service for visually handicapped people in or entering employment is currently evaluating its other special schemes for people with disabilities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as an office bearer in organisations connected with deafness, I am fully in favour of what is proposed in this extra training? However, there is another side to it. Is he further aware that, with the spread of lip-reading and with television in this House, it is possible for remarks made personally between noble Lords which were not intended for public airing to be interpreted by people who are watching on television?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Good luck to them.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot provide a useful answer to that question.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, if I may speak as a member of the rather newly deaf, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that lip-reading is extraordinarily difficult and requires a good deal of help? I do not think that people who try to interpret with their hands would have much of a run.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can only suggest that the noble Lord should visit the Centre for Deaf People and Speech Therapy, which is a component part of the City Lit and specialises in teaching how to lip-read.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, how many speech therapists work in adult education, and what provision is there for improving the position?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand that there are now 55 trained hearing therapists in post. The total number required will depend on needs perceived by health authorities and on the way in which they organise their audiology services.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as it is the noble Viscount who has answered the Question, can we assume that lip-reading and the training of lip-reading teachers lie within the area of responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and not of the Department of Health or the Department of the Environment? If the DES is the responsible department, and as this is the kind of worthy but rather small activity that is easily forgotten and neglected, can we be reassured that his department will keep an eye on this matter? If the local authorities to which he has referred do not provide appropriate support, will the DES be willing in due course to intervene and do something about it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot give that assurance because speech therapy lies within the ambit of the local authorities and not within the ambit of one department or another. When researching this Question three departments were involved in trying to find the answers to it. The

1039
Government have said that they will be prepared to provide financial support as necessary to maintain an effective level of funding at the City Lit after 1st April 1990. I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that this assurance applies to the Centre for Deaf People and Speech Therapy as a component part of the City Lit.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that excellent answer. Will he nevertheless bear in mind—he worries me even more now as he says that there was some doubt about who is responsible—that someone ought to be responsible? Will he convey to several of his right honourable friends, the Secretaries of State concerned, that one of them ought to say that this matter is his pigeon and not let it be neglected?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I certainly take on board that point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as there is—and no one suggests that there is not—an acute shortage of speech therapists and as responsibility lies among three departments, which causes practical administrative problems, is there not a case for a measure of more direct and centralised control?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not prepared to give an opinion on that point but I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that lip-reading training and speech therapy are not the same things? There is some confusion on this point. Can he confirm that the assurance he gave about the future of the City Lit centre for deaf people, which is concerned because of the reorganisation of ILEA, extends to courses it provides for the training of lip-reading teachers as well as to the provision of lip-reading classes?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. In fact when the Bill was going through the House my noble friend Lady Hooper gave that assurance.

Bat Conservation and Research
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What provision they are making, bearing in mind their responsibility under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for conservation of bat species, for bat conservation work and research into bat population trends, in 1988–89 and 1989–90.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Nature Conservancy Council is involved in many aspects of bat conservation and monitoring work. In partnership with many local bat groups, it deals with over 3,000 inquiries a year. Its research programme for 1988–89 includes three projects related to bats with a total value of over £65,000. One of these is
1040
specifically concerned with bat populations. The research budget for 1989–90 has not yet been finalised but a number of bat conservation projects are under consideration.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging reply. However, is he aware of the anxiety arising from the fact that Dr. Stebbings, of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, who is a leading bat expert and who has been leading the research on bat populations, is to be made redundant? That does not seem to be in keeping with the general approach of the Government on such matters. Can the noble Earl assure the House that work done so far at great expense and over many years will not be wasted?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that the bat base is safe. As to what I believe she considers the more important aspect of her question regarding Dr. Stebbings, the Department of the Environment has not been involved in a decision on redundancies; that is a matter for the management of the Natural Environment Research Council. The department relies on the Nature Conservancy Council for advice on conservation matters. The NCC advises that it has expertise on bats within its own organisation, but that it will continue to consider Dr. Stebbings as a potential consultant for bat work whether as an employee of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, or indeed, as an independent consultant.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend has been informed by his advisers that some of the work carried out into bat populations by Dr. Stebbings, among others, indicates that since 1981—which marked the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act—the population of small bats in this country is considered to have declined from about 9 million to about 3 million? That is a decline of about two-thirds. Does my noble friend believe that that represents a true safeguarding in the sense of what he referred to as "the bat base"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is perhaps better informed than the Department of the Environment concerning the actual number of bats in existence. However, it is estimated that as many as 28,000 bats were saved as a result of guidance by the NCC in the two years following the introduction of the 1981 Act.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of a widespread advertising campaign in the national press over the past few months promoting a new plastic material which is sprayed on the underside of older roofs? Have the Government looked at the matter? If so, can they say whether the material contains anything which is injurious to these delightful little creatures?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Of course, it is not draughty areas that bats particularly like; it is safe and warm areas where the wood is not too old.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we have now moved from Question 2 to Question 3 and from deafness to blindness? Is he further aware that although hats cannot see very well, they have a remarkable ability to detect both obstacles ahead of them and their prey? Does he not consider that a study of their conduct might be most helpful to the Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, your Lordships will, I think, understand the point that my noble friend makes. From the point of view of scientific interest, the navigation of bats is indeed of predominant importance, especially as regards echo location. It is feasible that such studies could be of benefit to man. However, that is not a factor which is taken into account when determining the protection offered under the 1981 Act.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, this is a Question about the responsibility of government in protecting bats under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Is the Minister aware of the large number of cases brought over the past eight years against people who have deliberately destroyed bats? Is he further aware that nearly every one of those cases was lost? I have discovered the reason: it is that Section 9(4) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act says that you must prove an intention to destroy. All the people who wish to get rid of bats are quite well aware of that fact. They say to the magistrate, "I am terribly sorry, I did not realise it hurt them; I won't do it again". So cases do not succeed. Will the Minister take what action he can to change the wording from "intention" to "knowingly destroy" which would save many thousands of bats?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the point my noble friend makes. However, I am not aware of all the cases which have been brought against particular individuals over the past few years. Nevertheless, he is right that under Section 9 of, and the listing contained in Schedule 5 to, the Wildlife and Countryside Act, all bats are protected from:
"Killing, injuring, sale, and taking".
Further, under Section 10 of that Act, bats are given fuller protection than other protected wild animals because of their special requirements for roosting.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, is there any connection between a declining bat population and the fact that there are fewer belfries available these days for roosting?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is a difficult point upon which to make a sensible comment.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many voluntary bodies have carried out observation and research into the bat population, and what is happening to it? Is he further aware that with the cuts in the money allocated to the Nature Conservancy Council, such voluntary bodies may not be funded so well in the future? Can he please try to ensure that the voluntary bodies do not suffer? Should not the grants be fully restored to the NCC?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. In addition, the Nature Conservancy Council is involved in a partnership with the Vincent Wildlife Trust and the Flora and Fauna Preservation Society which support a full-time bat conservation officer and assistant.

Universities: Pay Negotiations
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to end the present situation in universities arising from the lack of progress in negotiations on academic pay.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are considering letters from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and the Association of University Teachers, requesting additional funding for pay increases for university staff.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply, although it does not throw very much light on the present situation. Is he aware that morale in the universities is at art all-time low and that a near crisis situation exists? Is he further aware that it is the Government, and only the Government, which can take steps to break the deadlock by providing the necessary resources to fund an adequate increase in academic salaries which would restore them to their 1979 level from which they have declined by 20 per cent. in relation to the average earnings index?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the 1987 settlement provided for 16.6 per cent. from 1st December 1986 and 7.4 per cent. from the 1st March 1988. Therefore lecturers' pay has increased by 24 per cent. since 1986. The employers made it clear that no further increase could be offered in 1988 without further additional funds. The Government indicated that no further funds would be made available for the purpose.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that Members of both Houses of Parliament who have been foremost in trying to protect the finance of the universities have been hopelessly frustrated by the actions of university teachers, under the aegis of the AUT, who have imposed a boycott on examinations thus threatening the careers of an entire generation of students? Is he further aware that in the view of the general public such conduct would suggest that their salaries should be docked rather than increased?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the anxiety felt by students and parents. The Government deplore such irresponsible and unprofessional action being taken while pay negotiations are continuing. It is a matter which must be resolved by universities as employers. It is the duty of university managements to take appropriate

1043
action to ensure that staff comply with their contracts.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that students, whose examinations have already been disrupted, do not suffer from those troubles which are in no way their fault?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have already said that it is a matter for the universities as employers.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that several of us, who are much involved in the subject, are most anxious to stem any difficulties arising in our universities at present? My noble friend has already said that we are waiting for a ministerial Statement. We can do no more than what we are doing. When does the Minister's right honourable friend intend to make a Statement?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have no idea. I shall certainly convey the noble Lord's remarks to my right honourable friend.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the great anxiety felt in universities at present about the situation which has been deteriorating for some considerable period? When was the letter received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals? Will he give the House an assurance that he will tell his right honourable friend that a reply should be sent quickly and that it cannot be said that it is a matter for the universities?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend when the letters were received. I shall certainly pass on his remarks to my right honourable friend.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell us, as an indication of the necessity or otherwise for more pay, how the brain drain is proceeding; how many university lecturers have emigrated during the past year?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the brain drain is a myth. Data relating to movements of non-clinical academic staff between universities in Great Britain and employment or study abroad have indicated a net inflow for each of the years 1983–1987. For 1987 there was a net inflow of eight; for 1986 a net inflow of 56; for 1985 a net inflow of 138; and for 1984 a net inflow of 180.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not just a question of numbers; it is a question of the level of people who are going? If we are losing a few of the most distinguished people from the universities that is serious. The balance is not redressed by getting a number of juniors from overseas.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point. I have no facts or figures to confirm or deny it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for your Lordships' indulgence as I still am a university teacher and I am a member of the Association of University Teachers. Nonetheless I hope that I may be permitted to ask a question. Is the Minister aware that if the salaries and working conditions of universities continue to deteriorate that will have a much greater long-term effect on students than what is happening at the moment? It is of no help whatever in the dispute to make inflammatory remarks about industrial action. Is not the question merely one of whether the Government will provide funds so that an appropriate settlement can be made? For those of us looking at the matter, it is impossible to understand the Minister's answer that it is up to the university authorities to solve the problem. They cannot solve it if there is no money.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a helpful answer. I have said what the Government are doing at the moment. I cannot anticipate what the Government will do.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that is my point. Are the Government doing anything? I could not understand from the Minister's answer whether it was merely a matter of waiting for a day or two and the Government would then be making a positive and constructive Statement or is it, as we believe, that the Government are happy to let the situation deteriorate until something catastrophic occurs?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government will be doing something as soon as possible.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the cohort of young people going through university at the moment consists of the same young people who have been innocently at the receiving end of industrial action throughout their secondary school career? The action that is being sponsored and supported by the Association of University Teachers is ill-advised and counter-productive.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his replies have been less encouraging than usual? Has not the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, to which the noble Lord referred, said that the current level of academic salaries is:
"endangering the ability to recruit, retain and motivate excellent staff"?
Is that not an extremely serious matter? Cannot the Minister be a little more specific and tell the House what action the Government are taking in response to the CVCP's initiative?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no, I cannot be more specific. I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I am unable to be more specific at the moment or to answer the questions any better than I have.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, why is the noble Viscount unable to be more specific?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, because my right honourable friend is considering the letters.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister talks about the employers. Does he accept that it is a government responsibility? Will he give a clear answer to the question: is it not a government responsibility? As my noble friend Lady Lockwood pointed out, the conditions of university staff have deteriorated by about 20 per cent. since 1979. Is it the Government's intention to restore the 1979 position? It is those conditions which have forced the AUT, much against its will, to take action against a stubborn government. Will he say that the Government accept their responsibility to provide the funding necessary to restore the conditions of university teachers?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no. I must repeat that this is a matter which must be resolved by the universities as employers.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that, although the universities are technically the employers, in the last resort the funding must come from government?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes. The increase from 1988–89 to 1989–90 in government funding to the universities should be enough to cover an increase in university costs of about 5 per cent. That comes in addition to substantial increases of 10 per cent. for 1987–88 and 8 per cent. for 1988–89, which are generous settlements.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. The number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to apply a formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords will keep their speeches within the 15 minutes' time limit of speeches recommended by the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House.

Business of the House: Debates 22nd March
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord McIntosh of Haringey and the Baroness Turner of Camden set down for 22nd March shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the
1046
Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Production Policy
3.8 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher rose to call attention to the case for a coherent policy for food production which will give assurance to consumers about quality and safety and allow them more say in determining food policy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first acknowledge that the present supply position of food is one which enables consumers to have an ample supply of food, a varied supply, a supply which is on the whole safe, and a supply which is innovative, both in respect of home production and imports. Having paid that tribute perhaps I may also say that I do not regard the present supply position as being in all respects perfect. It never could be, given the diversity of the operation.
In my opinion, many improvements could be made as regards the supply not least in the area of livestock marketing. Why then, noble Lords may ask, the Motion before the House this afternoon? It is basically because of the recent serious scares about eggs, soft cheese and cooked chilled foods, plus the alarming statistics now before us regarding the increase in cases of food poisoning. In addition, there is also the undoubted changing scene with regard to food supply, the revised common agricultural policy structures, a demand by consumers for organic produce, which is in part due to previous endeavours flowing from the common agricultural policy, the development of biotechnological activity in agriculture, already significant and capable of even greater significance given the opportunity; the dominance of the home market as regards the manufacture of foodstuffs by a mere seven companies; and the dominance of the retail market by five major retailers who, it is estimated, have 50 per cent. of the market in their hands. The consumers are also concerned as to whether or not a further increase in imports which may flow from the completion of the internal market in 1992 will increase concern about food safety, on the assumption that the inspection of foodstuffs is in some way made easier at that time in order to expedite the completion of the market.
I think too, in consideration of a Motion of this kind, we need to apprise ourselves of the present responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health for food safety. My best advice is that composition and quality are the responsibility of the Department of Health; microbiology and food hygiene are with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Food-borne illness of animal origin—a very important subject at the present time—is MAFF's responsibility. MAFF of course is the sponsor Ministry for food producers, processors, retailers and it also looks after consumer interests in food. One needs to ask oneself, given that spread of

1047
responsibility, whether the consumer as such is directly involved in the affairs of the Ministry of Agriculture in the same way as are the other interests for which MAFF acts as direct sponsor.
Having detailed the area of responsibility, we ask ourselves, "What about the relationships between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health?" I have personal experience of this area and speak from the heart. In my estimate the relationships between these two significant departments of state are good when the weather is fair, but much less than good when the weather is stormy, this fortunately on a few occasions only.
That situation stems in part from the different assessments they make of the degrees of risk associated with stormy weather. The medical view predominates as regards the Department of Health; other considerations—including commercial aspects—influence MAFF's approach to problems. They seldom make joint public statements during periods when advice to consumers is vitally necessary. As a consequence of that, the absence of a joint statement results in confusion in the minds of consumers. We have had particular instances of that in recent days as regards eggs and soft cheese. The inability to agree on a joint attitude to problems has on occasion even led Ministers astray. I think it is important that we should acknowledge that fact, having regard to events in the recent past.
Today in another place there was published the First Report of the Agriculture Committee on Salmonella in Eggs, available at high noon and read avidly by me, in the hope of finding something in it that might be useful to mention in your Lordships' debate this afternoon. I think that the report is well balanced. Inevitably it contains criticisms of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on various counts. But mainly it criticises delays on the part of that Ministry in dealing with the situation as regards salmonella in eggs. It also in part criticises Ministers at the Department of Health. I do not wish to develop the report because it is not our property, and in any case those who are criticised by it will no doubt in time reply to it. Nevertheless, it emphasises the point which needs to be made at the very outset of the debate this afternoon, that during stormy weather these two Ministries must learn to act together. The first request I have to make of the Minister is: can she give us an assurance that in the future that will be done?
Hygiene is a vital aspect of food safety, acknowledged as such by most people. Hygiene extends here not merely to the home but to shops, to caterers, to processors and indeed to farms themselves. We on this dide of the House are grateful for the joint decision by MAFF and the Department of Health announced last week to establish a committee on microbiological safety of food and such matters as the committee considers necessary. We are especially grateful for the fact that, in making the announcement, the Minister was able to say in another place that consumers and environmental health officers would have representation on that committee. This question is of such urgency, and yet
1048
the nature of the inquiry so great that one wonders whether consideration will be given as a matter of urgency to the issuing by the committee of an interim report, if this should be considered necessary.
There is an EC dimension to all this. The Minister's right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture referred on 20th January last to what he described as five key umbrella directives at different stages of preparation for 1992. Your Lordships' Select Committee has reported on certain of these, taking particular note in the reports of consumer views and enforcement problems; for example, the directive on the official inspection of foodstuffs. Perhaps in this connection I may ask whether I am right in assuming that a draft framework directive not already before us is expected soon on food hygiene, based on a submission to the Commission of the Community by the consumer co-operative movement in Britain. Does the Minister of Agriculture favour a Commission directive on food hygiene? Will account be taken of pending Community action as regards food hygiene in current United Kingdom activity on the matter, particularly as regards the publicity campaign on hygiene which has already been announced?
The enforcement of food safety law is of great importance in this whole area. Indeed, one might say that it is the key factor even now and will certainly be greater in the future. Environmental health officers have an essential part to play in protecting consumers at the manufacturing and retail food stages of the chain. How well resourced are environmental health officers who are employed by local authorities? Are their overall responsibilities as environmental health officers not too divided? How effective is the liaison between them and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health? Are training schemes for environmental health officers adequate and available?
Here I refer the House to a letter which appeared in The Times newspaper on 26th January 1989 from Mr. A. Archer, a past president of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. The letter said:
"There is a nationwide shortage of environmental health officers, the result of the short-sighted policy in recent years of closing down university courses offering the appropriate degree qualification. The net result is that few local authorities are able to implement even the existing legislation".
Can this be regarded as safe and satisfactory for consumers? Can a service so undermanned cope with the added responsibilities which a new food Act, five umbrella directives and a single internal market for food for 12 member states will bring in 1992?
It is acknowledged that food research has a major role to play in safety, the evaluation of new processes and innovations as regards food. Given that acceptance, we must recognise that consumers are affected by MAFF's proposal to reduce spending on what is described as "near market" agricultural research, particularly those areas in which problems have recently flared. What are the criteria for defining "near market"? Having decided, how is it proposed to transfer such research to others? For example, will trade associations be asked to take over and finance such research for the collective good of their members? If not, are individual firms to be

1049
approached, and by whom? If it is to be single companies, will not those companies insist on projects giving them commercial advantage before they are prepared to fund them?
Can the Government —really be satisfied with this position? The Agricultural and Food Research Council is certainly consulted in all this, but decisions to close research projects are MAFF's alone. Can consumers not be assured of a stay of execution, where food safety is a constituent part of any research project and indeed a reconsideration of present policy here?
If the object of this policy is a reduction in expenditure by the Ministry, and if consumers were asked how that might be avoided, I think that, if they had a voice, they might say to the Government that savings could be effected. They would give as an example of where savings might be effected the recent decision to write off intervention stocks of food by the Community. Those stocks are so vast that the Community's budget can stand the write-off only if it is spread over four years. If that alone is not sufficient to continue funding of vital research, fraud under the common agricultural policy, if checked, would go a long way towards solving the Ministry's problems in these areas.
As regards the influence of the consumer, the Ministry of Agriculture says that it has an open door. We accept that, but we believe that consumers need a right of input into the Ministry. The National Consumer Council study entitled Food Policy and the Consumer, which was published in June 1988, acknowledged the effort made by the official Opposition in both Houses of Parliament during the passage of the Agriculture Act 1986 to persuade the Government to appoint a consumers' food committee as a replacement committee for the consumers' committee for Great Britain which was established under the agricultural marketing Acts. That body asked to be replaced because of the limitations imposed on marketing boards by the European Community.
That body's suggestion was embodied by the Opposition in amendments tabled during the passage of the legislation. We sought a replacement committee with a wider remit; that is to say, we sought a remit to take over existing marketing Act duties, but in addition a remit to be entitled to give views to agricultural ministers, either on request or on its own initiative. The amendment, in this House at least, attracted all-party support. The Minister described the amendment as:
"interesting and casting new light on the Bill".
The Minister accepted that one F in MAFF stood for food. He said consultation already took place, for example, with consumer organisations on annual price reviews under the common agricultural policy. But he stated that MAFF relied mostly on the work of the Food Advisory Committee for guidance on consumer affairs. The terms of reference of the Food Advisory Committee concern matters referred to it by Ministers relating to composition, labelling and advertising of food, as well as additives, contaminants and other substances which are or may be present in food. The committee is a worthy body
1050
whose members have a scientific background in keeping with the terms of reference. Since 1988 the agendas of the Food Advisory Committee's meetings have been published in advance and comments invited on them from certain organisations.
We are grateful for this opening up of the work of the Food Advisory Committee. But a perusal of its agendas shows the technical natures of the matters referred to it by Ministers, which form the basis of advice that the committee is able to give Ministers. There is still a need for a consumer food committee as advocated by us in 1986 and endorsed by the National Consumer Council. That need is even greater in the light of very recent events. MAFF's attitude to consumers is best described as paternal. We ask whether paternity is adequate under modern conditions, as I have briefly tried to describe them. Does a paternal attitude do justice to consumers generally? In our view it does not.
What legislative opportunities exist now for a change of attitude by the Ministry of Agriculture, assuming that it is willing to change its attitude? After wide consultation a new food law is in immediate prospect to replace the consolidation measure in the 1984 Act, much of which relates to conditions of the past. Therefore, that measure bears no relationship to the problems which now confront us. Will the new law take account of recent food problems? If it does, it can be said without qualification that the Opposition will support and expedite any Bill that would bring effect to such changes.
However, at the same time I am bound to give notice to the Ministry that we will insist again this time round on the establishment of a consumers' food committee along the lines advocated by us in 1986, or an equivalent organisation. if a new food Bill appears in the next Session of Parliament or even in this Session of Parliament, that request should be seriously considered. The Ministry should set up a consumers' food committee on its own initiative rather than do so as a result of changes made to the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House.
We see in all this a challenge for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be seen as a Ministry where consumer interests dominate. Any failure by the Ministry to meet this challenge will produce changes which are not necessarily in the best long-term interests of consumers. We believe that the Motion before your Lordships' House gives this House an opportunity to discuss this matter today. On that basis it is with much pleasure that I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, in opening this debate, has at least confirmed to all of us the importance which we all attach to the continuation of the Ministry of Agriculture. He may have put down a challenge about its future, but everything he has said today has emphasised the point that the Ministry of Agriculture is the most important Ministry in this field. However, the Ministry of Agriculture may have found that the Department of Health has been a somewhat fair

1051
weather friend over the past three months. We are having this debate to discuss food production, quality and safety. We are having it at a time when it is an ominous fact that the global production of cereals has declined in the past two years for the first time since 1945.
The world's buffer stocks of cereals have never been lower. In Europe the beef and butter mountains have gone. Cereal production is being cut back, and even the wine lake has dried up. The world is on the brink of experiencing for the first time all the signs of a climatic change which will have a major effect on food production throughout the civilised world. There is no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of many of us on this side of the House, of the importance to England and Wales of maintaining the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland with overall responsibility for food production from the time a seed is sown to consumption, and in the field of animal welfare from the time an animal is conceived to sale and slaughter.
In the early part of this year, in January, many of us were concerned at the comments in the farming press and the trade press as a whole about the future of the Ministry of Agriculture. It was even suggested that we might see some of the functions moved to the Department of the Environment and put under a Minister of State for rural affairs in the Department of the Environment, and that agricultural production and food might be moved to the Department of Trade and Industry.
I hope that during this year when we celebrate food and farming, 100 years of the Ministry of Agriculture and 150 years of the Royal Agricultural Society, my noble friend will impress on her right honourable friend that this is the moment to say categorically that we on this side of the House support the continuation of the present Ministry of Agriculture with all its functions and powers. After all, we face a situation at the moment when there is a certain feeling in the countryside that much of the representation in another place from the country constituencies is not as rural-based as it used to be in the old days. A firm assurance about the future of the Ministry of Agriculture would do an awful lot to allay the fears that are now being expressed.
Various political central offices seem to be very attached to endless statistics which do not prove very much. They are very attached to saying that the number of people in the English constituencies who earn their living either directly or indirectly from agriculture is a minute proportion of any constituency's makeup. But what these statistics do not show is that the leadership, the balanced views and the commonsense of any English constituency come from the agricultural community—the people who lead their lives close to nature and who really understand what things are about. Over the past six weeks or so we have suffered from a lot of attention from the media on the role of the Ministry of Agriculture and the need to take action to deal with the so-called hazards in food production.
I think it significant that even the Consumers' Association, in Which and in its evidence to the Select
1052
Committee on Agriculture in another place, was very positive in its view that food hygiene should remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and that UK standards of food hygiene should be enforced throughout Europe. There is a particular problem in relation to food imported into this country from Italy and Greece, for example, where food hygiene standards leave a lot to be desired.
I believe that it is important that everyone should be given adequate information about the food they buy and about foods imported into this country. There may well be a case for the Ministry of Agriculture having the kind of additional powers in relation to European imports which the United States' Food and Drug Administration has.
There is a great demand at present for safeguards and for higher standards of food production. That is reflected in an increased demand for the services of the veterinary profession. Unless steps are taken in Great Britain that demand will be satisfied by foreign students from Europe, particularly after 1992 when they will have the freedom to practise here. It is of great concern that countries such as Spain and Portugal, which have a very low standard of animal husbandry and whose veterinary standards are not high are at present expanding the veterinary schools at their universities in order to take advantage of the gap that they see appearing in this country.
In relation to food hygiene and veterinary education we are faced with the Riley report to the University Grants Committee. That is an out-of-date report based on a false premise. It was commissioned some time ago when the University Grants Committee was trying to find a way of reducing expenditure and thought that the six veterinary schools were an easy target. The committee did not take into account the enormous demand from the public for proper veterinary inspection of all our food and animal products.
I hope that as a result of this debate today my noble friend will make firm representations to the Department of Education and Science that the University Grants Committee should be urged to reject the recommendations of the Riley report for the closure of the Glasgow veterinary school and, even worse, the suggested closure of the Cambridge veterinary school. I suspect that, since she comes from that part of the world, that is written on her heart like Calais.
It is a terrible fact that in the whole of 1988 no fewer than 295 graduates were brought into this country to practise food and veterinary inspection. In the first two months of this year no fewer than 91 foreigners were brought into this country to do a job which Englishmen—and Scotsmen—could do. There is a genuine case for expanding veterinary education in this country, and not cutting it back, in order to meet the demand of the people of this country for proper inspection of their foodstuffs.
I must declare an interest. I am chairman of the Cambridge Veterinary Trust. Owing to the magnificent efforts of my predecessor, Sir John Astor, we have raised voluntary contributions in excess of £1 million for a new cancer treatment unit for small mammals. The first sod has been turned in

1053
the ground. However, for the time being we have had to stop work on the project and on the new building.
It is no good inspecting food and controlling pesticides, fertilisers and the amount of nitrogen that we put onto the countryside unless we give greater backing to the campaign which the Ministry of Agriculture started in 1980. I thought that that was a most important campaign. I think that it was called "Look at the Label".
Many noble Lords have had the opportunity of opening a new school. It is a great privilege to do so. What usually happens is that the headmaster says: "you must come and see our new domestic science unit". He takes one up to the kind of kitchen which none of us could afford in our own homes. He says that three girls spend a week in the kitchen and have to do the housekeeping for a family for the whole week. I suspect that too much of such courses is oriented towards budgeting and not enough towards reading labels and understanding what to buy. Thanks to the efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture, today every label gives a description of the food that one buys. It describes the ingredients; it tells one how long it will keep and it has information on batches so that defective food can be traced.
There is also the special problem of additives in imported foods. In Great Britain the Ministry of Agriculture approves only those additives in imported foods which are necessary and safe. I believe that we should give individuals complete freedom of choice in what they buy, but that should be an informed choice with people having the ability to make up their own minds.
We are now into the third month of 1989. which, as I have said, is the year of food and farming. Of course there are doubts and problems affecting the agriculture industry. Agri-business will survive: the milk producers are tucked under a continental quilt of quotas and live in a nice little world of their own. Many small and medium sized farms are worried about their future. One thing that can be said about food and farming in 1989 is that we can celebrate the fact that here in England we have the best and most wholesome food in the world.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, at the outset I should like to underline and endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, about our present dependence on the veterinary profession, the very real anxieties about recruitment to that profession and the position of the veterinary schools. I too hope that the noble Lord will receive sympathetic and reassuring responses to those points from the noble Baroness when she replies to the debate.
We are debating an immensely important subject. We are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for giving us this opportunity to debate it. However, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if, as a doctor, I say that in present circumstances—and we all know what those circumstances are and hear enough about them at the moment—a coherent policy of food preparation and consumption is every bit as important as a coherent policy for food production.
1054
If noble Lords heeded all the advice that they had received over the years from doctors on what not to eat one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that the only way to stay absolutely healthy would be to starve to death. I am sure that noble Lords will remember the advice that carbohydrates make you fat, fats give you coronary thrombosis, and so on, and so on. However, the position has changed very greatly in recent years. They have certainly changed since I first became a doctor. In those days, in giving advice about food to patients we used to talk glibly about plenty of dairy products. Nowadays in medical terms that would be heresy. I have medical colleagues in your Lordships' House who genuinely believe that every bottle of milk should carry a government health warning.
I do not entirely share those views about milk. I believe that milk is a valuable source of nutrition. I would go further: I favour the restoration of free school milk to children attending primary school in this country. I believe that milk is a valuable source of nutrition for many children who in some parts of the country, and in urban areas in particular, are dangerously malnourished. I think that we could do so, bearing in mind the EC subsidy, at very little cost. I shall leave the subject of milk for the moment, but later I shall return to the narrower subject of the pasteurisation of milk.
It is very many years since Lewis Carroll put the words:
"I see what I eat",
into the mouth of the Mad Hatter, but nowadays most of us can see what we eat, although few, if any, of us know what we eat. Food additives of one kind or another are here to stay, whatever the green brigade may happen to say. With an ever-growing world population, some additives are essential to prolong the storage life of food. Without them, millions of people would be condemned to starvation. Other additives are essential in order to restore nutrients when they have been removed or destroyed by modern food manufacturing processes.
However, the situation regarding accidental additives—those that I was talking about before I referred to deliberate additives and which include hormones, antibiotics, viruses and bacteria that sometimes find their way into our food—is very different. As the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said, we are deeply dependent in this matter on the veterinary profession. I too am rather alarmed by what I am told by the British Veterinary Association and others about the threatened closure of certain veterinary schools and the possibility of inadequate recruitment to a profession which, frankly, becomes more and more important to our nation every day.
The pace of modern life has changed greatly. Eating habits have changed so totally that the old homely advice that we used to give as doctors—we recommended a good mixed diet with plenty of fresh food, including vegetables and dairy products and, provided that there was a wide enough variety of food, plenty of uncooked and raw food—no longer has any meaning. In urban areas, there are literally millions of homes in which no real cooking takes

1055
place at all and families appear to subsist exclusively on bought-in, pre-cooked foods; therein lie some of the dangers.
As we all know, viruses and bacteria enter food at various critical temperatures and they do so both as the temperature rises and as it falls again. We also know that reheating pre-cooked food destroys pathogens only if the reheating process is carried up to temperatures which amount virtually to recooking. I have no doubt that microwave cookers are a great convenience to busy housewives, but I suspect that they may also be a boon to certain organisms which, as a result, escape the temperatures that would lead to their destruction. I am suspicious of microwaves because I do not fully understand them. I am always suspicious of things that I do not fully understand. I am suspicious of Dr. Owen, for example—but that is a different subject.
I believe that the time has come for clear advice to be given to housewives and the public as a whole. We know, and the noble Baroness knows, that there is advice on every packet of cigarettes—advice that is heeded by everyone who has given up smoking and is largely ignored by those who have not. But we also know that we have now reached a state of public opinion in which the public would be genuinely receptive to sensible advice. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, suggested that that advice should be given by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not mind which government department gives it, provided that it is given with one voice and that all the Ministers say the same thing. That has not always happened recently. Even the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Donald Acheson, has not always been absolutely unambiguous in his recent pronouncements about salmonella, listeria and other such matters.
I believe that the advice given to housewives when they shop is not now sufficient. A friend of mine, who recently bought some chilled food in a reputable store which provides most excellent food, asked, "How soon should I eat it?" and was told to eat it by the sell-by date. The sell-by date has nothing to do with the matter. We need an eat-by date so that we know how long we can store that food in our refrigerators and deep freezers. That advice is not given clearly and unequivocally to shoppers, and it should be if we are to avoid a repetition of the epidemics and infections that we have had in the past.
In that connection, perhaps I may say that it is time we dropped the term "food poisoning" as we are not talking about poisoning at all; we are talking about the consequences of eating infected food. In the old days, we thought that every case of sickness and diarrhoea was caused by food poisoning. We used to talk about ptomaine poisoning and things of that kind. We now recognise that almost all those cases were not poisoning in the true sense of the word; they were in fact caused by infected food.
It is the business of farmers, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and various other people to make sure that infections of one kind or another which later come into our food do not enter animals at various stages in their growth, development and feeding. That is one side of the
1056
matter, but it is inevitable that certain pathogens will find their way into food. It is essential in the modern situation that clear, coherent and unequivocal advice is given to people when they buy food about how they should eat and keep it and in what way they should use their various pieces of equipment.
There is plenty of advice to be found. The Institute of Food Science and Technology produced a most excellent publication. I am absolutely certain that shoppers up and down the country will not read it all. If they did, it would be valuable to them, as would some of the advice given by the Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Council. We need a new look at the kind of labelling that is put on those foods that have now become almost the main source of nutrition for the average person in our society. I shall not argue about which government department should do that. I simply say that it should be done. If it is not done, we shall continue to have repetitions of recent events which have destroyed confidence in all sorts of foodstuffs.
I regard eggs as a highly valuable source of nutrition, quite apart from the fact that I like them, and I should like people to be able to continue to eat such things. They can do so with safety, provided that the correct advice is given to the shopper—not misleading and contradictory advice or advice that results in panic and people shunning food that is quite valuable to them.
I have spoken largely as a doctor. I must now return briefly to the other subject that I said I would mention; that is the question of the pasteurisation of milk. I am old enough to remember the days when members of my profession resisted the pasteurisation of milk and talked about the importance of preserving raw milk and its nutritional qualities; but times have changed. I am also old enough to remember the days during the war when American servicemen in Britain went down like ninepins with bovine tuberculosis which they contracted from drinking raw milk in Britain. They had no inbuilt immunity to that particular bacillus and, as I said, they went down like ninepins. At one stage during the war, it became a military offence for American servicemen in Britain to drink raw, untreated milk.
It is my recollection—I believe that I am right—that it is now more than three years since the use of non-pasteurised milk was banned in Scotland. I know that the argument against banning non-pasteurised milk is usually that we must think about the dairy farmers and their livelihood. When I look at Scottish farmers—and one in particular who I believe will speak later in this debate—it seems to me that Scottish farmers starve every bit as comfortably as their English counterparts. It is therefore perhaps time that we followed the example that has been set with regard to Scotland.
If we do that, I am quite sure that there are other things that we shall have to do too. The EC will have to put its various houses in order because, clearly, there are dangers in the importation of foods that have been made with raw, unpasteurised milk. That matter needs to be considered now and I should like to hear whether the Government propose to take any particular action on that front. I await with great

1057
interest the answers to be given by the noble Baroness when she replies and I am quite sure that they will be as clear and unambiguous on this occasion as they always have been when she has answered for other departments.
3.50 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as a cordon bleu cook who still does quite a lot of cooking at home, although I am not above using convenience foods when I consider it necessary, I found the advice on cooking eggs doled out by Sir Donald Acheson last December pretty grim reading. From some of the conflicting and astonishing advice floating about at that time and since on how to cook various dishes, it was quite clear that the givers of that advice could not even boil an egg.
Necessary as it may have been, the advice which was so blandly given to vulnerable people such as the elderly, the sick, babies, toddlers and pregnant women that they should eat only eggs cooked until the yolk and the white were solid was particularly unwelcome. I should have expected the Ministry of Health at least to know that hard boiled eggs are extremely indigestible and especially so for those categories of consumers. Moreover, for many frail, elderly people and invalids with delicate digestions, lightly cooked eggs are the only protein that they are able to digest, as are a wide variety of dishes which can only be made with raw or partly cooked eggs; namely, custards, mousses, souffles and omelettes.
From what I think was the draft report of the joint MAFF-DOH and BEIC working group—the one placed in the Library last week—I was very glad to read on the last page before the appendices under the heading "Salmonella in Eggs" that:
"It is unrealistic to expect the public at large to (a) stop consuming raw eggs, (b) desist from consuming the large range of dishes containing eggs which receive little or no heat treatment, (c) always follow the stringent cooking procedures recommended to destroy salmonellae in eggs. Neither is it in the long-term best interests of the industry to pursue these routes. It is therefore essential that a long-term solution to the problem is sought and implemented".
I think that it might also be in the long-term interests of the Government, since the public in general have a habit of blaming the government of the day for every misfortune which befalls, including flood, drought and tempest.
I wonder whether in her winding-up speech the Minister would care to comment on three or four points that I should like to make. I understand from the first report of the Agricultural Committee which has been published today that the Government are planning an education campaign on hygiene in the home with specific advice about cooking eggs. Will they take advice on this matter from properly trained cooks? If people are told that they should make mayonnaise sauce with hard boiled egg yolks, as I have heard suggested, such advice will be scorned by any cook worthy of the name. It is perfectly possible to make an edible sauce with hard-boiled egg yolks but it would not be mayonnaise, and that should be made clear.
We are told that pasteurised egg yolk and egg white will shortly be available to the general public in the
1058
shops, as it is already available to the catering industry. Perhaps I may just pause for a moment to say that I know that the Refreshment Department in this House use pasteurised egg in cooking and has done so for some time. I for one have complete confidence in the safety of what I eat here. Can the Minister give any indication of how soon pasteurised egg will be available to the general public?
Will it be possible for her ministry to put pressure on the manufacturers to package that product in multiples of two? One alone might be ideal but I understand that that would be totally impracticable. However, couples and single people often require only one or two egg yolks or whites at a time and will not be able to afford to purchase larger quantities and throw away what they do not require—and presumably this egg will be more expensive than shell eggs.
Can the Minister also comment on the possible use of the technique called "competitive exclusion", whereby chicks are dosed with a compound of natural bacteria cultured from organisms which protects them from salmonella infection, provided that it is administered on a continuous basis throughout their lives? I understand that scientists at the Institute of Food Research in Bristol tested this procedure successfully on 250,000 birds in breeding flocks but that government funding stopped before it had been tested on laying flocks. Will the Government make available the necessary funding to enable this method to be tested as soon as possible on laying flocks and, if it is successful, will they make available such financial support as may be necessary to enable the manufacturers of this cocktail of benevolent bacteria to expand production quickly so that all laying flocks in this country can be treated?
Finally, I should like to pick up a point made by both the noble Lords, Lord Kimball and Lord Winstanley. I add my voice to theirs in a plea to the Government not to close the Glasgow Veterinary School. Apart from anything else it would be a very unpopular move in Scotland. I plead with the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who I see is in his place, to do his best to persuade his colleagues not to take that action.
3.56 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gallacher on moving this Motion and in particular on the way in which he put the Government on the spot. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to satisfy his arguments when the time comes. I should also like to apologise to noble Lords and to the Minister who will reply to the Motion. I have a long-standing engagement tonight which I cannot break and this means that I shall not be able to hear the end of the debate. I shall not be attending a dinner or anything of that kind. I have an important engagement with an official of the Rural Development Commission of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, on the problems of semi-urban villages. I am sorry that I shall not be able to stay for the end of the debate.
This is a necessary debate. One has hardly been able to open a paper in the past few months without

1059
reading of some scare. The media are to be deprecated for the way in which they have treated this situation. I was very surprised when only last week the Guardian published an article on aflatoxin in maize and linked it to the fact that consuming a lot of cornflakes may lead to cancer. I think that that went beyond the fair reporting of any situation.
I cannot match the culinary lecture of my noble friend Lady Saltoun although I can produce a fairly good meal if pushed. However, I should like to deal with the problem from the point of view of a producer who started production just over 62 years ago. In the summer of 1927 we started a poultry unit. I have chosen poultry with which to open my remarks because of the furore over eggs and chickens. Our unit consisted of four large colony houses placed in the middle of pen and pasture fields. Each of them held about 250 to 300 laying hens which had free access to the pasture. We did not have to shut them in at night—there are no foxes in the middle of Aberdeenshire, which is a good thing.
We bought and reared day-old chicks to begin with; later we incubated our own. This work employed a man full time with part-time help from his wife, so there was high labour content in handling hens in that way. Their main diet—not the diet of the man and his wife but that of the chickens—consisted of oats grown on the farm and purchased laying meals. We were quite happy if we obtained in the region of 200 eggs per bird. In fact we seldom reached that target. Twenty years later, just after the war, I put in a battery laying unit of about 4,000 birds. I am using "I" instead of "we" at this point because I started farming with my father for three years—that is the "we"—but I was on my own when I began this project. We bought the birds at point of lay and they were fed a very intensive laying meal only. It was part-time work for someone. We were not very happy unless we were getting nearly 300 eggs per bird.
A few years later I tried feeding cockerels up to capon weight.Then I met the late Sir Geoffrey Sykes. He said, "Good gracious! What a waste of food! Put in a broiler unit", so I did. Five thousand birds were crowded together and fed a very intensive and highly medicated food. The turnover was very quick and profits of up to one shilling per bird could be made.
Then came the famous broiler boom. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, knows about it, living as she has in the area of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire where a number of broiler houses grew up very quickly at that time. This created a decrease in the profits. It came down to a few pence per bird. One needed about 50,000 birds to have anything like a viable unit. I therefore did not wish to cover the farm with asbestos-roofed buildings and I gave up broiler keeping at that time.
However, I must mention the development that there has been in broiler keeping and in the battery keeping of hens for laying. It has now become mechanised to a degree that would have been unbelievable 20 years ago when I first put in a battery. The feeding, collecting of eggs and cleaning is automatic; and the labour factor is very low indeed.
1060
I have painted this picture of the egg situation but it produced very cheap eggs and chickens. At one time a chicken was a luxury to a working man in this country. Now it is available to everyone.
I could paint this same picture of feeding cattle, milk cows, sheep and pigs. When one looks at the fat cattle situation. Dr. Preston of the Rowett Institute produced a feed to intensify feeding of store cattle and calves up to a weight of 7.5 to 8 cwt. inside a year. Who in Scotland would ever envisage the number of inside sheds that there are for lambing sheep? That is a tremendous development. Many people are now feeding lambs inside.
When I started dairying at the beginning of the war I asked the local sanitary inspector whether I could put in cow yards and not tie them up by the neck. He flatly refused and insisted that the cows were tied by the neck in old-fashioned byres. One hardly sees a cow shed anywhere. All the cows are loose and of course the production of milk is very high from them.
The same applies to pigs. When I consider my original pig unit in Scotland, I compare what my son has done with sows in stalls, with the development of taking pigs away at less than three weeks, and getting the sow to give two and a half litters a year instead of one.
The situation is the same with regard to crops. I remember when we thought that we were doing tremendously well in Aberdeenshire if we could grow 30 cwt. of oats to the acre. Now we are not content unless we get three tonnes. On barley it is the same. With wheat, farmers are struggling to achieve over four and up to five tonnes. The same position applies to potatoes. Ten tonnes was a reasonable crop at one time. Now they are looking for 20 tonnes and in some cases achieving it. That story applies to other root crops also.
That is the picture that I am trying to paint of what has happened in the last 50-odd years. All this has happened because farmers have been so well served by research and development bodies. I think of Rothamsted which dealt with crops and soils and the Macaulay institute in Aberdeen, on soil research, the Rowett institute for animal nutrition, and the Plant Breeding Institute in Cambridge, the NIAE for mechanisation at Silsoe, and many more. Our colleges and advisory services are helping us to use this knowledge to increase production. We have also been helped by many commercial firms which have research bodies of their own, and have the results of that research.
The result has been that we are today producing 100 per cent. plus of our temperate foods—the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, mentioned this—instead of about 33 per cent. which we were producing in the 1930s. The food is cheaper, although I am not sure that the word "cheaper" is correct. However, let me give you some examples that I have worked out myself. In the late 1920s and early 1930s a working man earning about £2.10s. a week for a 50-hour week had to work 15 minutes to buy a pint of milk. Today a working man earning £160 to £170 a week has to work only four minutes to buy a pint of milk. The same applies to a loaf of bread. In the 1930s he had to work 30 minutes to buy a loaf of bread; today he

1061
has to work eight and a half minutes. He had to work an hour in the 1930s to buy eggs at a shilling a dozen. Today 15 minutes' work buys a dozen eggs. The only beef that a working man bought in my part of the country in Aberdeenshire was a brisket of boiling beef. He had to work an hour and a half to buy a pound of that, whereas today 25 minutes' work will buy that beef.
These are figures that should be noted because there is so much talk about dear food, and that if we could only stop subsidising farmers, get out of the CAP, and goodness knows what, food would then be cheaper. I doubt that very much indeed because I have spoken of the situation in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Any amount of so-called "cheap" food was coming into the country, and it belies the fact that food is cheap today when considering how long a man has to work to buy it. I feel that I should emphasise that as much as I can.
There is now the question of whether this food is as good as it used to be. I do not know what my noble kinsman will say today but I think that he may try to persuade us that it is not so good and that organic food is what we should be aiming for. All I can say is this: I do not know whether we would notice the difference, but we would be very short of food if we went back to the system that produced organic food in the 1930s.
To achieve this massive increase the inputs are also massive. What we do is very much open to criticism. We pour on fertilisers, in particular nitrogen, to the detriment of our water supplies. One needs to balance the cost of purifying our water supplies against the loss that there would be in food production by reducing nitrogen to the extent needed. It is a fine point but it needs to be considered.
We spray on all kinds of pesticides. Are the residues dangerous to health? I do not know. We inject our cattle with growth promoting hormones and our cows with synthetic proteins which can increase milk yields by up to 30 per cent. Are there residues from these? Again, I do not know.
I want to make this point clear. There are roughly 240,000 individual farmers in our country today. We must be guided. We cannot understand. We can only be guided by the research people and advisers, by the scientists, the medical research people, the vets and so on. It is a government duty to see that all this is provided. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Kimball, and the noble Lady about the veterinary profession and the closing down of veterinary schools in Glasgow and Cambridge. This help must be provided by the Government, not only to protect the consumer but to protect the producer as well and, if necessary, they must legislate.
I do not propose to go into the cuts and closures in research that the Government are carrying out. I believe that my noble friend Lord Carter will deal with that point. But the projected closure of the Bristol meat research laboratory and any cutting down of Rothamsted's funds—where there is so much research being done into nitrogen and water problems—would show a lack of responsibility in the matter.
1062
I do not believe that outbreaks of salmonella and so on have anything to do with intensive production. That has been proved. It has to do with hygiene and it is the job of health inspectors to see that hygiene is high on farms, particularly where products such eggs and milk go more or less directly to the consumer; otherwise it is the job of packaging and handling concerns which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned. I hope that the Government appreciate the whole problem of food and take appropriate action.
4.12 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I wish to look at a different aspect of quality and safety in food production from that which is in the spotlight, not because I am unconcerned about the incidence of food poisoning, if that is the right term; far from it. The last time I suffered from it was an occasion I shall not forget and I profoundly hope it will never happen again. The effects are horrible but in the vast majority of cases they are short term. You know you have been hit. There is a violent reaction and the human body has its mechanisms for getting rid of the problem.
By contrast there are many elements in our modern diet which pose a long-term threat to health and whose effects are insidious. Most of us are aware of the issues of fat, sugar, salt and fibre, even if the lack of clarity in official advice makes them harder to discern than perhaps need be the case. But what of the whole business of the intensive processing of food, with thousands of man-made chemicals, which would make our late 20th century diet quite unrecognisable to all our predecessors on this planet? A document from the Institute of Food Science and Technology which I received through the post yesterday speaks carefully of "substances intentionally incorporated in foods". I shall call them "additives" for short.
primarily for the benefit of the consumer? Are they rigorously controlled and legislated for and therefore safe? These are the arguments from the side of the food manufacturers, supported by government. I believe that a number of points need to be made.
First, the rigorous testing is something of an illusion. Only a proportion of the huge numbers of chemicals can possibly be evaluated properly. Cost, time and manpower see to that. They are tested singly in isolation, which is not how we consume them. The vast cocktail of interactions in real life can never be replicated in the laboratory. Most of the testing is on relatively small numbers of animals, and healthy animals at that. Scientists of all shades of opinion agree that extrapolation to humans is a doubtful business, especially as, in the words of one toxicologist:
"We have to consider a population of millions, including the old, young, sick and those on the threshold of adaptation, for whom a normally negligible stimulus might lead to breakdown of some physiological system".
Sometimes the "rigorous testing" is no more than a rigorous search of the literature involving reliance on old studies conducted by methods which are out of date or even, in one case of far-reaching importance, fraudulent.

1063
The dangers from additives, like the dangers from environmental pollutants, are mostly long term and this is where medical science is at its weakest in establishing cause and effect, with so many variables over a 20 or 30-year time-scale. The fault is not so much in the work our scientists do in the highly uncertain world of toxicology; it is in the optimistic pronouncements they make about safety which cannot be substantiated by the techniques they have at their disposal and which look foolish each time a permitted additive is withdrawn when its dangers have become apparent.
The fault also lies in a certain insularity. Britain allows more additives and has a weaker control than almost any other country in the developed world. Colourings, for example, that are banned elsewhere on safety grounds are still permitted in this country. Why should our standards be so much more lax than those of our neighbours?
Is there any evidence that people actually become ill through eating highly processed food? There is. Acute reactions are relatively easy to pinpoint, and there is now little doubt from medical trials of the effects of tartrazine and similar agents in provoking migraine, hyperactivity and other disorders. There is some very interesting and persuasive research linking a refined diet with deviant behaviour and lowered intelligence. Practitioners in allergy and environmental medicine are finding that their patients improve significantly when introduced to whole-food, additive-free diets.
Over the longer term, as I have said, the argument must be more speculative. Those who have studied the health of so-called primitive peoples, alongside the rise in diseases common to western civilisation, make quite a strong case for the link between these diseases and the unnatural diet to which most of us are now accustomed. If statistically we live longer than we did, that is only because of the decline in infant deaths. The quality of our lives is another matter. A chief determinant of this, strangely overlooked by modern high-technology medicine, is the quality of nutrition.
It is argued that if we do not want to eat additives we can avoid them; labelling regulations provide for that. This is a partial truth. Flavourings, by far the largest group of additives by number, do not have to be identified on labels. Alcohol is exempt from labelling; so are medicines, often highly coloured; so are take-aways; and so are unwrapped foods.
Is this the way that consumers want it? There is no reliable way of knowing since they are not adequately represented on the bodies that matter. But the recent signs are that they are voting with their feet in the supermarkets against the chemicalisation of the food supply.
Is this the way the law means it to be? Section 4(2) of the Food Act 1984 provides that:
"Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value as foods or as ingredients of foods".
Well over 90 per cent. of all additives are of purely cosmetic value. What has gone wrong?
I should regard a policy which took a less permissive line on additives as contributing
1064
substantially towards quality and safety, as well as assurance to customers. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, would probably disagree but, as he said, in the past doctors have changed their minds about diet and they will probably do so again. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Kitchener, could not be present this afternoon because I believe that he would have supported that view.
Vitamins and minerals may lack glamour but increasingly their importance is being recognised—except, that is, by those who frame the RDAs (recommended daily amounts). Once again, Britain is way out of step as comparative tables show.
Nutrition is a poor relation in medical education. Our thinking is still largely geared to the prevention of a few major deficiency diseases such as scurvy or rickets. We still have no RDAs for vitamin E, zinc, sodium, potassium and several others. Could it be that, in the light of recent findings about deficiencies in young people's diets, the updating of standards may prove embarrassing for government and the food manufacturers?
That question needs to be asked because it leads into one of the most worrying areas in the realm of safety and quality of food production. I refer to government committees, such as the Committee on Toxicity and the Food Advisory Committee, and to their extraordinarily close links with the food industry. There are parallels with the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and the pharmaceutical industry. In some cases those connected with the food companies are the largest single grouping. A food scientist can often wear the hat of a company chairman or consultant, an academic or a government adviser. He can perform interchangeably the role of industrialist, expert or policy-maker, and that of judge as to what goes into our food supply.
The circle is fairly close-knit and the participants obviously believe that they can act with true independence. One participant commented, "I asked the chairman whether he wanted me to leave the room or not, but the fact is that on many occasions with the COT I would have to declare an interest on every item on the agenda".
Does that prove that there is safety in numbers? Am I unusual in finding that a less than acceptable way of doing business? Even the Government's chief scientist and chief medical officer have been involved. It is not that one doubts the integrity of those committee men and women but rather that they should never be put in such a false position. We would not do such a thing with our judges. As has been said, it may be correct that if you want to find out what is wrong with the British food supply you must find out what is wrong with the structure of the British Government official advisory committees.
All that would be more tolerable if one had access to the decisions, the arguments and the sources of information. But that is official secrets territory, which adds insult to injury in a democracy. All the work of the food and health committees is governed by the Official Secrets Act. Within a flawed system there is no way in which a citizen can check on what is being decided for him in an area of literally vital concern.

1065
If we are looking for safety and quality in the matters about which I have spoken, I believe that we need at least four things. We need more than token consumer representation on the committees that matter. With that should go a lifting of secrecy: the Official Secrets Act has no place in our breakfasts and dinners. We need an official committee system that is truly independent of commercial interests, and that is perfectly possible. We need a much more precautionary stance over safety in artificial additives to food and drink. I believe that that is largely an attitude of mind which finds its parallel in care for the environment in general. Ideally, we in this country need a firm policy on food that recognises the fact that, since the war, the agenda has been set not by good medical advice but by chance and commercial interests which, however benevolently inclined, are not in it for their health or for ours.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I do not intend to make a speech but to ask the Minister a series of questions which fall under two headings. The first concerns chickenfeed; the second concerns food labelling.
The Agriculture Committee of another place, which produced its report at midday today, investigated the question of salmonella in eggs. Mr. Bob Tanner, the chief executive of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, gave evidence to the committee. Although I have not had the time to read up to question No. 297, I was told that in evidence he said:
"You do not alter the plumbing downstream if your reservoir is infected".
Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to ask how chickens become infected. Salmonella is the organism which is most in the news and is the subject of the report. However, other organisms are at present in the public eye. We hear of "listeria hysteria"; and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. That is a rather nice mouthful, except when you eat it. There are also organisms such as campylo bacteria which, as a doctor, I find is as often a cause of diarrhoea as any other organism.
Infection can occur from three main sources: the feed, the environment and the other animals in the breeding stock. Salmonella enteriditis, which is found mainly in eggs, does not so obviously occur from the feed but is more often passed from one animal to another. I understand that much more research is required to discover how the organism has entered laying flocks.
Many other strains of salmonella and organisms originate in the feed. I should like to investigate two or three aspects of poultry feedstuff. Since the "salmonella in eggs" episode and the remarks made by Mrs. Currie, there has been a great deal of interest in the press in recycled chicken offal. It is refed to chickens after processing. The idea is repugnant but as the material is heat-treated it could be and probably is quite safe if it is not contaminated after manufacture. I should like to know whether that occurs (and I believe that it does); how; in what way; and whether it is possible for measures to be introduced in order to control it.
1066
Most of the remaining animal protein for poultry is fishmeal imported from countries as far away as South America, particularly Chile and Peru. It is also imported from Scandinavia, for example. However, the fishmeal from South America is more likely to be contaminated and falls into the "black" category, but I understand that fishmeal from "clean" countries such as Denmark is often infected. It has been said that some Scandinavian countries selectively export their contaminated fishmeal so that their own poultry are not infected.
I should like to know how effective the Minister considers to be the Imported Animal Protein Order, 1987, in curbing the problem. How many batches or cargoes of imported animal protein have been refused import licences over the past few years? Do we know what proportion contained potentially pathogenic organisms? Do we have enough fully qualified staff to step up the monitoring of imported feedstuffs? If a contaminated batch is accepted, what mechanism is there to ensure that it is adequately heat treated or processed in some way to eliminate the bacteria and subsequently—and this may be quite important—to prevent recontamination?
Some infection occurs through cereal feedstuffs; it is not only animal protein. I am told that cereals are not exempt and that mostly home-grown wheat and some other grains can and often do become contaminated by rats, mice and birds getting into the silos or storage containers. Is there any way in which that can be dealt with? If batches become contaminated, should they not be sterilised by heat treatment or other methods? I hesitate to suggest irradiation, but that would be one method. Would it be very costly? I gather that most feedstuffs for egg laying are not heat treated, whether imported or home supplied, other than the recycled offal. Should that not become a much greater part of the normal processing system?
My second question is rather peripheral to the topic of food hygiene which has been addressed by most speakers other than the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who dealt with additives. However, the Motion also mentions quality and the need for consumers to be allowed more say in food policy. Therefore, I feel that it is entirely in order to look at nutritional labelling as well as hygiene. The Agriculture Committee mentions that by applying an arbitrary multiplier of 100 to the reported cases of food poisoning, which is possibly justifiable in view of the gross under-reporting, there would be an estimated 2 million cases of food poisoning per annum. Those are usually so mild that doctors are not told of them. If they are reported to doctors, an analysis or a culture of the stool is not made because the infection usually disappears very quickly.
In contrast to the possible 2 million cases of food poisoning which result in very few deaths, except when people are vulnerable and immunologically compromised in some way, there are 2 million people in the country who are chronic sufferers from the effects of coronary heart disease and atherosclerosis through angina, heart failure, atherosclerosis of the legs or sometimes a stroke. This is a crippling disease.

1067
There are 135,000 or more deaths a year from coronary heart disease.
Nearly five years ago, in May 1984, the COMA (the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy) report on diet and cardiovascular disease recognised, on the strength of overwhelming scientific evidence, that our national diet was a basic cause of the problem. It made a number of recommendations. One was that all processed food should be labelled so that consumers could choose a diet which conformed to COMA recommendations. The committee emphasised that the fat content of the food and the proportion of that fat composed of saturated fatty acids should be made very clear on the label. Since then, consumer groups, including the National Consumer Council and the Coronary Prevention Group, have suggested that the information should be indicated in a graphic or symbolic form so that it can easily be understood by lay people. There have been a number of delays in introducing nutritional labelling into this country because of the need to harmonise with the EC. Now the EC is putting forward its own recommendations. Can the noble Baroness say how those negotiations are progressing, particularly as regards the suggestion of COMA that fats and saturated fat content should be clearly labelled?
This country has the worst coronary heart disease record in Europe. So there is a strong argument, on public health grounds alone, that this part of the labelling requirement should be insisted upon. I believe that there are provisions in EC legislation to allow us to do that. I feel that the labelling should be made mandatory if possible.
There is increasing scientific evidence that the type, rather than the amount, of fat in the diet is critical. For example, the diet of Eskimos has an enormously high fat content. Yet almost no coronary heart disease exists among them. Similarly, Greek people consume a tremendous amount of olive oil but have a very low rate of coronary heart disease.
Finally, I should like to echo the call made by my noble friend Lord Gallacher for a consumer food committee within MAFF. Indeed, I go further and call for a separate Ministry of Food. When there was one during the war, our national nutritional status improved enormously despite the difficulty of our overall food situation.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I may take up the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. It is one thing to label food properly—I am all for that—but it is quite another to persuade people to eat what they should. Much effort has gone into trying to prevent us smoking. On the whole, that has been very successful. The more people read on the matter, the less they smoke. Maybe that will happen with food, but I do not think it will happen quickly.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his typically moderate introduction. I thought that he was perhaps going to attack the Government in a heavy way; I am delighted that he did not. Perhaps with his closing speech will come the
1068
vigour. I do not believe that it will necessarily be more successful. However, notwithstanding the introduction, I am most puzzled at the terms of the Motion.
I have been concerned with the affairs of the food processing industry for 14 years, if that does not disturb the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, too much. I have to declare an interest in that I am still parliamentary adviser to the biscuit, cake, chocolate and confectionery alliance. I was also a member of sub-committee D in this House for about 10 of those 14 years, several of them under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. With that experience I say emphatically that although the implementation of the common agricultural policy has left much to be desired in most years, it has certainly been coherent as a policy for food production. Furthermore, where the implementation has been faulty, it has normally been due to lack of resolution by the farm Ministers of other member states rather than any lack of consistency of approach by United Kingdom agriculture Ministers and the Ministry. Sometimes one could call into question the particular policies of individual British Ministers, Labour as well as Conservative. But that is very different from accusing them of lacking a coherent policy.
Perhaps I may turn to assurances about quality and safety. It has been my experience during past 14 years that MAFF and indeed the European Commission have continuously sought food and drink standards that ensure both safety and the highest quality. That is also true of all the food and drink processors and, in my more limited experience, of the farmers too. The biscuit, cake and confectionery industry, for example, maintains an active working party on microbiology to monitor events and issue guidance to the members of its alliance. As another example, all eggs used in the industry are pasteurised. I should add that the only way to guarantee microbiological (including additives) safety is to monitor and control the processes by which food is produced. Short cuts such as the sampling and testing of individual items are not a valid means of control and are not to be recommended for anybody, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The industries with which I am associated are perhaps fortunate in that their products in the main have to be cooked. The word "biscuit" comes from the French and means that which is twice cooked. However, I am aware that all food and drink processing members of the Food and Drink Federation are equally careful to ensure that their products are of high quality and safety. Perhaps in mentioning that federation it is relevant to say that I went to one of its dinners this last Monday, and though the principal speaker was a Ministry of Agriculture Minister, there was a Department of Health Minister present. That shows that they are working together.
Apart from having no wish to poison the community, the reputation of their business (which is usually worldwide) for all food and drink processors depends on quality and safety. It just is not worth

1069
while to produce inadequate manufactured food; and I find it hard to understand—I perhaps would hope to speak to him outside the Chamber—why the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, seems to be so definitely clear and sure that you cannot trust the manufacturers in general or their food scientists in particular. I feel that that opinion is a very biased one. I would hope perhaps to discuss it with him so that I could explain that the situation is not like that, as he would realise if he had had the privilege, as I have, of dealing with these people.
The argument about the need not to poison the public, the importance of one's reputation if one is to last in business and thus the need for a high regard for quality and safety, applies equally to farmers. Indeed, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and his emphasis on the need for hygiene on farms are a very good pointer to that.
Government action is consistent with this. Various food Acts require that food is safe and that consumers are not misled. The labelling directive and the consequent UK labelling regulations are designed to ensure that the consumer understands fully what he or she is buying. Recent tough pesticide regulations are an example of added care for the safety of food at the farm gate. Regulations and a directive to ensure that the consumer knows all about the nutritional value of food and that the food is good for the consumer have been under discussion for the past few years and will shortly be brought into effect. I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, was referring to when he mentioned the COMA Report and its outcome. I hope that perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to give us some idea about timing.
However, it takes time to produce new regulations of this sort. It is important that the results are accurate and that the consumer is left with as much choice as possible consistent with quality and safety. If there is too much restriction on how people can develop the foods which they process and sell to the public, choice decreases, and that surely is not in the consumers' best interest—at least the consumers do not seem to think so, because they are permanently seeking new types of food and new methods of preparation. One can only imagine they do that because they want to, and provided the food is of high quality and safe to eat, I feel that is the right approach.
To sum up on this point, throughout the past 14 years that I have been associated with the food industry I have seen the never-ending efforts of MAFF, working as necessary in conjunction with the Department of Health, to ensure the quality and safety of food on offer to the public. It is a memory of a constant stream of regulations under discussion, sometimes, but not always, backed by directives, and certainly not waiting for directives.
That, I think, deals with the Motion, which I do not think is worded correctly because it is not necessary as it stands. However, perhaps I should touch on the real reason for the debate: the great salmonella and listeria scare of the winter of 1988–89.
1070
There is no doubt that agriculture Ministers reacted much too slowly to an unfortunate and casual exaggeration by a health Minister and that the subsequent reactions by poultry keepers were so strong that suspicions were created that the Department of Health might have been right after all. Those were mistakes, and it is a pity. The timing of Christmas did not help very much either; but the matter might have been brought into perspective sooner had Ministers appreciated that the media and the Opposition would make a real meal of the whole affair. They have done that, and of course Oppositions are in business to do that. I regret that the Opposition has been efficient on this occasion and I hope that it will not happen again! However, I do not think there is more to it than just an efficient bit of opposition and I think we can rest fairly happily on these Benches because on the whole the right things have been done in the end. Nevertheless, it really is necessary for all Ministers and their departments—not just the two which are the subject of this debate—to improve their ability to react to impending troubles and to co-ordinate their comments more effectively.
It disappoints me, speaking as a loyal Back-Bencher, that so many blunders are made in this area. Apart from the Opposition, who are doing their job properly—and in a sense I would say, "More power to their elbow", because that is what they are there for—I think the media overdo these things. One cannot stop them, but it means that it is much more important for the facilities available to the Government to be deployed as effectively as possible and for them to be of the necessary calibre to take on misuse of the media's great freedom,
Two things come to me as essential lessons to be learnt from this event, neither of which your Lordships may perhaps think were of the first importance as the event unrolled although I am sure that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, would agree with one of them. The first is the need for proper care and hygiene in the kitchen. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health are doing their best to produce the right regulations.
For the reasons I gave, the farmers and the food processors are doing their best to make sure that their food is healthy and of high quality. But when food gets into the kitchen and into the hands of the housewife, or her husband, which is even worse, the way in which it is handled is important; namely, whether it is put into the fridge properly; whether the fridge is at the right temperature; whether they know how to use the micro-oven or whatever it is called; and whether they leave the food lying about; how many cockroaches there are and whether they kill them—all these matters are out of the control of the people who are the subject of the debate. I believe that is a very important lesson to be learnt.
The second lesson is one that relates to other matters, but this event has given added reason for it. I believe that during the past five years or so the morale of farmers has been unfairly and seriously hurt by the kind of events that have just been happening. They are accused—and found guilty without any proof in many cases—of not looking after their affairs properly so that they do not produce decent

1071
food. There is also the bad impression that has been created by the common agricultural policy, for which they are blamed although it is not the farmers' fault.
Of course farmers want to have the backing of something of that kind or even that which the deficiency payments will give. I will not deny them that. They are not to blame for the actual application of the common agricultural policy because in the last resort that is the responsibility of the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The other point is that they have come under fire from environmentalists for not properly looking after the countryside. In my experience the farmers in my part of the world look after the countryside very well indeed. I am sure that that is the situation throughout the country. There are exceptions; there is a farm near me which is not tended as well as it should be, but it is not bad and it is not disastrous.
A further lesson is the need to reassure British farmers that they are still vital to the survival of the people within the community. My noble friend Lord Kimball made the point that for the first time since World War II we might run out of food. We shall need our farmers. It is also important that they should be reassured that they are still respected for their care of the environment.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for a very effective attack on the muddle that is admitted by that loyal Back-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. He is quite right to do so and the persons responsible really need to sort themselves out. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will tell us that all is now well. The terms of the Motion are:
"To call attention to the case for a coherent policy for food production which will give assurance to consumers about quality and safety and allow them more say in determining food policy;".
I am not sure that I agree with the last part of the Motion, because in what they buy consumers have an enormous amount of say in determining food policy. They need to be informed and consulted, but whether they should have more say than they already have, I would not entirely know.
I am not going to deal with the aspects of safety and hygiene and the recent scares because my noble friend Lord Winstanley has already dealt with them, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I enjoyed my noble friend's speech. I was amazed to be informed that the Americans suffered from bovine tuberculosis through drinking milk. The Americans I knew in the Eighth Air Force never drank any milk at all; they seemed to spend their time drinking dry every pub in the area. But one is always learning something new.
I wish to look at this problem in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. The first point about a coherent policy for food is that there must be enough of it to feed the people and to give them a choice. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, mentioned this. I have the surplus figures for 1988. Butter is now down to 26ŀ5 days' consumption; beef at 20ŀ6 days' consumption; wheat at 22 days' consumption and
1072
barley at 25. Allied to this is the fact that in 1988 the forecast is for a 28 per cent. drop in real farm income.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Kimball, will not mind me quoting him continually. He mentioned the fact that we have so interfered with the ecology of the world that we are not very sure whether this is a normal drought cycle or whether we are exaggerating it. I was rather perturbed to find that Pepys had an entry in his Diary showing that in the 1600s roses were blooming in January and other strange events were happening. Flying over vast areas of Africa that used to be virgin forest one sees desert below and man encroaching everywhere. We are in a situation where we need to be very careful before we destroy the very efficient production of food which we have in Europe today.
The EC has had a tremendous achievement in raising our self-sufficiency and exceeding it to a degree that we can export food. We have a right in the EC and in Britain to produce food that we eat ourselves and that which is needed for supply to people who have not enough. What we have no right to do is to go on producing food, dumping it on the world markets and destroying the living and the prosperity of the New Zealanders, for example, who are very efficient. We have not got the right to do that. A long time ago Sub-Committee D recommended that we should have a policy of price restraint that would have taken care of the problem.
The situation in the world is quite extraordinary. My thinking is much affected by having just been in Kenya for a fortnight where I was attending a conference of Royal Agricultural Societies from all over the Commonwealth. When Kenya achieved independence 20 years ago it had a population of 7 million people; it now has approximately 24 million. The population is due to double again in the next 10 years. We had a long talk and a lecture from Dr. Kurien of India who considers that India will have a population of well over a 1,000 million by the turn of the century. That makes our so-called surpluses look a little silly.
I believe that in any coherent policy the security of supply must be paramount. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has defended and extolled the food manufacturers, but I must point out that farm incomes have dropped by 28 per cent. It cannot be long before we have a fall in production. The noble potato is sold at the farm gate for 3p per pound and retails in shops for 10p, 12p, 14p or 15p per pound. The industry which processes potatoes into chips and so on buys from the farmer £125 million of potatoes a year, but we are told in its literature that the processed product retails for £1 billion, which is a multiplication factor of eight. The Consumers' Association would do well to look at that difference instead of looking at the miserable 3p which the farmer receives.
In Kenya I found it extraordinary to look at the Masai who keep herds of cattle on the high ground. I found enormously healthy looking herds. The people in their traditional clothes were able to run around their cattle like sheepdogs would in this country. These magnificent looking people live on a mixture of blood, beef and meal. They are as healthy

1073
a set of specimens as I have seen. Whether we could use such a diet I very much doubt, but it shows that there is a good deal to be said for being used to a diet, as was said about the Americans, and about the difference in human reactions.
In Europe and in this country we produce more than we need. Some land will have to be taken out of production. The Government have produced a set-aside scheme which is full of inconsistencies. As it goes on I am sure the Government will find a great many snags with it. On the issue of producers having some choice, we need to go further into the business of so-called organic farming. However, I would rather call it producing natural food with some taste. My noble kinsman was proud of the multiplication of the number of eggs from hens and of the number of chickens one can rear on a floor and how cheap they are. I would not eat any of the blooming things. One of my kinsmen has thousands of pigs. They produce enormous numbers of piglets which are torn away from their mothers at three weeks old. However, when he married he came to his uncle for some free-range pigs which were fed outside and had suckled with their mothers for 10 to 12 weeks. I am happy to tell the House that he bought 12 hams from me and I charged him a good price.
Extensification should be encouraged with grants. If we are to give the consumer genuine choice and quality the producer needs to be able to compete reasonably with the horrible factory farm stuff which the consumer appears to like and to buy in large quantities. Such encouragement would provide a reservoir of land in case we ever again have a long-term shortage. This is a sensible policy and one which I should like the Minister to endorse, although I very much doubt whether she will. I am sure that she would like to see a choice of these goodies on the shelves as well as the plentiful factory-farmed products.
In short, coherence of policy must involve a proper arrangement of responsibilities. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. It is absolutely vital that the Ministry of Agriculture remains the main production body and remains a Ministry of great importance in this country. That is the only way that we shall have a coherent policy for the production of food.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we can all agree that this interesting debate on an important subject was opened most ably by my noble friend Lord Gallacher. We are in an extraordinary position. Who would have thought last summer that from November to February the media and political life would have been dominated by food and farming? I am not sure whether any of your Lordships saw the spoof headline in Private Eye:
"Shock, horror: Man eats meal and lives".
That was not far from being an actual headline in the press.
This is a timely debate and reflects the increased and public interest in the whole food production chain, from farm to plate. The Motion refers to,
"a coherent police for food production".
1074
This must be considered alongside the present state of United Kingdom farming. One of the silliest stories in the media recently suggested that the farming lobby somehow had its foot on the neck of the Ministry of Agriculture. Farm incomes have fallen by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and are now at their lowest level since the war. They were 28 per cent. down in 1988, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. Fifty thousand full-time jobs—one third of the labour force—have been lost since 1979; and investment has fallen by 40 per cent. When considering those figures, I am tempted to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, and say,
"Some lobby, some neck".
My Lords, 1988 has not only seen a 28 per cent. fall in farm incomes but, to put the figures on self-sufficiency given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in another way, we now have a balance of payments deficit on food of some £5,800 million. It is 40 per cent. of the total balance of payments deficit. Only two products are now in surplus over consumption—barley and oilseed rape. I refer to last year, when I know we had some bad weather. Self-sufficiency in food has slumped. We were producing 75 per cent. of temperate foods in 1981. That rose to a peak of 82.5 per cent. and now stands at 73 per cent.
In opening the debate my noble friend Lord Gallacher referred to food consumption. There has been a dramatic change in food consumption habits. There has been a 30 per cent. reduction in home cooking over the past eight years, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. There has been a 21 per cent. increase in the consumption of chilled and ready meals. Four hundred thousand cook-chill meals are eaten every day. This has been accompanied—and it is not an accident—by a substantial increase in food poisoning of all types. The number of cases of listeriosis has trebled in five years. The number of cases of salmonella infection has increased twelvefold in six years. When considering these figures we must remember that the establishment of environmental health officers is now no fewer than 430 short as a result of Government cuts. The inspection of abattoirs to advise' on hygiene and welfare standards has fallen by 15 per cent. in the past five years.
We have to refer to salmonella. The Select Committee report of the House of Commons is published today. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will agree that any objective observer would see a report of an extraordinary saga of incompetence, confusion and muddle. I have a little sympathy for the Ministry of Agriculture and for the Department of Health. They had the responsibility of informing consumers without alarming them and of attempting to avoid economic damage to the food industry. However, I am afraid that they signally failed in both respects.
The salmonella bandwagon attracted every born again food campaigner, publicity-seeking politician and sensationalising journalist in the business, in both the printed and broadcast media. But far from getting the matter into perspective, the divided responsibilities and the conflicting comments by the

1075
Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health have made matters worse.
Let us take just one example of this; namely, the report on Salmonella and Eggs which was produced by a working party representing the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of Health aid the British Egg Industry Council. There were four representatives of the Department of Health on that working party and they suggested at one point that if one used the American factor to calculate the underreporting of cases of food poisoning—that was a factor of 100—one would have a figure of 2 million cases for salmonella food poisoning in any year. Indeed, that point was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Rea.
However, on the same day, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Acheson, appeared on television and stud that he usually used the factor of 10 and not 100, so that gives a figure of 200,000 cases. There was also a survey carried out by MAFF, published in July 1988, which suggested that the correct factor was 5, which would mean 100,000 cases. Therefore it is no wonder that the consumer is confused.
In the same report, Salmonella and Eggs, it says:
"It is possible that imported eggs may expose consumers to the same risk of food poisoning as UK supplies. More information is needed on imported eggs".
We now have the compulsory code of practice in the UK for poultry farmers with egg laying flocks. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that all imported eggs will now only come from countries with the same code of practice, which is properly enforced.
There has been reference to salmonella research. We know that the budget for such research in the Institute of Animal Health at Compton has been cut by £70,000. Moreover, the Institute of Food Research at Bristol is having to shut down its programme of research on salmonella because of a shortage of £300,000 for two years of field trials. One must compare that figure with the £19 million which the Government were prepared to spend on compensation to packing stations and egg producers and the £3 million which was actually spent.
The egg and poultry industry has suffered grave economic damage which I am afraid is substantially the responsibility of government. I ask the Minister—this is the same question asked by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy—if industry funding is not forthcoming, will the Government reinstate research at Bristol into the prevention of salmonella? Further, is the egg and the poultry industry still expected to pick up the tab of £1.68 million of' so-called "near market research" which was identified in the Barnes review?
On that aspect the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House into Agriculture and Food Research said:
"Salmonella is one manifestation of enteritis, which is included in the list of topics for which research is to he cut … The millions who eat eggs and poultry are more interested in an early solution to the problem of salmonella poisoning than in waiting to see whether industry will pick up the bill for the research".
1076
To put that in perspective, I was speaking only recently to a substantial producer of eggs. He has been inspected: the birds are clean; the eggs are clean; the litter is clean and all his equipment is as clean as a whistle, but the loss which he has sustained up to now is in the order of £150,000.
There is also another interesting figure which I do not think has been discussed. It was produced by Mr. Richard North, who is an independent environmental health consultant. He has calculated that 1 million people per annum are returning from trips abroad with gastro enteritis, and other similar infections, and that it is possible that 30 per cent. of all food poisoning is, in fact, of foreign origin.
No debate on agriculture and food would be complete without reference to Government pulley— or lack of it—on research and development. Indeed, the subject was raised during the debate by many noble Lords. I have already referred to the possible closure of the Institute of Food Research at Bristol. If we take the three stations of the Institute of Food Research at Bristol, Norwich and Reading, they face the possible loss of 182 jobs in food research. At Bristol, of the SO research projects which they have, no less than 31 are directly relevant to food consumption.
The business of near market research, upon which there has been, as we know, much debate, was again summed up extremely well in the report on Agricultural and Food Research when it said that,
"Research funded by commercial interests is bound to he open to accusations of bias in an area as sensitive as diet and nutritional value, no matter how high the quality of that research. Advice in the media is often based on shaky scientific foundations. The public would benefit from a disinterested source of information, and in the Committee's opinion it would he most advantageous for the public sector to provide it, both in meeting a perceived demand and in improving public health".
I should like to ask the Minister, when she replies, what the latest information is in the matter of near market research. As she knows, 1 have put down Unstarred Questions in November 1987 and November 1988. The morale of the whole agricultural R&D sector is now at rock bottom. When will we know the Government's intentions in that area?
We do not only have the problems of the near market business to contend with, we can also all agree, and see, that there is a need for the expansion of veterinary medicine in agricultural inspection and in public health work. Many of your Lordships have referred to the possible closure of the veterinary schools at Cambridge and Glasgow. But, are noble Lords aware that the number of veterinary officers employed in the state veterinary service has gone down from 580 to 444 since 1979? That is a reduction of 23 per cent.
I shall touch but briefly on some points which are in the public eye at present and, of course, I must say a word or two about listeria. Again there have been conflicting and confusing statements by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House a clear and authoritative statement of government policy regarding unpasteurised milk and soft cheese.

1077
In passing, I should like to point Out that unpasteurised milk has been drunk for generations by dairy farmers. their families and their workers. I wonder whether anyone has thought to examine their health records and medical history to see whether there is any history of damage.
This week we have received the Southwood Report on BSE and perhaps I may return to a q nest ion which I have put many times to the Minister. Will the Ministry he able to change its mind regarding the level of compensation which is paid for infected animals? As the Minister knows, the compensation at present is 50 per cent. of the market value. The Ministry says that that figure is fair because the infected annual is not worth very much and therefore to receive hall the full market value is fair compensation. However, the relevant point about the disease, which is borne out in the Southwood Report, is that it tends to affect a group of animals which have had a certain type of feed in the past. More important, it takes a very long time to emerge, and a farmer would know that where, in a group of animals, one has gone down animals of the same age group, which had had the same feed, would also he likely to go down with the disease. If he was unscrupulous, he might attempt to get that animal into the food chain so as to get the full value rather than half the market value. It would not cost the Government very much money to pay the full value. In fact, that point has been impressed upon them on many occasions.
I referred earlier to the dramatic change in eating habits, where there has been no accompanying change in government regulations and policy. The Institute of Food Science and Technology, which has been referred to by other noble Lords, pointed out that:
"Members of the Institute are obliged by their Code of Professional conduct to take, and do take, all proper steps in their power to ensure the wholesomeness and safety of the foods with which they are concerned. Despite our repeated urging, however, it is still legally possible to start or operate a food manufacturing operation or company without even one suitably qualified person … Likewise it is open to anyone to start or run a small food, catering or food retailing operation without even rudimentay knowledge of hygiene or the regulations which apply".
The Institute of Environmental Health Officers has for a long time been seeking legislation to ensure that all food premises should be registered. An excellent study by Dr. Vernon Wheelock of Bradford University underlines the urgent need for a drastic overhaul of the regulatory and inspection powers required to deal with good manufacture, processing and retailing. He points out that the number of prosecutions for food hygiene offences has fallen every year since 1979. A shortage of environmental health officers means that many premises are visited only once in several years because there is no statutory requirement to visit food premises regularly.
A number of points were made in the debate, and I should like to pick up two of them. One was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who referred to the greenhouse effect and climatic change. That is forecast to affect us by the mid-1990s—just one farming rotation away. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie gave an interesting survey of his agricultural
1078
history. He mentioned the battery hen. It is worth reminding ourselves that the battery system was introduced before the war to overcome disease problems, including salmonella, picked up by free range or deep litter poultry. Those were the days before antibiotics.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, made a searching and thoughtful speech. I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to the points he made. It is clear that the existing divided responsibility between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health is not working. The air is thick with suggestions for improvement a Ministry of Food. a Ministry of Food and Farming, a food standards agency or even a department of consumer affairs with responsibility for food policy. After Mr. MacGregor's and Mr.Clarke's experiences over the past few months I am not sure that Cabinet Ministers will be queuing up to fake responsibility for food policy.
However, organisation building is not enough without a fundamental change in the Government's attitude. Non-intervention, an attempt to leave everything to market forces, and deregulation, have not worked and will not work in food safety. To cut research and make the market the supreme arbiter is a classic recipe for producing the confusion and uncertainty which now exist. It is up to the Government to see that a clear lead in that whole area is given to producers, processors, retailers, and, above all, to consumers.
5.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I cannot hope to answer all the many interesting questions that I have been asked during the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, I have a choice of goodies. I shall choose the goodies nearest to the Motion we have been debating, and in doing so I hope that other noble Lord's will forgive me.
The Motion fallaciously suggests either that the Government have no coherent food production policy or that the policy we have is ineffective. It then proceeds to compound the error through the further suggestions that our policy does not give consumers the assurance that they need about the quality and safety of our food and that insufficient account is taken of the consumer viewpoint in determining policy. I must therefore start by setting the record straight.
First, I must set out the Government's policy in this area. It is: to ensure that adequate supplies of food are available; to ensure that this food is wholesome, safe and of good quality; and to see that it is available at reasonable prices. Beyond that, it is our policy to provide guidance to consumers on what constitutes a healthy diet.
The policy is not only coherent; it is clearly comprehensive. It is also essentially consumer-orientated, since its principal aims are adequate supply, quality and safety. That is, of course, entirely as it should be. Where the protection of the nation's

1079
food supply is concerned the consumer's viewpoint is of paramount importance. Let me, therefore, outline ways in which the consumer's influence is brought to bear. Consumers do, of course, influence the food industry in the most direct way possible through their purchases; and their influence in that way has been both significant and highly beneficial. By what they buy and do not buy, consumers' wishes are made crystal clear to the multiple retailers who now dominate the trade. The multiples then translate consumer preference into stringent quality conditions on the suppliers of their "own label" goods, which in turn forces up the quality of the competing branded goods. Similar contract conditions have also helped to force up the quality of fresh foodstuffs. So consumer pressure has had a very real effect in the general improvement of quality standards that we now see reflected in the High Street. But beyond this, consumer wishes for a greater variety of food, for more sophisticated prepared dishes than in the past, have played a part in the considerable increase in the range of foods on sale. The choice available to consumers has never been greater, and their own pressure must take some of the credit for the great improvement that has been brought about.
The Motion deals specifically with the consumer's influence on government, so I should like to set out for your Lordships the steps that we take to ensure that we know and understand the viewpoint of the consumer concerning the various aspects of our food policy. Let me take as a starting point the basic consumer protection legislation in this sector—the Food Act 1984. That Act lays on the Government the responsibility to consult all interests on any proposals for subordinate legislation. Consumer organisations form part of those interests and are indeed consulted. I must emphasise to your Lordships that this is our invariable approach, quite regardless of the statutory obligation. Your Lordships will be aware of the momentum of the harmonisation programme in Brussels as the Community prepares itself for 1992. Many proposals are involved that relate to food questions, and we always obtain the views of consumers on these in assessing what the UK's negotiating position should be. In the course of 1988 alone we undertook such consultations on no fewer than 38 separate occasions, and our consideration of the matters under discussion was greatly aided as a result of the advice and assistance that we received from the bodies we approached.
My department was recently asked in another place to list the measures enacted in the past three years to improve the quality and wholesomeness of food. The reply listed no fewer than 49 such measures, dealing with the full range of food products from meat and milk to vegetables, olive oil, soft drinks and the labelling of alcoholic drinks. Many other matters were also mentioned as still being under discussion. I remind the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that consumer organisations and their advisers are taken fully into account in the policy that we have formulated.
1080
Let me make clear also that our consultations do not stop at the main national organisations. As your Lordships would expect, we always seek the views of the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association, the Consumers in the European Community Group, the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the National Association of Townswomen's Guilds. But we go well beyond that list and, depending upon the precise subject, we may well consult anything up to, and sometimes over, 100 organisations. Incidentally, we also approach the professional organisations representing environmental health officers, trading standards officers and public analysts, whose membership is also highly consumer-orientated.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, spoke about a food consumers' committee. He repeated his arguments from earlier debates for such a committee. As I have been at pains to show, the Government recognise the importance of involving consumer organisations in the continuing discussions on future development of food and agricultural policy; but there is already substantial consultation machinery for both formal and informal discussions by MAFF Ministers and officials with consumer organisations on food and agriculture issues. Those channels are already well used.
My Minister in another place has recognised that there may be scope for improvement in the consultation process. We are always ready to consider how this may be achieved. Ministers have studied relevant recommendations in the recent report by the National Consumer Council, in particular Recommendation 21 which will be further considered by the NCC in the light of future proposals.
I have spoken about consultation, but my department is also involved in discussions with consumer interests; for example, in the contributions they make at specialist seminars in this sector. My officials were involved in discussions at seminars and similar events on average more than once a month throughout 1988.
I hope I have made clear the deep involvement of the consumer in the evolution of policy. Consumer involvement does, however, go further into the assessment of food safety. I shall refer later to the independent expert scientific committees whose advice underpins our whole food safety policy. Clearly, some of the committees involved necessarily require a highly specialised membership in view of the detailed technical matters they have to consider. But this advice all comes together in the overview taken by the Food Advisory Committee.
For example, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will note that the Department of Health committee on toxicity in food, consumer products and the environment plays a crucial role in the assessment of safety of additives in our food. This committee takes account of factors beyond the technical considerations, so it is appropriate here for other aspects to be reflected. That is where the consumer viewpoint can most usefully be expressed. This is provided for in the current arrangements and I

1081
readily give your Lordships an assurance that this will continue.
As further evidence of our concern both to secure food safety and to ensure that consumer influence is brought to bear, perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the Government's announcement on 21st February concerning our Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. This committee will, of course, have the expert membership demanded by the need to get to grips with the problem of food-borne illness from organisms such as salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. But the committee will need to consider the increasing incidence of illness in relation, among other matters, to changes in retailing and in the home. Accordingly, it will be essential for consumer views to be expressed on the situation and we shall be ensuring that consumer interests are represented by people on the committee, together with the scientific experts.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked me about nutrition labelling. The Commission proposals are for a voluntary code, and there is majority support for this rather than a mandatory system. Saturated fat is not on the Commission's list for labelling but there will be further discussion. The Commission's primary list is: energy, fat, protein, carbohydrate, sugar, sodium and fibre.
I referred earlier to the variety and quality of the food in our shops today, but I must now turn to some recent concerns that have been expressed about certain aspects. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone implied, there is a yawning gap between what is good news and what is a good news story. Failure is always more interesting to the media than success and more column-inches will always be devoted to problems than to remedies. It cannot be denied that there have been, and remain, problems of some seriousness and we are most certainly not complacent. But they must be seen in the context of the safety of our food supply as a whole. The risks must be viewed in perspective and the often ill-informed and hasty judgments passed in the press must be examined against the background of the considerable resources that the Government devote to the continuing food watch that acts to provide a real and effective guarantee to the consumer. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Kimball for the excellent plug he gave for British Food and Farming Year, which we all hope will be a great success.
Let me first say a word or two about our on-going food surveillance arrangements before I go on to deal with the particular problem areas that have been referred to today. Within the MAFF, spending on policies relating to consumer protection is running at some £20 million. Well over 500 staff are engaged in this work. Many of these are highly qualified specialists—veterinarians, food scientists, professionals of other kinds. These highly trained staff provide the essential sound scientific basis to our policy work in this sector and they provide the necessary expertise that underpins our enforcement work and directs our research effort. But an extra degree of reassurance to the consumer is provided through the involvement of independent, expert scientific committees composed of specialists of the
1082
highest possible standing. They assess the situation with regard to all the areas of risk to our food and, having thoroughly assessed the facts, advise MAFF and the Department of Health as to what further research may be needed or what action should be taken. Tens of thousands of samples are examined in the course of a year. Our specialists carry out detailed analyses using the most up to date methods to check for pesticide residues, residues of veterinary drugs that may have been administered to food animals; substances that occur naturally in food products; substances that can get into food from the production process or the environment or from the materials in which they are packaged. I am delighted to be able to say that such residues as are found are well within internationally agreed safety limits. But where risks have been found, effective action has been promptly taken.
Our intervention has, for example, resulted in changed manufacturing processes for tin cans so as to avoid the use of lead solder, while the reformulation of clingfilm now avoids the leaching of chemical substances into food. Our monitoring system is both highly expert and comprehensive in its coverage and I am aware of no more effective arrangements in any other country.
The noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Carter, spoke about environmental health officers—numbers and training. I am aware of the concerns expressed in various quarters about the numbers of and training needs for EHOs. The Government are considering the position. A number of departments are involved, given the wide-ranging responsibilities of the EHOs for food hygiene, pollution, housing inspection, etc. Of course it is the responsibility of local authorities to employ the staff needed to enforce statutes which it is necessary for them to enforce and, through local authorities and the professional organisations concerned, to judge the training needs.
However, central government will consider the position with the local authority and the professional interests concerned. Whatever the staffing and training problems, there is no reason to believe that the present food safety concerns are seriously increased by any shortfall. It should also be remembered that trading standards officers play an important role in enforcing regulations on chemical aspects of food safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley referred to residues of veterinary products remaining in food. All applications to use substances as veterinary medicines are carefully assessed for safety, quality and efficacy and only licensed if these conditions are satisfied. There is a major sampling programme to ensure that unsafe residues do not remain in food; 45,000 samples were taken this year.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, spoke about additives. I see that he is present, but I shall write to him because the answer is so long that it will take too much time to deliver tonight. The noble Earl questioned whether food additives were needed. They are only allowed where there is a proven need; for example, preservatives are needed to protect against serious microbiological risks such as botulism.

1083
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that there was confusion over sell-by dates. We have recently produced a booklet entitled Look at the Label. That is an extremely good, easy-to-read booklet. I advise the noble Lord to consult that excellent booklet. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, also mentioned unpasteurised milk. As the noble Lord will know, we have already begun consultations on a proposal to ban the sales of untreated milk. However, I believe that farm consumption may not he included in that ban, as that has always gone on.
The issue of information and guidance is another essential element in our policy. Guidance on the composition of food, which housewives can follow when they are shopping, was recently re-issued in our booklet Look at the Label. We also issue detailed scientific reports on our continuous food watch through the regular reports of the steering group on food surveillance. We have published 24 reports covering all aspects of the surveillance programme. These authoritative scientific assessments are all available in the Library of the House.
I must refer to the matter of research and development and stress the fact that the Government remain firmly committed to supporting basic and strategic research, as well as a work of "public good" nature in relation to such issues as food safety, environmental protection and animal welfare. Total expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food research by the agriculture departments and from the science budget will continue to amount to over £200 million per year, even after the reductions in funding for near market work.
I note the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kimball and those of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, regarding veterinary training. However, time forbids me elaborating on that.
I now turn to the problems we are facing. The problem of salmonella enteritidis in eggs is one that we share with European countries generally, and indeed with the United States. The seriousness of the emergence of this particular bacterium transmissible directly into the egg must he faced. In the U.K. we have faced it squarely, and we are tackling the problem with a more comprehensive range of measures than has been introduced in any other country in the world. These measures aim to operate at every stage of production. At the very beginning of the production cycle we have taken new powers to stop the supply of products from protein processing plants where salmonella is isolated. We have also doubled the rate of inspection of those premises and we are bringing in a measure that will require daily bacteriological sampling to he undertaken there. So far as the eggs themselves are concerned, we have taken action to prevent their sale from flocks that have been identified as a source of salmonella infected eggs. Beyond this, we are now taking powers to bring in a compulsory slaughter policy so as to clean up infected laying flocks. Your Lordships will he aware that certain codes of practice have been introduced, and key provisions in these will he made statutory. Among these will be a provision for regular bacteriological monitoring of laying flocks. As the particular risks associated with eggs became clear, the
1084
Government issued guidance to the public, for example to avoid consuming raw eggs. or dishes containing them. We shall he following up this advice in the course of our full blown food hygiene education campaign that will be launched in the near future.
I listened to the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Sahowl of Abernethy, with great interest and appreciation. From one old cook to another so to speak. I am sure she realises that my noble friend Lord Dundee was jesting when he mentioned your Lordships' dining room during the course of a Parliamentary Question. We are, of course, very well looked after and we greatly appreciate the culinary efforts from which we benefit.
The second major problem has concerned listeria monocytogenes. The special difficulties here are, of course, first that the organism is widely distributed throughout the environment and hence very difficult to avoid in the use of raw food, and secondly that it multiplies at relatively low temperatures. On the credit side, it appears to be killed off by thorough cooking, and normal healthy adults can tolerate its presence without ill effects. Its growing incidence is not in dispute, though proven cases of illness that can he traced back to food are very few. The particular risks to pregnant women and to the unborn child are factors, however, that make us treat listeria very seriously. Here again we have taken prompt and very relevant action. We have, for example, 14 research projects in hand that either relate directly to listeria or include work on the organism. In particular, we are investigating the precise temperature necessary during heat treatment to kill listeria. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may care to note that special work is also in hand on the effectiveness of microwave cooking in this respect.
We have been accused in the media of doing too little over these problems and of allowing the public to get a confused idea of the risks. I hope that what I have said, even though I wanted to say a great deal more, has been sufficient to make clear the full range of the action we have taken and the very precise nature of the information and advice we have given. We cannot, of course, control how this is reflected in the press. I would suggest that such confusion as may have arisen derives from Fleet Street or Wapping rather than Whitehall or Westminster.
The inherent quality of our food is first-class and our record of safety is excellent. Certainly there have been problems, but the prompt and firm action taken by Her Majesty's Government will ensure that their effect is minimised. Undoubtedly our actions have given the consumer the protection he has a right to expect. We shall continue to give safe, good quality food for the consumer the highest priority, and in the determination of the policies to achieve this the consumer will continue to play a full and influential role.
Finally, I Must tell the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that like him I have had the great good fortune to have worked as a junior Minister in both the DoH and MAFF over the past few years. That experience has been invaluable. It has taught me that talk of interdepartmental division is nonsense. Where food is concerned, the joint responsibilities harmonise well

1085
together. Above all, the interests of the consumer are always paramount. Close collaboration between the two departments will continue in the future. as it has in the past. For heaven's sake, let us keep a sense of proportion. Do not let us become a nation of healthy hypochondriacs.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, speaking on behalf of those who claim to be healthy and who are certainly not hypochondriacs, I must straight away say that I have no personal experience of having worked in either of the two Ministries. However, I have had extensive experience of dealing with them. Perhaps that enables me to sec the problems from a different angle.
We have had a very interesting debate this afternoon which has allowed full scope to the farming, medical, consumer and other interests to comment on this very important subject at this particularly important time. I am grateful to all the participants in the debate who have made it the lively affair it has been. I thank particularly the Minister for the spirited defence she made of her department. In particular, I thank her for mentioning the two matters which I think hold out hope for some concessions from the Ministry; namely, the specific reference to the agreement of the Minister's right honourable friend in another place which said there was scope for improvement, in consultation with consumers, in accordance with Recommendation 21 in the report of the National Consumer Council. I referred to that report in my opening speech.
I am also grateful to the Minister for her comments on environmental health officers and on the awareness which the Government have of the need for an examination of that matter. I hope that, despite the fact that many Ministries will necessarily have to be consulted, there will be considerable expedition in dealing with what is a serious issue. My Lords, with those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

"Death on the Rock"
5.50 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their considered view that they profoundly disagree with the report of Lord Windlesham and Mr. Richard Rampton, QC, on the Thames Television programme "Death on the Rock".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the Question is to elicit information. I should like to say at this point that in putting down the Question I did not inform the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that I was doing so because I thought that he might try to dissuade me. There has been no collusion between us in this matter.
The television programme "Death on the Rock" is a matter of public interest. The Government's response to the announcement of the programme, their expressed wish that it be postponed, their response to its screening, the commissioning by
1086
Thames Television of an independent inquiry led by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, helped by Mr. Richard Rampton QC, and the Government's response to that report are all elements which increase the significance of the programme. That is particularly so when broadcasting, and in particular the future of television, is under discussion and When at the same time there is widespread debate in the country on the extent to which the freedom of the media and, more widely, our liberties are being eroded. All those factors make the way in which the programme was received and the way in which it has since been discussed matters of great public interest. It seems to me that the number of noble Lords who have expressed a determination to take part in this debate confirms that view.
There are two matters which are central to the issues that I propose to raise. The first is why it was necessary for Thames Television to set up an independent inquiry. That is a question which believe I can answer. The second question is why the Government felt that the Windlesham report required such an immediate and unqualified condemnation. That is a question which only the Government can answer.
Perhaps I may begin by recapitulating the sequence of events which led to this brouhaha. At 3.40 p.m. on 6th March 1988 three people, two men and one woman, were shot dead by British security forces in broad daylight on the streets of Gibraltar. At 4.45 p.m., one hour and five minutes later, on the same day the Ministry of Defence issued a statement:
"A suspected bomb has been found in Gibraltar and three suspects have been shot by civilian police".
At 9 p.m. that statement was amended and expanded. It indicated that security forces were involved and:
"military personnel dealt with a suspect bomb".
On 7th March at 9 a.m. a Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed:
"A suspect bomb has been found"
That sensational news was reported widely in the papers of 7th March. There was speculation as to whether the bomb was 400 lbs or 500 lbs. Some papers reported that those who were shot were armed, and all of the papers' sources appeared to be the same: quite clearly the Ministry of Defence or MI5.
That afternoon the unfortunate Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, had to report that there was no bomb and those shot were unarmed. On 8th March explosives were found in Spain. In the light of that sequence of events it is hardly surprising that questions were asked in Parliament, in the press and on television.
Two issues are involved. One concerns the circumstances under which the three people were shot. In that connection I shall simply give this clear summary:
"I am astonished that the proposition should be put forward that because a person is suspected of preparing to commit a crime therefore he should be shot without trial".
Those are the words of Mr. Enoch Powell. The second issue concerns the misinformation put out by the Ministry of Defence and MI5 immediately and subsequently.
The next event was that, not altogether surprisingly, at the beginning of April Thames Television announced that it would be broadcasting a programme, "Death on the Rock", on 28th April. The Government's reaction was immediate. The Foreign Secretary asked for the programme to be postponed until after the inquest on the grounds that it would prejudice the inquest. Neither Thames Television nor the IBA felt able to agree to that request. In the event the inquest was postponed but not the programme.
Had Thames Television and the IBA agreed it would have meant that there was one rule for the Government and another for everyone else. For if the information gathered by Thames Television and given by the witnesses interviewed by Thames Television—none of whom had been interviewed by the Gibraltar police at that time—was prejudicial, one would have thought that the information put out by Sir Geoffrey Howe and the Ministry of Defence, even though contradictory in certain respects, was equally prejudicial.
When "Death on the Rock" was broadcast on 28th April it was greeted with howls of indignation from the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards. The Prime Minister said:
"Trial by television or guilt by association is the day freedom dies".
We do not know whether the Prime Minister had seen the programme nor what she meant by "guilt by association" in this particular case.
The Downing Street press, led by the Sunday Times and the Sun, joined in the assault on Thames Television and all those associated with the programme or who had appeared in it. Aspersions were cast on their competence and in particular, on the competence of Mr. Roger Bolton, the producer, and on the morality of some witnesses, including Mrs. Proetta. Those accusations proved to be totally false. Libel damages have been paid. The source of much of that information was a freelance journalist; it was based on an anonymous telephone call in Gibraltar. That seems to most people very much like the work of MI5's dirty tricks department: ask any journalist who was involved in the matter.
In response to that "sustained black propaganda campaign"—the words are those of Max Hastings, the editor of the Daily Telegraph—and after Mr. Asquez, at the inquest, withdrew the statement which he had written in his own hand but not signed, Thames Television set up an inquiry by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and Mr. Richard Rampton QC, a man of undoubted probity and with the appropriate experience to look into a matter of that kind. I understand that the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was welcomed by some Members of the Government.
Their report concluded that, taken as a whole, "Death on the Rock" did not offend against the rules of impartiality required by the IBA or the Broadcasting Act 1981. However, they had two reservations, first with respect to the way in which the Asquez statement was presented and, secondly, as to whether or not a warning was given by the soldiers.
Once more the Government's response to the report when it was published was immediate. The
1088
report was denounced and, deplorably, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, found himself and his objectivity called into question. This debate offers the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, an opportunity, which I hope he will take to withdraw those totally unworthy aspersions.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will note the response to that suggestion.
We must ask ourselves why there was this intemperate response to a report which to anyone who reads it is most clearly, obviously and transparently meticulous, carefully researched and the work of industrious patience. What lies behind the Government's reflex reaction to certain criticisms which it may imply? I find it difficult to guess. I find it difficult to diagnose this extreme sensitivity in reacting to a matter of widespread public interest, but I suspect that it was prompted by the same kind of motives that lie behind the Official Secrets Bill, the Security Service Bill and the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council; namely, the broadcasting and terrorism motives.
The Government appear to believe that too much knowledge in the hands of the public is a dangerous thing and that it is their duty to decide when enough information is enough. The attack on Thames Television and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has much in common with the attack on the BBC in the "Real Lives" programme. At that time the BBC was the object of the Government's hostility. That hostility has now switched to the IBA. The Government's response to the "Real Lives" programme, "Death on the Rock", the BBC and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, are warning shots for broadcasters.
A number of questions which I should like to put to the House are prompted by this whole affair. First is it the job of government information departments, such as that of the Ministry of Defence, to engage in misinformation—because it was nothing less than misinformation? Secondly, is it the job of organs of government to engage in black propaganda—because it was nothing less than black propaganda? Thirdly, if you agree to the appointment of an umpire on a question of this sort—I do not say that the agreement was formal, but there was no sign that it was not—which was the position that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, took, accompanied by Mr. Rampton—
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): Perhaps I may interrupt for a moment.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may just finish this sentence. If you agree with that umpire's decision, you should accept it. I happily give way.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. There was no question of the Government being involved with my noble friend's appointment to the inquiry to which the

1089
noble Lord has referred. The Government were not consulted and did not express a view.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I did not say that; I said that members of the Government indicated that they approved and that the Government certainly did not object. If they deny it, they deny it. That is not the information that is at my disposal.
The last thing that I should like to do is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and Mr. Rampton for undertaking a delicate and, as it has proved, an unpopular but important task and for carrying it out meticulously and in the public interest with both courage and integrity. They may have been the victims of brickbats rather than thanks from the Government. They deserve the thanks of the public for what they have done and we should bear in mind the lesson that the public interest and the Government's interest do not always coincide.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, perhaps I may say, as an ex-professional soldier with, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House is aware, some experience in these matters, that I would be the last person to suggest that in a civilised country like ours the activities of the armed forces should be generally cocooned from media comment or that they should ever be above the law and outside proper constitutional control. I also happen to believe that the freedom of the press, with all its irritations, is one of the essential guardians of our liberty. But I hardly need remind the House that, when it happens that our special forces are properly called in by the civil power (a request incidentally, that they cannot constitutionally refuse) it is invariably a matter of the highest delicacy and sensitivity with much at risk and much at stake; otherwise they would not have had the incident handed over to them in the first place. Happily in our system there is no freelancing of military forces.
It is therefore greatly in the national and public interest that such matters are dealt with successfully as well as within the rules of minimum force laid down under the existing law. Of course, noble Lords will appreciate only too well that what constitutes minimum force when the incident has been handed over—in this case in writing—to armed soldiers to deal with known terrorists, reasonably thought to be in the process of committing the most serious type of criminal offence imaginable, will differ significantly from that which would apply when apprehending a petty thief.
So it was that, under those particular circumstances of avoiding above all else the perpetration of a terrible crime against many innocent people and having heard all the evidence before a judge of first instance, the due process of law came to the clear conclusion that opening fire and killing the IRA's self-styled active service unit constituted a justifiable response within the rule of law. But the details of the shooting are not the main point that we are addressing this evening as a result of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-
1090
Carter. What we are concerned with—or should be concerned with—is the validity of a private report and, by implication therefore, whether it was right for Thames Television to indulge in some pre-empting of the due legal process and some speculation in advance of the inquest: that the soliders concerned might not have acted in good faith and might have exceeded the restraints lawfully imposed upon them.
Here I do not believe that the key questions should he so much those primarily addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his conscientious and painstaking report but much more whether the programme should ever have been made at all. The makers of the programme may in their own lights have acted in good faith, although they seem to be quick enough to suggest a lack of good faith in others and must have known that they were not in possession of all the facts. The programme may have contained an element of selective impartiality, although in the words of the report of the noble Lord:
"the tendency of the evidence presented was to suggest a possibility",
"a real possibility", as was pointed out subsequently,
"that the terrorists had been lawfully killed, perhaps murdered'".
Again, I quote:
"Nor were alternative explanations canvassed in any depth".
The programme may have been scrupulously researched, although again in the words of the report:
"the lapses in accuracy cannot be dismissed as insignificant".
But by far the greatest question still remains, and that is whether our society—Thames Television operates in our society, for our society—should have allowed itself the indulgence, in advance of a properly conducted judicial process with, as I would always have urged, all the relevant witnesses present, of venting theories that might so easily (whatever the noble Lord's opinion) have affected the judicial process by contaminating evidence or by influencing jurors who would be bound, as they did, to get to hear of the programme by one means or another. We must also ask ourselves whether society should have allowed doubts to be cast in advance on the honour and integrity of certain carefully selected soldiers of the Queen who not only had a most difficult and possibly dangerous task to do at the time but who regularly lay their lives on the line on our behalf.
Finally and perhaps above all there is the question of whether our society should have allowed, or indeed would have wished, considerable encouragement and succour to be given to a terrorist movement that thrives on the oxygen of publicity and martyrdom and has engaged in a most pernicious campaign against us which it claims amounts to open warfare. Combating terrorism is difficult enough as it is in a free society. If we are to be serious in our resolve to do it successfully, not to be unduly and unacceptably influenced and compelled by it and determined to protect our people, the least that our security forces should be able to expect when undertaking such assignments in which so much is at stake and when the situation may change and deteriorate so rapidly—and when the adrenalin is flowing, as it always does when acute danger is at hand—is the understanding and support of the public whose civil power has taken the conscious decision to involve them in the first place and the full backing of

1091
the law within which they must operate and to which I can assure the House they unequivocally subscribe.
If there had been or should have been the slightest concern that in this instance these highly trained soldiers had somehow exceeded the power authorised to them, the correct forum for establishing or refuting that concern in the eyes and interests of the public was the prescribed and properly conducted, as it was, judicial process in Gibraltar—and through any further action, charges or review which might have flowed from it. Therefore I submit that there was no need at that stage for investigative journalism to look after the public interest on that score. Indeed, there was no reason at all to usurp that function other than perhaps some degree of human self-indulgence in the media world. By so doing they did not give the security forces the kind of support which, with everything de facto sub judice, they were entitled to expect from the public and without which continuing success in the struggle against terrorism cannot be expected, let alone guaranteed.
It it also highly undesirable to say the least that secret intelligence operations, co-operation with other countries' intelligence agencies and clandestine methods and techniques of surveillance should be explored so publicly and in such detail, albeit accidentally fairly inaccurately.
If the inquest had been held in this country I have little doubt that legal steps would have been taken and approved to prevent "Death on the Rock" being shown when it was shown, for the obvious reason that it might prejudice that inquest. With modern communications and media methods as they are, it is rather difficult to understand how the location in Gibraltar could have changed the situation all that much. Certainly the moral responsibility remained to be discreet about highly sensitive intelligence. Of course no one likes imposed censorship if it can possibly be avoided, but I believe that our future ability to keep terrorism under control may well depend on the media's own willingness to try to establish for themselves a code of conduct which, while protecting the true public interest, will not make dealing with terrorism more difficult than it is already and above all will not give succour and encouragement to those who are in open revolt against the United Kingdom Government and people.
The Government and the media getting together and being able to agree on a working relationship may be the crux of the whole matter. If they cannot agree, some restraint on reporting before a declared judicial process may become necessary.
So far as freedom of expression is concerned, even in a free society there are already many perfectly proper restraints which, if abused, could lead the perpetrators of that abuse into court. So asking for some imposed discipline in this special field, particularly as in most cases it would involve only timing rather than complete suppression, may not be so unreasonable.
It has been said with some justification—not surprisingly because of the nature of their business—that the media cannot report any news or carry out any investigation without making arbitrary
1092
judgments. That applies in particular to the more immediate and visual impact of television. That is why such programmes have to be so careful to see that in exceptional circumstances such as existed in Gibraltar such arbitrary judgments do not exacerbate the situation and even conflict with national interest. In this instance I believe that that could well have been the case.
I find fault with the Thames Television programme "Death on the Rock" in that it was angled toward an arbitrary judgment which was premature and as such both unnecessary and against the national interest. Incidentally, it may have done some service in highlighting the close link that invariably exists between the type and timing of media coverage and successful anti-terrorist operations. But taken in the round, the programme caused anguish to all those on whom we must rely most for our security and gave consolation and encouragement to those who seek to defeat us. As such, I submit that it would have been better if it had not been made. But that of course is the one point that the noble Lord's report hardly addressed at all. Therefore, and certainly to that extent, I for one emphatically disagree with it.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I think it will be appreciated that this is not an easy debate for me, speaking from these Benches as I do. However, I have been fortified by the thought that neither is it likely to prove an easy assignment for my noble friend the Minister who is to reply at the end of the debate. I regret that the report by Mr. Rampton and myself has become something of a political football. Originally I had hoped to maintain the neutrality that is expected of a referee. That is why I said very little at the time of the publication of the report, although I have since been drawn into the controversy by the attacks made on my independence and integrity.
I do not want to take issue this afternoon, or indeed at all, on the disputed question of what happened on 6th March, nearly a year ago, when three members of the self-styled active service unit of the Provisional IRA were shot dead in the streets of Gibraltar. As we explain in our report and as we repeated throughout the inquiry, it was no part of our remit to investigate the shootings; nor should anything in the report be taken as putting a gloss on the proceedings of the subsequent inquest, or the verdict which was returned by the Gibraltar jury.
The task that was taken on by Mr. Rampton and myself—both of us with some knowledge of the workings of television and newspapers but neither having any previous connection with Thames Television—was to inquire into the making and screening of "Death on the Rock". It is not my purpose either to praise or condemn the programme in this debate but to explain how the inquiry was conducted.
First of all let us be clear, as has already been said, that this inquiry was set up by Thames after discussion with the Independent Broadcasting Authority; not by the Government. Naturally the Government, in the shape of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, were invited to give evidence and did so in writing and

1093
orally. We received full co-operation from the two departments both when we visited Gibraltar and in this country. At no time was there any suggestion that the form or the membership of the inquiry was likely to lead to a biased outcome.
Looking back and thinking it over as I have done many times in the past few weeks, I am inclined to conclude that one of the reasons why the Government's reaction to the report was so hostile was a tendency in some quarters to regard the inquiry as being in some ways more officially oriented than it was. The Foreign Office largely confined itself to a reiteration of Sir Geoffrey Howe's contention when he requested that the showing of the programme be postponed; namely, that its transmission risked prejudicing the inquest and contaminating the evidence which would be presented to that inquest. Both of these important aspects were considered at some length in the report, receiving a separate chapter each.
Even before the inquiry was set up the Ministry of Defence had assembled a list of detailed criticisms of the content of the programme, originally under 39 headings. Although selectively leaked to the press, we were told by the Ministry of Defence that the document was not an authorised one. A much shorter list contained in a letter addressed to me from the Second Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, which has since been published—it is a matter of public record—was submitted to us by way of written evidence instead.
I want the Government to realise that each of their criticisms was carefully considered and evaluated. We did so in the light of the evidence which we took from all of the other interested parties. To attempt to dismiss the report's findings by claiming that we had deliberately ignored or glossed over—those were the words used—the specific points that we were supposed to be investigating belittles the report and displays an unnecessarily partisan approach. Seriously as we treated the criticisms put to us by the Government, it would not have been right to allow them to set the agenda.
As the report shows, we obtained a mass of new information in the course of the inquiry. It included the full transcripts of the untransmitted portions of interviews with the eyewitnesses which had been filmed and recorded but not used. We also met, interviewed and indeed cross-examined most of those who had contributed to the film in various capacities, not least the programme makers themselves.
The Government's evidence, powerfully argued and effectively presented as it was, could naturally take account of none of this. Nor did it seem proper to us to rely on information which became available only at the inquest some four months after "Death on the Rock" had been screened. What we had to examine was the use made of such information as was available, or which could have been discovered, at the time the programme was made in March and April.
From the start we recognised that the Gibraltar shootings evoked strong feelings. It was evident that public attitudes were divided, deeply so. Some people believed that in countering the IRA's brutal
1094
campaign of violence, which in this instance would in all probability have resulted in many civilian as well as military casualties, the security forces were entitled to take whatever measures were necessary to protect the people of Gibraltar. Others, while similarly abhorring the IRA's objectives and tactics, were disturbed about the implications of any actions by the security forces falling outside the rule of law by which they were bound. Some of these reactions were inchoate and instinctive; others were forthright and passionate.
I suspect that we shall see these sentiments reflected, as they should be in Parliament, in the debate in this House today. It is entirely right that the police and the security forces should be supported in the dangerous and unpleasant duties that they are called upon to perform. I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, had the sympathy of the House with him when he spoke on those lines. But it is also right that any doubts prompted by conscience should be heard, unpopular though they may sometimes be.
I have no quarrel with those who assert that the programme was out of step with a substantial strand of public opinion on a contentious issue of high public importance. We accept as much in the report. But it does not follow from that, which is apparently the Foreign Secretary's present opinion, although not the case he put forward at the time he asked for postponement, that the programme should never have been made.
Unlike the relatively unrestricted press, it is important to recognise that there is a complex regulatory system to determine which programmes are and which programmes are not shown on Independent Television. Parliament has wisely left the last word on editorial controversies not with Ministers, or with the programme-makers or the managements to which they are responsible, but with the members of a statutory public body—the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The House as a whole will look forward to hearing later in the debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who was a member of the authority for some years. The IBA is charged to act impartially using its own best judgment of where the public interest lies.
It was far sighted of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and his colleagues to co-operate as fully as they did with our inquiries into their decision to allow "Death on the Rock" to be screened. Richard Rampton and myself believed it was important to scrutinise the IBA's role as well as that of the programme company if we were to produce a report that was comprehensive, thorough and fair.
At the outset, we obtained agreement that after the report had been delivered and considered it would be published in full without amendment in order that the general public might have the benefit of a dispassionate analysis of how this film was made and shown. It has been an unprecedented inquiry. There has never been so rigorous an examination of a single current affairs programme in the history of British television. The implications are far reaching, and I am confident that the significance of the report will endure long after the controversy which inspired it has been stilled. That indeed may be its justification.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for initiating this debate in his usual incisive fashion. We all give great weight to the views of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. Everyone here agrees with him on the absolute necessity of defeating the terrorists, though if I understood him correctly he said we must keep within the law. I believe I heard him say that. However, I shall not pursue the topic.
I come forward as an almost unqualified supporter of the Windlesham Report. I say "almost unqualified" because I have a reservation that I shall make later. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has long been admired in this House—as Minister of State at the Home Office, as Leader of the House and as chairman of the Parole Board. He has written an excellent book on the penal system and has been very successful in television, though not (as he himself told us this afternoon) in Thames. No doubt he will wish to share the credit—there is much credit for the report—with his legal colleagues. But I say without hesitation that this is his finest hour.
I was going to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who are to speak ought to be proud to be sitting on the same Bench with him.
Noble Lords: Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
The Earl of Longford: What did I call him?
Noble Lords: Lord Bonham-Carter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, sits at the other end of the House. My noble friend Lord Windlesham sits two Benches behind me and I am at this end of the House.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we all have Carters. There is one Carter here, one there and we have one of our own. Now we are quits.
I was saying that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, should be proud to be sitting on the same Bench, as they usually do, with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. Under what pressures I know not he has been induced to retreat to the third row. I hope that it is not permanent and that he has not been expelled from the ex-ministerial Bench because he certainly deserves a better fate than that.
In a sense the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was on a hiding to nothing. If his report had pleased the Government he would have been accused of being a Conservative stooge. But if it happened to be more agreeable to the television company, people would say that he was biased in favour of that part of his life. That was his problem. However, we are not concerned primarily with personalities this afternoon.
There are two issues here. Should this programme ever have been made at all? That was mainly dealt with by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and in the event was a worthy production. I am not
1096
one of those who thinks that every programme which seems likely to arouse public interest ought to be made. A shocking film has appeared lately and a shocking programme connected with it which brings back the agonies of the story of Mr. Profumo, who has done such marvellous work in the past 25 years. If we have a debate on that film or programme I shall certainly join those who say that they find it detestable. I am not somebody who comes here biased in favour of television producers.
Let us look at this on its merits. The great argument seems to be that this programme would in some way prejudice the inquest. It is difficult to speak about that without warmth. From the beginning the Foreign Secretary made it plain that he thought the members of the SAS did a very good job. He suggested that in his first speech. As far as I know he has not said anything else since. That has been the attitude not only of the Government but of the government-inspired papers. I do not say that this was under inspiration, but some of the papers went to abominable lengths in reviling some of the witnesses. Plenty of prejudice was created, and the only question was whether the television people were the only ones who were supposed to keep quiet until the inquest followed six months later. Frankly I believe that that argument smacks of humbug. I am sorry to use a plain word, but at least it will be understood.
However, if we consider the programme itself, here I would introduce a reservation. I believe that the Windlesham Report is much too gentle to the company where it discusses the way in which Thames dealt with the evidence of the young bank clerk, Asquez. I am not blaming the young man, who disappeared from view ultimately. I do know whether he has reappeared since. I am not blaming him, but I believe that Thames, to say the least, was disingenous in the way his evidence was presented. I am not saying that this is a perfect report, but one would have had to wait a long time for a perfect report and there would never have been a television programme at all. With that one exception I applaud the integrity of the report as an honest job well done.
I have time to touch on only two of the witnesses: Mrs. Proetta and Colonel Styles. I am glad that such an expert as Colonel Styles was found to play his part in the programme, though he since has been under criticism from government sources. In the end he did not turn out to be quite so helpful as they might have expected. He was a former head of bomb disposal in Northern Ireland where he earned the George Cross for conspicuous bravery. He was present—and this is very much to the credit of the company—when this key witness, Mrs. Proetta, was interviewed. In the programme and elsewhere he has paid tribute to her integrity. I believe we must take her as a honest witness who was in a very good position to see everything that happened. With so many lawyers in the House I need not say that witnesses are not infallible even when they are honest and when they are in a position to know everything. But this witness delivered her evidence in the presence of Colonel Styles.
Colonel Styles took a view about the matter which has no doubt been held by large numbers of people. In the programme he is on record as saying that he

1097
looked on the piece as being two active service units waging war—there was an argument yesterday about whether we were waging war—and he said:
"Thank goodness our side won … so taking them out quickly, cleanly and without other people getting hurt—that seems to be the only way".
That was the view of Colonel Styles. I shall not ask the noble Lord, Lord Bramall, to rise and agree or disagree with Colonel Styles, but that point of view is widely held by a great many people, in particularly those in public houses. That may be seen to be a plain man's response. Here were some people who were about to commit a frightful atrocity and the thing was to take them out quickly. That undoubtedly is a policy that would appeal to many people. However, the question arises whether they could have been arrested without being killed and that question is as obscure today as it was when the matter first came before the public.
I shall be amazed if the Government really come clean tonight and tell us the whole story as they see it. I am not being disrespectful in saying that because I am sure that they will tell me that security considerations of the kind mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, make it impossible to tell the whole story. In that sense they will never be able to produce their full defence. One explanation is that there was no desire whatever to kill these people, but the members of the SAS were misinformed. They believed that they were armed, which they were not. They believed that they had access to a bomb and were going to blow everyone up, which they were not. Owing to their misinformation they killed those people unnecessarily. That is one possible account of what occurred: in other words, it was a cock-up.
The "cock-up" theory is one way in which many people will view the matter: it was a mistake. However, because a terrible tragedy was averted no one will shed a great many tears for people who were about to commit an evil act. But if one is told that it was a planned execution, I am afraid that that is a less laudable explanation.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and his colleagues were not asked to pronounce on what happened. They were not asked to say whether the terrorists could have been arrested without being killed. They had a more limited task—to inquire into the programme. Was it an honest programme, carefully researched and carried out in a spirit of honesty and public service? They came to the conclusion that it was an honest, public spirited programme. In that I concur with their conclusion. I join with those—and I am sure that there will be many—who wish to salute the noble Lord and his colleagues for their work under very difficult circumstances.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, my intervention will be brief. I have come here this afternoon for a limited purpose. What I have already heard makes it clear that the debate opens up issues of national and public importance. If we were to debate them fully we should be here all night and for the rest of the week.
I should like to make a number of preliminary observations. I concur with whoever said that it
1098
should be open to anyone to make any film about anything. That being a liberty possessed in this country, it behoves anyone who makes such a film to do so with a sense of personal responsibility, knowing that the law will not interfere. Any kind of film, play or newspaper which seeks to prejudge a forensic issue should not only be carefully avoided but regarded with the utmost reserve. There is no greater danger than preconceptions in such matters. Hence, I entirely concur with what has been said: that the right to make the film is absolute but it is one which should be enjoyed with discretion, responsibility and common sense.
In no way do I make any imputation about the film. However, it must be emphasised that all too often one sees on television and in newspapers matters which prejudge a judicial inquiry and which cannot be in the least helpful. It would be wrong if anyone who has practised the law for 50 years, as I have, did not hold those beliefs.
It would be difficult and wrong to quarrel with a single word spoken by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. However, the issue which he has addressed is not that with which I am concerned this afternoon. It appears to me that there are three issues. First, whether the film should have been made at all. On that question I am not competent to judge and I do not wish to make any observation. I appear to be about the only person living who does not know precisely what happened in Gibraltar on that dreadful day. Frankly, any contribution I have to make on the subject will be less than useless.
I do not believe that we are today discussing what happened in Gibraltar. We are discussing two issues. First, is it right that there should be a private inquiry into a public matter? In that regard I have some record and it is always nice to be able to quote one's recollection. Some years ago there arose an issue which today would seem idiotically trivial. An attack was made on Granada Television, a client of mine, which was about to be stigmatised because of the suggestion that it had rigged a game show. That anyone could take the issue seriously would be difficult to believe today but at the time it racked the nation. It was the issue of the day and was the matter about which everyone was uttering views and opinions.
I was consulted by the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, who unhappily is not here today. He asked me what to do. I suggested that, in the circumstances, it would be sensible to obtain someone of impeccable record and unarguable integrity to investigate the matter on behalf of the company. He should remain aloof from the investigations and provide the necessary facilities. I first telephoned the late Lord Birkett. He indicated a great willingness to participate but then recollected that he occasionally sat as a Member of the House of Lords. He did not believe that it would be proper for him to carry out the investigation.
I then telephoned the former Attorney-General, Sir Lionel Heald, and in doing so I had an exceptional piece of luck. His daughter answered the telephone and when she asked what I wanted I said, "I am anxious to ask your father whether he will engage in a television inquiry". She said, "Television, how

1099
attractive. He must do it". Within a few minutes Sir Lionel came to the telephone. He did it beautifully and impeccably. No one could have uttered a word of doubt about the integrity of his findings. It was discovered that there had been some rigging of the programme but that the company had had nothing to do with it. It was a highly satisfactory conclusion. In that case a private investigation was not only justifiable and proper but necessary, and it was so conducted.
I cannot readily think of any other private investigation. However, the notion that it is impossible for a private investigation or a television company to make an inquiry which is not proper or helpful can be contradicted. For instance, I recently saw a film relating to the alleged activities of the head of the security service, who, in my view, had been outrageously accused of being involved as a spy. It appeared that there has never been a shred of evidence to justify that accusation. I forget the name of the television company which made the film but the programme made that fact abundantly clear. No one can argue that it was not a sensible, virtuous and useful act.
In all such matters one must consider the situation involved. Whether it was right or wrong to make the programme referred to in the Question, I cannot judge. Perhaps my comment will not be popular, but I believe that, if an organisation which was not a commercial organisation had had such a decision to make, it might well have decided to defer the film until after the judicial process had been considered.
Whether that is so, the fact is that the film was made. I have no idea whether it was good or accurate but the fact is that it was made. I am not here to talk about that issue. I am here to talk about the fact that two gentlemen have been stigmatised in a thoroughly outrageous fashion. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made a dignified and appropriate speech. He is present in the House today to defend himself. Those noble Lords who have known him as a Member of this House for many years, and for some years previously, could not entertain the faintest suspicion that he would have entered into an inquiry from any ulterior, dubious or secondary motive.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Goodman: That cannot be believed. However, Mr. Rampton is not present and in his regard I must make an admission. Some months ago, before the inquiry took place, I was telephoned by Sir Ian Trethowan, the chairman of the television company concerned. He asked whether I could suggest a leading counsel who might participate in the inquiry. I thought hard and long and finally suggested Mr. Rampton. It is perfectly clear that I rendered him no service and I should like to make a public apology to him.
Mr. Rampton is a Queen's Counsel whom I have known and used in a professional fashion for years. I cannot claim that he is a close friend but he is a man for whom I have the greatest respect. Any suggestion that he would have been engaged in the inquiry in
1100
such a fashion as to do anything but seek the total truth is outrageous. No one should make such a suggestion. I hope that during the course of the debate any such suggestion will be publicly and openly withdrawn. Mr. Rampton is not present to speak for himself, as is the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. However, having heard the suggestions and what has been said, it would be wrong if I did not this afternoon express my view that there could have been no better choice.
I do not know which other Members of the Bar should have carried out the inquiry. It is, however, somewhat surprising that at this moment a solicitor known to have adventurous notions about the reform of the law should be defending a barrister. It is probably the last occasion for many months on which that will happen. However, on this occasion I welcome the opportunity. I am very willing and anxious to do it. I have come here for that purpose alone. Having said what I want to say, I hope that we shall realise that this is not a political issue. It is not a question of whether the Government are right or wrong. This is a personal issue about how people should behave to other people. On that score, I believe that the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and Mr. Rampton have been treated, is inexcusable.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wholly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said. I do not believe that any of your Lordships desire to cast the slightest personal reflection on either my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who I agree made a most dignified and impressive speech, or on Mr. Rampton who I, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, can claim as a fellow member of the Bar. Both are honourable men doing what they believe to be right, having been requested to do so.
I part company from the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in his reference to this inquiry. This was a private inquiry. As the noble Lord. Lord Goodman, said, there is no objection to that. There are examples which he gave of perfectly satisfactory private inquiries. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was wrong to reproach the Government for questioning the views of the umpire. A private inquiry set up with most reputable members by an outside organisation is not, for any practical purpose, an umpire as regards the Government. The Government are perfectly entitled to say that they disagree with its findings.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I object to the Government questioning the integrity of the umpire.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is right. I have no recollection of the Government questioning the integrity of either of the members of the inquiry. If the noble Lord believes that they do then he should say so now or withdraw his remark.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that the umpires were said to have

1101
produced a report by television for television which suggests that their interests were for television rather than for finding out exactly what happened.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is a gallant attempt to construct a fantasy but the noble Lord knows perfectly well that there is not a word there which challenges the integrity of the two distinguished people undertaking the inquiry. I am very sorry indeed that the noble Lord should have introduced this at this stage because I do not believe that he will carry with him anybody else in your Lordships' House on the matter.
I believe that it is normal in these debates to thank the opener of the debate. I do not propose to do so in this case because I do not believe that this debate is necessarily good. I believe that it has caused quite unnecessary embarrassment to my noble friend Lord Windlesham and, I have no doubt, to Mr. Rampton, and that, quite plainly, it is merely an attempt to make mischief between the inquiry and the Government.
I say at once that the Government are perfectly entitled to take a different view—as I do—from that taken by the inquiry. This is not a matter of honour or integrity but a matter of judgment on very complicated facts. My own study of the matter, having seen the film, does not confirm the view taken of it by the inquiry, honestly and well meaningfully as it was taken. However, my view happens to coincide with that of the Government. I believe that it is a pity that this film was made and I believe that it was tragic that it was shown at the time.
I believe that the television company owes us a good deal of explanation as to why it disregarded the request of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary at least to postpone the showing. We were dealing, as we were there, with a very tense and difficult situation in which human lives were at risk and in which there was the risk of a very serious tragedy to our fellow countrymen in Gibraltar as well as to very gallant members of the armed forces. In that situation I should have thought that any responsible citizen would pay great attention to the request made by a responsible Minister of the Crown. I believe that it was very irresponsible of the IBA to disregard that request.
As far as I know, no one argues, although it is a pity that the film was made, that the film should necessarily have been held up for ever. If the IBA wanted to produce a film of this sort no doubt on the general principles which have been adumbrated earlier, it should have been free to do so. However, on the timing, to disregard the specific request by a Minister of the Crown made at a moment of emergency was an utterly irresponsible act for which I believe it will take a long time for that company to clear itself. Certainly its reputation in my mind—and I had a great admiration for it until recently—has been sadly altered.
On the film itself—and no doubt most of your Lordships have seen it— it is perfectly plain that its whole drift and implication is that the soldiers shot down defenceless men. Indeed at one point it showed
1102
one soldier standing with his rifle shooting the man on the ground. That is the whole drift of it. That is a somewhat foul charge to make against very gallant soldiers of the Crown. I fully share the feelings of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who spoke a few moments ago that here soldiers were performing a dangerous task in defence of their fellow citizens and who are apparently shown on this film as acting in a way which is perhaps not very far short of murder. Therefore, I believe it was a bad film and on that point, with respect, I differ from my noble friend Lord Windlesham.
It is curious that we are having this debate. I believe that our foreign friends who think that we are rather an odd people will be confirmed in their view by this debate. There have been a number of tragic episodes in the campaign which the IRA has waged against us; namely, the sad loss of life at Enniskillen and the attack at the Shropshire barracks where there was no loss of life but that was only because of the skilful action of a sentry and half a dozen others. We have not discussed any of those. However, the one case in which no innocent civilian was hurt or wounded and the only people who were hurt were admitted terrorists is the one which your Lordships' House finds it necessary to discuss. I believe that our foreign friends may regard that as an amiable eccentricity and it is certainly a rather curious aspect of the matter.
I do not underrate and I share generally the views about freedom of expression and comment and freedom of the broadcasting agencies in general. However, as has already been said—and I only repeat it by way of emphasis—there are occasions when we are engaged in something like a war with the terrorists when restraint must be exercised in the interests of the safety of the realm, the armed forces and the national effort. This was surely one of those occasions. It is because of the failure of the television company in this respect that I feel that the report we are discussing has been far too kind to it, and I go along fully with the firm robust criticism made by Her Majesty's Government and which I am perfectly certain reflects the view of the great majority of the English people.
7 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that, like other noble Lords, I have no intention of casting any doubt whatever upon the integrity and competence of my noble friend Lord Windlesham or of his colleague from the Bar? I am perfectly prepared to accept the view that they honestly came to: that this film, with one or two omissions or distortions which they refer to, was made fairly and was properly commissioned.
However, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, pointed out, we are not discussing a question of production of a television film; we are discussing an issue of major importance: whether a film of this kind should have been made and shown, and what—and I do not believe that this question has not so far been asked—could have been the motives for either making it or showing it.
One has been suggested, and no one who has seen this film could doubt that this was one of the

1103
possibilities in the minds of the makers. It is that it might influence the coming inquest. There I think I may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that to do anything of this kind before a judicial inquiry was in itself deplorable. Whether it happened to be in Gibraltar or in the United Kingdom is beside the point.
However, I think I would go further than that. It seems to me that not only does the film intend to cast doubt upon the conduct of the members of the armed forces involved and on the statements made in their defence by Her Majesty's Ministers and accepted by the coroner's inquest, but it also could have, and possibly was intended to have, the effect of encouraging the IRA to claim that these people who, on the film's own showing, were the vilest of thugs could enter the long catalogue of Irish martyrdom. We were in fact shown on the film the welcome which their coffins received from IRA sympathisers when they were flown home for burial.
If these were not the intentions of the film makers, what were their intentions? Certainly it was not a programme designed for entertainment. The violent death of three persons, however vile, is not a subject for family viewing. It is not an entertainment programme. Therefore one must assume that there was a purpose behind it, and the purpose which I have suggested is the only one that seems to me to come out of the film, even accepting as I do the words of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that this was a proper representation of the evidence available in that direction.
However, I think that the gap between what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—and I agree with him—to be the majority opinion in this country and the point of view of a noble Lord like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is even wider than that. I believe that there is here a difference of moral stance. It is generally felt in this country that the defence of the citizen againt violent death is overwhelmingly the most important of our civil liberties and that none of the other civil liberties measures up against it. If your are dead, you are dead. Therefore I think there is a feeling that where issues of life and death are involved it behoves the media—the press and, above all, television, whose influence we know to be much greater than that of the printed word—to be particularly scrupulous and careful.
It seems to me that in deciding to make and show a film of this kind we have an example of what I think many people regard—and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, may reply to this when she comes to speak—as an increasing tendency among the media to think that they have a special role as the nation's conscience. What business is it of a young television producer to decide, and to be supported by his company and the IBA, that he has the right to cast doubt on what is going on because it does not seem to his tender conscience that justice has been done or that the law has been fully observed?
I believe that again and again there have been occasions in the media—and this is only the most flagrant example—when people whom nobody has
1104
elected and on whom no one has conferred any public responsibility, who I imagine have not even been members of a parish council, put themselves in a position not merely to tell the British public what to think on vital issues of life and death but use the powerful medium of television to persuade them that what they are being told is correct.
I think therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, should feel perfectly happy about today's debate. It is in no sense a criticism of his work or that of his colleague. It is simply an occasion on which, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, to make plain that the assumption of this role by television producers and television companies is deeply resented by the mass of the British people.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, conflicting views have been so eloquently expressed already that I feel my personal opinion of these matters must be of rather little account. But, first, I should like to praise the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and his colleague Mr. Rampton, for having taken on this very difficult and sensitive task and for having presented their views with such clarity and honesty. Of course one would expect nothing less from a Privy Counsellor and a very senior QC.
However, members of every profession carry with them that profession's own ethos, which inevitably shapes their views; and many people have said to me: "Would it not have been wiser for the choice of the most prominent author of this report to have been made from outside the television industry?" They argue that for the sake of appearances—and I repeat "for the sake of appearances"—it would have been preferable and indeed in the interests of the industry to have done that. I an inclined to that view myself, but I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to accept my complete assurance of the confidence that I have in his integrity.
Over the last two decades we have been made aware of the positive contribution that many investigative journalists have made to our national and international knowledge. But, while recognising and applauding this, one is entitled from experience sometimes to take a cautious and even cynical view of their stated intentions. I wonder sometimes whether in self-defence they attribute to themselves loftier motives than are in fact justified, and even attempt to assume a role which is inappropriate. Your Lordships will recall some expensive errors of judgment made in the recent past.
At the heart of the controversy is the question whether a programme should have been made and shown to 6 million persons at that particular time in advance of an inquest which the programme makers knew had to take place in the near future.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear hear!
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: It is surely indisputable that there was a high risk of prejudicing the verdict at the inquest, and that on its verdict very serious consequences for certain individuals could depend. I believe that the majority of fair-minded people would accept that the risk was real and should not have been

1105
incurred. We have seen the exchange of correspondence between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I personally find the secretary of State's arguments more convincing, even allowing for the latter's fuller reference to Lord Salmon's report at the time of Aberfan. In the report it is argued that jurors would be unlikely to be affected by their knowledge of the views expressed in an advance programme. Much is made of the detachment of juries and distinguished legal opinion is quoted in support of that. I personally find that very hard to accept and so would the majority of people.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: Moreover, apart from anything else, one had to take into account the fact that Gibraltar, from which the jurors would be drawn, is a small community and the shooting was an event of the highest drama. A TV programme was likely to have a disproportionate impact. It is fair to say that in the event the inquest did not seem to have been prejudiced. but that could not have been confidently assumed in advance. The showing of the programme was an unjustified risk to justice and to the future lives of certain individuals.
I, like other noble Lords, have recently refreshed my memories of the programme. Like many others I believe it confirms the views of those who maintain that it went beyond its stated purpose of laying before the viewers certain evidence giving rise to questions best examined by a judicial inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, acknowledges that that was a tenable view. I believe that this view is confirmed by the fact that little or nothing was done to diminish the clear implication that the terrorists had been unlawfully killed. The selection of witnesses; the careful choice of quoted evidence and the skilful way in which questions were posed all contributed to that impression.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: Moreover, certain relevant facts were suppressed and others used to support implication. In particular, the handling of the evidence of Mr. Asquez and the failure to question his companions in the car with him support that view. To leave a significant number of viewers with the impression of unlawful killing shows how considerable was the potential danger of showing the programme. Of course it is argued that other branches of the media were giving space to these questions, but it is well known that the television programme makers find it convenient at these times to assume an unusual modesty and to downgrade their special and dominating influence. It may also be observed that the programme enabled the IRA to enlist undeserved sympathy and created in the Irish Republic a current of opinion that was later reflected in the Ryan case.
I wish to add one further thought with which I believe the whole House will agree. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this current controversy, it is a symptom of a wider and much more important
1106
problem. I refer to the deterioration of the relationship between the broadcasters and the Government. The blame for that is shared. It is an unhealthy state of affairs with unforeseeable consequences. I feel that every effort should be made to bring it to an end.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I too wish to put on record that I hold my noble friend Lord Windlesham in the highest esteem. I cannot go so far as to profoundly disagree with his report. I find it more of a curate's egg—good in parts. For instance, I heartily agree with the quotation on page 14 of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. He said:
Broadcasters … are often their own worst enemies. One of the cardinal temptations for them … is a certain arrogance, and an extraordinary sensitivity if anyone questions their freedom to do things exactly in their own way. Broadcasters, who spend their lives critically cross-examining Ministers and MPs, are curiously sensitive when it comes to being criticised themselves.".
But I disagree with the main thrust of the report, which is that the IBA's decision to allow broadcasting of "Death on the Rock" was the right one; and that the programme stated that it was no more than one of several possibilities that the IRA terrorists were murdered by our troops; moreover, that this possibility was presented in a thorough and unbiased manner. Along with many other noble Lords I cannot go along with that. As evidence I wish to narrow-in on one facet only and that is the absence of a significant bomb in the white Renault parked by the ancient city wall.
The word "significant" has a peculiar fascination as it shows that how things are said on television is just as important as what is said. The word is first mentioned by the Thames' reporter, Julian Manyon. In quoting him I shall try to imitate his emphasis for it is all-important. Julian Manyon says:
"… according to an expert, … there was no significant bomb in it."—referring to the car.
Immediately after Manyon that expert speaks, and he is Colonel Styles. I give his words their correct emphasis:
"I'm sure the (bomb disposal) man … would have quickly seen that it (the car) carried no significant weight of explosive … Agreed, there could have been a smaller bomb inside it, and I expect the bomb-disposal man anticipated such.".
That is a different meaning. How small is a small bomb? Many noble Lords will have carried a few hand grenades during military service. They are light, yet each can kill up to 20 people. Indeed, I feel sure that 30 hand grenades would not have weighed down the car boot, particularly if the spare wheel and toolkit had been removed. Thirty hand grenades can kill hundreds of men, women and children. That is precisely why Colonel Styles in his interview stressed that word "significant".
Now I come to the reporter's summing-up at the programme end. Manyon says:
"… deeply disturbing … George Styles an acknowledged expert on bomb disposal, says that the security services should have known within minutes of examining the white Renault 5 that there was no significant bomb in the car.".
Note the emphasis and almost the elision. Manyon leads the viewer to believe that it was immediately

1107
obvious to an expert that there was no bomb in the car at all. In fact Styles had not said that. He had said, and I repeat it:
"it carried no significant weight of explosive.".
Thus I believe that a change of emphasis with the spoken word is as important as a change of content. The Windlesham report should have highlighted this rather important difference.
Worse still the "Death on the Rock" programme excluded altogether Colonel Styles' theory that the terrorists could easily have detonated another bomb in another car whose whereabouts on the Rock was not known. The programme makers excluded this expert opinion for the curious reason that there was insufficient evidence to support it. Again, my noble friend Lord Windlesham seems to support that reason as being a valid one.
I could go into other details. The fact that the Asquez statement was not signed has already been dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, also the inability of Bullock to see that no warning had been given. These are similar in slant to the "significant bomb". I do not hesitate to say that I found the programme itself reprehensible, particularly in its ending. This is Jonathan Dimbleby to camera:
"That report by Julian Manyon was made … without the co-operation of the British Government".
Why did he not say "our government"? Jonathan Dimbleby was not working for a foreign power but for Thames Television. We had similar trouble in the Falklands War. The media referred to "British troops" and to "Argentinian troops"; never to "our troops" and "enemy troops". They were strongly criticised for that and I had hoped we had seen the end of it. But six years on, alas! we have not.
It is important to distinguish between the programme and the report on it. No one could possibly call my noble friend's report wholly bad, for it sometimes criticises Thames Television. It has, as other noble Lords have said, no formal conclusion, but its final paragraph reads:
"Whatever view is taken of the state of public opinion and the legitimacy of Government intervention, the making and screening of 'Death on the Rock' proved that freedom of expression can prevail".
If that type of freedom of expression can prevail, I would maintain that our country now has a lesser freedom overall; not a greater one.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I would submit with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that in asking this Unstarred Question on the report "Death on the Rock" by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and Mr. Rampton, QC, he is asking the Government, and in particular Sir Geoffrey Howe, QC, the Foreign Secretary, whether Sir Geoffrey was not profoundly wrong originally in refusing Thames Television his permission to broadcast the programme; and, secondly, he is saying that what is written in the report justifies Thames Television's decision to go ahead with its original television programme and to ignore the Foreign Secretary's requests that it should not do so.
1108
For this reason, and others which will follow, I hope that the Government will stick firm to their original decision that they were right to refuse permission to Thames Television to broadcast the programme, and that their decision will be in no way altered by what is written in the report. In what he said in his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, seemed completely incapable of giving consideration to the fact that the Foreign Secretary was prepared to postpone the television programme until after the inquest. That was reasonable enough, but no consideration has been given to the Foreign Secretary's agreement on that point.
Is it not a fact that on issues of this kind the British public are becoming increasingly fed up with, and concerned about, what they see on so many occasions in television broadcasts? The media so often appear as prosecutor, judge and jury in their own interest and in their own case. On this occasion, Thames Television, against strong advice from the Foreign Secretary that it should not make the broadcast, ignored that advice and indeed went further. I shall not cast aspersions on the part played by my noble friend Lord Windlesham in the matter, but the chairman of the IBA appointed a former director who served ATV in the years 1975 to 1981 to report on the Thames Television programme; on an issue basically of a disagreement of some substance and magnitude between the IBA and Government. While I in no way criticise the agreement of the appointee to making the report or his integrity, I wonder whether in a dispute of this kind it was really propitious of the chairman of the IBA to ask someone formerly connected with television to make the report. This detracts from the value of the report and from its general conclusions.
As to the capability of the chairman of the IBA to adjudicate on severe problems that may face the country, surely the Foreign Secretary will normally be in possession of much more information than the chairman of the IBA. The Foreign Secretary has a national interest to consider. I have searched the report in order to find whether anything of substance is recorded as to why the Foreign Secretary came to his decision. This seemed to be fair, but the facts are that very little is recorded about this matter. What is seems to be of little relevance. I shall quote from the foreword by Sir Ian Trethowan, chairman of Thames Television:
"We were also influenced by the source of the Government's original initiative to stop the programme. Sir Geoffrey Howe has always been fair and reasonable in his dealings with the media, yet on this occasion it was he who led the Government's call for the programme to be postponed, and when the IBA turned down his request, he protested with unusual violence. As emerges from the report".
I can find nothing in the report to suggest that Sir Geoffrey made a violent protest or protested with unusual violence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord has now referred twice to violence. I have the report in front of me. The word is "vehemence".
Lord Gridley: Yes, my Lords, it seemed a little odd. What distressed me personally about the programme were incidents which followed directly from the

1109
decision of the IBA to transmit the programme against the advice of the Foreign Secretary. I refer to the precautions necessary to protect the SAS who had volunteered to give evidence if requested to do so. I refer also to the portrayal of concealment on their arrival to give evidence. I am of the opinion that we should never place in danger those who protect us. I stress that they were placed in danger by the decision of the IBA to proceed against advice with the programme.
The IBA should not have refused the Foreign Secretary's advice not to broadcast this programme. The Government have no reason to take any action on the Question asked this evening. I hope that they will stick to their original decision.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, as the House has heard, the issues are complicated and several separate threads have been discussed. Those threads were lucidly and fairly analysed by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. However, I do not want directly to consider the report. I want instead simply to restate some of the facts, some of which have become a little confused, in so far as they have a hearing on the conduct of the IBA and its chairman, my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who cannot be present for the debate.
The IBA is coming under as much criticism from the Government as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. It would be just as well to put the record straight because in the last resort the responsibility for disregarding the strongly worded request to postpone the programme, and the decision to show it on the evening for which it was scheduled, rests squarely upon the Independent Broadcasting authority in whose name its chairman was acting.
The facts are that the programme was previewed the day before the transmission—that is, Wednesday 27th April—although the IBA staff had been in touch with the Thames Television company about the programme throughout the production process. They had required assurances from Thames that the programme would be legally vetted, particularly in the matter of possible contempt of court and the reliability of witnesses. Both those legal assurances were forthcoming. When the programme was previewed the IBA demanded certain changes in the script, especially in the summing up where the authority held that the reporter suggested too strongly that the inquest would not be able to determine the final truth of the matter. There were also one or two other changes made in the script.
I must emphasise that there have been occasions in the past, and in my own recollection during my seven years as a member of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, when at this very belated stage much more extensive changes in programmes have been demanded and, exceptionally, a programme has actually been refused transmission to the extreme displeasure of the companies. However, as we know, on this occasion that did not happen.
On the evening before the preview of the programme, that is 26th April, the Foreign and
1110
Commonwealth Secretary telephoned the chairman of the IBA to ask that the transmission be postponed for fear of prejudicing the inquest. The chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, replied that he would consider the case, and of course did so the next day when he had actually seen the programme. He then took further legal advice and was assured that there was no question either of contempt of court or of the contamination of witnesses.
It should be remembered that by this time—I think that this is something we need to remember—the case had been very widely reported in this country both in the national and international press and considerable doubts and questions had already been raised about the manner of the death of the terrorists, who had turned out to be unarmed and to have no bomb in their car, although no one doubted that their intentions were totally lethal.
After the advice of counsel had been received the chairmen and the director general decided that the transmission should go forward. All this time the company, Thames Television, which had made the programme, were completely unaware that any conversations had been taking place between the chairman of the IBA and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Therefore I think that it is quite inaccurate when people say that it was the company which decided to go ahead; the question had simply not arisen so far as the company was concerned and it was the Independent Broadcasting Authority which, after due consideration, decided to go ahead.
The authority made that decision because that is its task. The IBA must distance itself from the producing company so far as it can, and it must also stand between the producing company and the Government. I emphasise that point because the IBA is, according to the Act under which it operates, responsible for ensuring that that which is shown on the screen is only what is fit to be shown. However, it is not directly responsible for making or editing programmes. Moreover, although I think that I need hardly say so, it has absolutely no financial interest in the putting out of any particular television programme. Therefore all discussion with the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office was with the IBA, and not with the company.
So the question is: was the decision to transmit a proper or an improper decision when it was known that the Government wished the transmission to be postponed? It is on the answer to that question that the Government are understandably critical of the IBA. Parliament has not so far transferred the power to make such decisions—that is, to transmit or not to transmit—to Ministers, however eminent those Ministers may be; that power remains with the Independent Broadcasting Authority. All the proper steps had been taken in this case, including previewing and, most importantly, the seeking of counsel's opinion. Therefore, there seems to me to be no doubt whatever that the Independent Broadcasting Authority acted correctly so far as the law goes. There is no law which says that the Independent Broadcasting Authority must do what the Minister wants it to do in certain circumstances.

1111
The IBA was perfectly aware, through its chairman, that there might be a problem about prejudicing the inquest and that is why the chairman sought counsel's advice. Then, having sought counsel's opinion, and obtained it, he found that there was no such danger and subsequently took the responsibility upon himself, as it is his proper function to do. It is for him to exercise judgment for which the authority itself takes responsibility.
Of course there may be those who thought that his judgment was totally wrong. Indeed, there were many who, as a matter of fact, did not care at all whether the terrorists had been murdered or killed in what was regarded as the course of battle. Moreover, there were many people who commented that "They got what was coming to them" and who did not mind whether it was a killing in cold blood or whether it was a killing in a case where they might have had bombs. However, in a way that is irrelevant; the right to exercise judgment is unaffected by such considerations.
I believe that it is very depressing and disgraceful when a judgment has been properly made which turns out to be disagreeable to the Government of the day that that Government should have recourse to suggesting bias, even corruption, on the part of the authority or the persons who wrote the report about the judgment.
There was serious disagreement—that no one can possibly dispute—but the decision to transmit at the scheduled time was not taken carelessly, it was not taken in ignorance of the law and it was certainly not taken for commercial considerations by those who took it; namely, the chairman and the Independent Broadcasting Authority. It is therefore deplorable to suggest, as I think has been suggested, that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, had no legal right to make such a decision. But, worse than that, I think that it is deplorable to suppose that he and the IBA as a whole, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, were somehow submitting to commercial or other pressure and that their judgment was therefore in some way corrupt.
The independence of the broadcasting institutions, both the IBA and the BBC, has been something of which in the past we have been able to be proud and which indeed we have struggled through many ups and downs and many had times to preserve. I sincerely hope that this case will not mean that in future it can be assumed that that independence of the broadcasting institutions will now be able to be thrown away.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asks a Question which is: "whether it is [Her Majesty's Government's] considered view that they 'profoundly disagree' with the report of Lord Windlesham and Mr. Richard Rampton, QC, on the Thames Television programme 'Death on the Rock"'.
I must express the hope that the answer to the Question is that the Government will stand to their guns and give an unequivocal affirmative answer that they stick to their opinion.
1112
I would say at this stage that I wholly agreed with everything that the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches, Lord Goodman, said about my noble friend Lord Windlesham. It would profoundly distress me if my noble friend thought for a moment that I was impugning either his independence or his integrity. He is a particularly valuable personal friend of mine. He has been a respected and admired colleague. He was Leader of the House at a time when I was a member of the Government. I believe that he won the complete confidence of the House. Whatever the answer, it must not be supposed for an instant that I am impugning the honour, integrity or independence of my noble friend.
I would say the same, but without the same degree of intimacy, about his learned junior, recommended as I understand it by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I would also add for good measure my complete confidence in the integrity of Sir Ian Trethowan and, for that matter, the chairman of the IBA. But having said that, I profoundly disagree with parts of the report. In the first place one asks the question which was asked by the noble and gallant Field Marshal on the Cross Benches: ought this programme to have been made at all?
I saw the programme. I have refreshed my memory with the convenient transcript contained in the report. My impression was that it ought not to have been made at all. To my mind it was profoundly biased. I believe that the report was much too kind to it when it said at paragraph 129:
"we do not consider that the programme asserted as a fact that the terrorists had been murdered. Rather its effect was to suggest that there was a real possibility that the terrorists had been unlawfully killed".
I believe that the programme meant and was so understood to mean—it certainly was understood by the experienced reviewer Mr. Geoffrey Levy at page 76 of the report to mean—exactly what the report has said it did not mean. I shall quote Mr. Levy:
"A woefully one-sided look at the killings … Any reasonable viewer watching This Week would have been left in no doubt that the personal wishes and orders of Mrs. Thatcher were carried out to the letter when three IRA bombers were shot dead by the SAS in Gibraltar. Unimaginable, maybe, but that was the message".
That was the effect that the programme had on me.
If anyone wishes to verify it, on page 39 of the report direct reference is made to the fact that the plot to commit murder and treason on the Rock must have been on the desk of Mrs. Thatcher a long time before the events in Gibraltar. It states:
"On the day of the bombing"—
that is the bombing at Enniskillen, not the bombing at Gibraltar—"she" (that is Mrs. Thatcher),
"had declared that there should be no hiding place anywhere in the world for the men who did it. Now, she must have had on her desk the details of how an IRA unit had been detected in Spain. The question is: how much did the British already know about the terrorists' plans?"
It is absolutely naïve of the report to suggest that that passage does not contain the clear insinuation that the men were murdered deliberately, and murdered at the request of the British Government. That is unequivocal. For that reason alone, I should have profoundly disagreed with the report.
The naivety is compounded by the fact that, although it is fairly stated at the beginning that these

1113
were admitted terrorists, and despite the emptiness of the white Renault car, there was around the corner at Marbella another red car with 64 kilograms of Semtex explosive for the purpose of being used by those three terrorists; 64 kilograms is more than twice the amount of explosive let off at Enniskillen at the Remembrance Day Service at a rather similar parade. To say therefore that it is not a biased and irresponsible report, for which the responsibility must rest solely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has said, with Thames Television, seems to me to be entirely wrong, and I profoundly disagree with anyone who holds the opposite view.
The second point, which is a separate one, is whether the programme should have been postponed until after the inquest. There again I profoundly disagree with the view held in the report, and with what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has just said. My mind went back to the Aberfan Inquiry, which will be remembered by the noble and learned Lord opposite who has been listening patiently to the debate, when there was a good deal of argument to a similar question which gave rise to the Salmon Report. Paragraph 29 of the Salmon Report reads:
"The publication of interviews with prospective witnesses raises difficult problems. The Press, Television and Radio have always considered that once any type of tribunal has been appointed"—
an inquest was of course in contemplation—
"it is inappropriate for them to conduct anything in the nature of a parallel inquiry and they have never done so. We regard it as of the utmost importance that this restraint should be continued to be exercised".
What could be plainer than that? What could be plainer than that what was done by transmitting the programme in advance of the inquest is in flat contradiction of paragraph 29 of the Salmon Report after the Aberfan Inquiry?
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, seems to think that because the IBA has the legal right to say yes or no to the Foreign Secretary's request, that lets it off the hook. I suggest that it does nothing of the kind. The question is not whether the IBA has the legal right to be responsible but whether it was irresponsible in its judgment in deciding in the circumstances, and in the light of the flat declaration in the Salmon Report, that such a thing should not be done, and in failing to comply with the Foreign Secretary's request. The report clearly states—this is where I agree with my noble friend—that the Foreign Secretary is entitled to make the request.
There is one other thing that I should like to say about the next stage. What is the law which is applicable to a case like this? As the noble and gallant Field Marshal pointed out in the course of a very convincing speech from the point of view from which he was uttering it, soldiers are not above the law in time of peace. Of course there is a sense in which we know that matters analogous to military operations are in progress against the IRA, but it would concede the whole of the IRA's case if we were to admit that its members were legitimate warriors representing a government. One must obey the law; but the law was completely ignored in the programme. No one mentioned what the law was, and the report does not seem to have taken account of that point.
1114
I shall quote from a textbook on the subject. I should declare a modest interest. It is to be found in paragraph 1179 of volume 11 of Halsbury's Laws of England:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting the lawful arrest of offenders or persons unlawfully at large; no criminal liability is incurred even though the use of such force results in the death of another … In determining whether the force used was reasonable, the court will take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the nature and degree of force used, the seriousness of the evil to be prevented and the possibility of preventing it by other means … The circumstances in which it can be considered reasonable to kill another in the prevention of crime must be of an extreme kind; they could probably arise only in the case of an attack against the person … and where killing the attacker is the only practicable means of preventing the harm".
If letting off 64 kilograms of Semtex in a crowded place near the convent in Gibraltar does not come within that, I should like to know what possibly could.
Of course it is true that in the event it turned out that what was apparently a dry run or a reconnaissance by the terrorists was in fact mistaken for the real thing. But there again—and now I shall quote again from the law as set out in the textbook:
"The ordinary rules relating to mistake of fact are applicable, so that where the force used is reasonable having regard to the facts as the defendant supposed them to have been, the defendant commits no offence although the force used is excessive having regard to the facts as they were … The reasonableness of the force must be assessed in relation to facts which the defendant knew or 'believed to have existed".
This programme was promulgated despite the request of the Foreign Secretary. It was previously prepared at a time when those responsible for the transmission had not got the evidence of the soldiers at all. In other words, we are asked by those who support the transmission of the programme to say, with the duchess in Alice in Wonderland, "Sentence first, verdict afterwards". They made the programme without having heard half the evidence and could not have had it available.
I say without doubt that my belief is that the IBA behaved irresponsibly in refusing the request of the Foreign Secretary to postpone the transmission. Thames was irresponsible in making the programme and then in transmitting it. I hope that the Government will stick to their guns and say that this is something which ought never to have been done and ought never to have happened.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I shall take up only two or three minutes but I did not receive a copy of the report until last night. I had not finished reading it by the time the deadline came for putting down my name to speak today.
I myself found it a model report. I thought that the television people did not come out of it all that badly. Investigative journalism is paved with moral and professional traps and those people escaped almost all of them. They looked hard for the truth and did not use their cheque book to find it.
All the time I was reading the report I was asking myself, "Should the programme have been made at all?" I think we were all in that position. Five or six pages before the end I found a paragraph which

1115
expressed my own views better than I could have done at short notice. It is in Lord Thomson's letter to the Foreign Secretary. Before I quote from the letter, I wish to mention that Lord Thomson took a different view of the Salmon Report from that which has been expressed by the noble and learned Lord. The Salmon Committee said it did not accept what it called the extreme view that once a tribunal had been appointed it should be a contempt to publish any interviews with potential witnesses.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I never said that this was a contempt, and nor did the Salmon Report depend upon it. The passage I quoted simply said that it was a bad thing to do. I stick to that and that was what the Salmon Report said.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I know better than to engage in a legal tangle with the noble and learned Lord! However, I must add that the committee did not accept the view that once a tribunal had been appointed it should be a contempt to publish any interviews with potential witnesses. Any interviews with potential witnesses could be regarded by some people as conducting a trial.
Now I wish to quote Lord Thomson's letter to the Foreign Secretary:
"Apart from the importance of avoiding contempt, the issues as we see them relate to free speech and free inquiry which underpin individual liberty in a democracy. The right of broadcasters and the press to examine events of major public concern is well established and should be preserved".
It is well established, but it is less firmly established today than it needs to be. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, had very little sympathy with that point of view and when he comes to read Hansard tomorrow he will perhaps be surprised at exactly what he said, particularly since he was dealing with young broadcasters, young journalists. They not only have the disability of being young, but like us, they are not elected. It was their unelected nature of which he was complaining.
This principle is, as I said, less firmly established than it needs to be. We dwell so much on the iniquities of the press and the audacities of television that we forget their essential service to our democratic system. Lord Thomson reminds us of the great usefulness shown by the press and television in the year ending in May 1988:
"The enquiries of the media and their interviews with eye-witnesses have helped to inform the public about the circumstances surrounding such events as the Zeebrugge ferry disaster, the King's Cross fire, the shootings at Hungerford, the Remembrance Day massacre at Enniskillen, and the brutal murders at the Andersonstown funeral—all of them controversial. In all these cases inquests have been held and in some cases public inquiries have also been set up without any suggestion that previous interviews with witnesses on television or in the press have interfered with the course of justice."
I found that very convincing.
If I have to find fault with the report, it is that only on the third page from the end is there mention of,
"the vividness with which the programme was presented".
It was that that made "Death on the Rock" a lightning conductor for the intense feelings that the Gibraltar shootings evoked in the minds of the
1116
British public. It is that vividness of the medium which those engaged in television journalism must continually be aware of. It is not the words alone that matter: they might make no impact on a printed page. Nor do the pictures themselves make all that much impact. It is the special impact of words, pictures and the small screen in the domestic environment. As Marshall McLuhan told us in the 1960s, "The medium is the message". I myself was taught that lesson and I had to learn it—it was not obvious to me—when I wrote a leader for the Daily Herald newspaper gently critical of the Labour Party. Not for the last time in its history the party was failing to make progress although the Conservative Government of the day was losing popularity. I headed the article:
"A Nation in Search of a Party".
I thought it might lead to a fruitful, quiet discussion. Lord Cudlipp came in for a drink, read it and said, "Fine. Why not put it on page 1?" I agreed. "Something like this", said Hugh and he started to draw. He made a plan to devote the entire front page to it and to use the type used for Queen Victoria's funeral. The parliamentary Labour Party went mad. Hugh Gaitskell was distraught and demanded a right of reply. He engaged a slim, dark-haired young man to do that. That same young man is to follow me in this debate; it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The noble Lord wrote a piece entitled A Party in Search of a Newspaper.
That was my great lesson—the medium is the message. Televised investigative journalism must sometimes take care to tone things down a little so that a question which is asked does not sound like an accusation, nor a statement like a charge.
8 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think we would all agree that the debate this evening has been fairly unusual. I can recall no occasion on which a television programme broadcast in this country has been subjected to an independent inquiry of the character of that presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, where programme-makers and others, including senior civil servants, have been required to give evidence or to answer questions, as far as those from television were concerned, about their motives and their conduct.
Given the fact that this inquiry was of a most unusual character, and given the importance of all the issues raised by it, it is appropriate that we are debating this matter in the House this evening. I have no doubt at all that Thames Television was absolutely right to set up the inquiry. The programme undoubtedly caused widespread debate and argument. I believe it raised major questions of principle affecting the television industry of this country. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, made that point when he spoke and I very much agreed with that part of his speech.
Let me say at the outset that there is absolutely no doubt that if the three terrorists had succeeded in their enterprise there would have been substantial loss of life in Gibraltar both among members of the Royal Anglian Regiment and also among many

1117
innocent citizens. That the three terrorists were prevented from carrying out this outrage represented a major success for our security forces.
I propose to discuss, first, the character of the operation in Gibraltar, because I think for a number of reasons that that is highly relevant and, secondly, the response of the media to what happened there and the issue of the possible prejudice to the coroner's investigation as a result of the reports that were published. In doing that I shall do my very best to keep out of an argument with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. Finally, I shall deal with the criticism to which the report of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has been subjected since it was published.
I turn to the incident itself. I believe that there were two objectives for our security forces in Gibraltar. They had first to prevent the IRA from killing both troops and civilians. That was wholly successful. There was of course a second objective, which was that those concerned should be arrested and brought to trial. In that respect we did not succeed. For reasons set out at the coroner's inquest, the members of the SAS considered that they had no choice but to shoot the terrorists.
I do not propose to argue the merits of what was done on that occasion. Each of the soldiers concerned faced, in my view, an extremely difficult decision. Nothing would be more foolish than to say in the safety and security of this building what in our judgment they should have done in the circumstances that faced them on that day. The situation was special for a different reason. If this terrorist threat had arisen in Great Britain and not in Gibraltar the position would have been different. The chief officer of police in the area concerned would have been wholly in charge. He would probably have decided to rely exclusively on his own firearms unit. Certainly in some cases involving terrorists, as the House will recall, the SAS has in the past been asked to help the police. But in all the cases of which I have direct personal knowledge the SAS was asked to do this only when hostages had been taken.
I should add that in the three cases in which I was involved with the SAS, I formed the highest regard for the professionalism of both officers and men of that unit who were brought to London. I do not believe that any other Western democracy has a force of superior quality to the SAS. But of course in Gibraltar the situation was entirely different. There was a small police force in Gibraltar which, in my judgment, could not have tackled this problem unaided. That police force would not have had enough experience to do that.
In the special circumstances of the episode in Gibraltar, a significant number of other organisations and individuals were involved. There was the Governor, who was of course the Commander in Chief. There was the Gibraltar garrison itself. There was the Gibraltar police, the Spanish police, the Spanish security service, MI5 and MI6; there was the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the SAS. As I have already indicated, that was a radically different
1118
situation to that which would have existed in this country if there had been a similar threat.
There was also, as I think all of us who have been involved in these matters in the past would recognise, a direct involvement of Ministers in a way which again probably would not have arisen if the situation had developed in Great Britain. In all the circumstances it may inevitably be some years before we find out the full story of what happened. But we know that it was established that those who were shot were not carrying arms, that the parked car believed to be loaded with explosives was not, and that these explosives, together with the detonating equipment, were found by the Spanish police two days later in Marbella. In such a situation it was obvious, in my view—I think that this view would almost certainly be shared in other parts of the House—that there would be immense speculation about what had happened by the British press and British television, and also by the international press and in particular by the American press.
Within hours, as many of us will recall, long and detailed reports appeared throughout the British media on what had happened. Press officers gave their accounts of the incidents and these were widely published. As my noble friend indicated, some of them were fairly speedily contradicted. Many of the newspapers concerned where the speculation was published were of course available to be read in Gibraltar by potential jurors. I am bound to say that I can recall no statement being made at the time by a law officer or anyone else which appealed to the press and television to withhold comment because of the risk that the inquest jury might be influenced by what it read. The idea that the jury is only influenced by television is, in my view, entirely absurd. Television is a very powerful medium, but the idea that newspapers have no influence with potential members of a jury is going altogether too far.
It is hardly surprising that no such injunction was made by law officers in this particular case. I cannot recall such an appeal being made in the many cases which have arisen in this country in the past six, seven or eight years in which it has been alleged that the police or other members of the security forces have caused unnecessary loss of life. One has only to remember recent events in Northern Ireland in the last decade or more to appreciate that such warnings would almost certainly have been futile even if delivered. They were not delivered.
Similarly, there was the case of the Waldorf shooting in London. Here again the gravest allegations were made against the Metropolitan Police. Again no suggestion was made by anyone at the time that that was wholly improper because there was to be an inquest. On that occasion and others some of the officers who had been involved in the shootings were identified by name—as the members of the SAS, very properly, were not—and were subjected to substantial harassment as a result. The Waldorf case is just one illustration; I can assure the House that there are many others.
I therefore find it hard to accept that, following the advice received from senior members of the Bar, the IBA and Thames Television were wrong not to have

1119
suppressed "Death on the Rock" on those grounds alone.
The second charge made against the programme was that it was not merely ill-timed but that it was unfair and grossly biased. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and Mr. Rampton interrogated the various parties involved. On that issue they found (in paragraph 175 of the report) that:
"The content of the programme was demonstrably unsympathetic towards the IRA".
However they recognised that:
"'Death on the Rock' was out of step with a substantial body of national opinion".
I have no doubt at all that that was entirely right and that the overwhelming majority of those who saw the programme and formed a view on the dispute came to the conclusion that it should not have been transmitted.
However, I very much value the fact that we live in a liberal democracy in which people are prepared both to write articles in newspapers and to transmit television programmes which may generate a substantial amount of ill will. That is what a liberal democracy is all about. A liberal democracy is about the capacity, the ability and the determination to publish something because one believes it to be right. It may be that some failure of judgment is involved, but I very much welcome the fact that we live in a country where that is permitted.
I ask those who have adopted a particularly censorious view of those who have made such a decision to look at what happened in France during the Algerian war and the effect of Ministers' actions in forbidding programmes to be transmitted by French television. The price paid by French democracy was high indeed.
Over the past 20 years or more we have all experienced a substantial terrorist threat from the Provisional IRA. In that period there have been many disputes between broadcasters and the press and Ministers about the reporting of terrorist activities. I was involved in a fairly major dispute with the Independent Broadcasting Authority when I was a Home Office Minister. However, 1 accepted the verdict of the IBA. Looking back I suspect that I was over-concerned about the transmission of that particular programme. Certainly I should be deeply alarmed were we to move to a situation in which the expression of a ministerial view was enough to ban a television programme.
I believe that the central question which we have to face in regard to the report is whether there was honesty on the part of the programme-makers. As has already been observed, there were two criticisms in the report. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said in paragraph 174:
"The programme-makers were experienced, painstaking and persistent. They did not bribe, bully or misrepresent those who took part. The programme was trenchant and avoided triviality. Despite the various criticisms which we have noted in our report, we accept that those who made it were acting in good faith and without ulterior motives".
With those comments I should have hoped that the matter would have been allowed to rest. That was not to be. Within minutes of the publication of the report
1120
of the noble Lord and Mr. Rampton both were being denounced in the most vitriolic terms. No epithet was too strong for the tabloid press. However, the nastiest attack of all on a former ministerial colleague came from the lips of the Foreign Secretary. It was, he said:
"a report of television. by television, for television".
I believe that those were shameful words. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said on that question. Those words amount to a direct attack upon the integrity of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and they cannot possibly be construed in any other way.
If Sir Geoffrey Howe, when he heard on the ministerial grapevine, through ministerial private offices, that the noble Lord was to be invited to preside over the inquiry, had grave doubts about the desirability of that appointment because of his former association with television he could have made those doubts very clear indeed to the Independent Broadcasting Authority through the Home Office. As we all know, that is the way things are done in Whitehall if Ministers want to transmit their views quickly to parties outside government. He chose not to do so. Instead, when the verdict went against him, he abused the author of the report.
I believe that in many ways this has been a sad and dismal business. It has reflected credit on remarkably few people. One of the few exceptions is the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, when I first saw the Unstarred Question put down on the Order Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, my immediate reaction was that it was a pity that he had not left well alone. We had heard a great deal about the subject and I also felt that it would result in more stress for the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. However, the debate tonight has convinced me that the noble Lord was absolutely right to air the subject.
Listening to every speech, it has been noticeable that whenever a noble Lord opposite has said anything against the report or the programme there have been a great many "Hear, hears" in support. I noticed the reception given to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, which, whether one agreed with him or not, was an excellent exposition of his own position—very fair, very dignified and very cool: but there was not one murmur.
Earlier today someone from the Benches opposite, who assured me that he was a great friend of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. remarked how upset he was about the matter. So I said, "Why don't you join in the debate that we are going to have? He replied, "No, I couldn't do that. That would be against the Government". That is true. I was upset more in sorrow than in anger. To me, it was a shameful way to behave, given that the whole country is concerned and that we must all consider what is right and wrong and the meaning of freedom.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, gave a factual description of the way things were at the moment as regards the IBA, the Government and the independent companies, there was a constant buzz of dissent. Obviously the people who disagree—I do not say that that disagreement must be 100 per

1121
cent.—simply do not want to hear the facts. What the noble Baroness said was absolutely correct. That was also pointed out earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he explained the way that the regulatory system works in this country; namely, that Ministers can object but that the chairman of the IBA does not have to listen to them. In the final resort that is true: a Home Secretary can forbid a programme, but we have not reached that stage. Our present regulatory system works but, unfortunately, we may not have it for too long. On the whole, although there may be programmes that some noble Lords feel should not have been shown, there are always a great many more programmes that it was absolutely right to show.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, explained succinctly and clearly how it came about that the whole question was raised. It is logical and makes common sense for the Foreign Secretary, when making his first report to Parliament, which had to be done very speedily, to mention those three main points: that the bomb was in the car, the terrorists were armed and, in answer to a specific question, that they had been challenged. I am certain that, at that moment, he believed it implicitly. When that turned out not to be so, it would have seemed strange if a newspaper or television company had not started to think that that was something that should be looked into—and they were absolutely right to do so.
As regards the programme, I simply confirm that strong views are held on both sides. That is quite right, and I do not criticise anyone who says that he did not like the programme or that he thinks that it should not have been shown. I criticise when people want to get off the route that has been so carefully worked out and say that, because the Foreign Secretary 'phoned the chairman of the IBA and later wrote him a letter, the programme should not have been shown. That is quite wrong, and it goes against both the legislation and the way that we operate in this country.
At one point, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was quoted in the Daily Telegraph of 28th December. When referring to the dispute between himself and the Foreign Secretary, he said: "He is doing his job and I am doing mine". In other words, he felt that it should not he shown but after great consultation, as we have heard, he decided that the programme should be shown.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who has been referred to as a man of great integrity and scrupulous honesty—he has done a great many other jobs, although he is not all that old even now—was a distinctive Leader of this House and a member of the Cabinet. Nevertheless, I was impressed how speaker after speaker, particularly those with the strongest criticisms to make of his report, always prefaced their remarks with the comment, "There is nothing personal in this".
Only two people conducted the report—the noble Lord and the barrister. As the shots and the knives came out against the report, it was impossible to distinguish completely in a detailed way between the objective facts and criticism of the noble Lord. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on this
1122
point. When the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was announced as the person who was to take the chair at the inquiry, I went to the Library to get the press cuttings. No comments were made when his name was announced; it was simply stated that "Lord Windlesham is to chair the Committee". It was just a short news item.
However, as we know and as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has pointed out, it was only when the report came out and the conclusions were seen that the Foreign Secretary made the unfortunate remark that it was
"not surprising that this trial of television, by television, for television, reached a conclusion which is not in line with what most people think".
I am bound to say, like the other noble Lord, that I was taken aback by what I consider to be the uncharacteristic behaviour of Sir Geoffrey Howe, for whom I have always had great regard and admiration. If he had raised the matter before then, the point could have been made with equal validity and a great deal more credibility. There is nothing wrong in the Foreign Secretary saying, "I don't think this is such a good idea after all. We know him and trust him, but Lord Windlesham has a television past"—if I may put it that way.
But nothing was said. He has always been a very loyal member of his party. I have known him for many years and, so far as I have seen, he has never shown any sign of being a maverick or of rebellious instincts. I believe that the Government were absolutely amazed. They thought that he must come down on the other side and, when he did not, the sheer shock of it led to this campaign involving the Foreign Secretary which, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, was conducted in the press. It went on like that—bang, bang, hang.
I shall not delay the House by reading out some of the press comments which had the unhealthy appearance of constituting a concerted effort. It was a ruthless attempt, not only at undermining the message, but also the messenger. Then, of course, those well-known, unattributed Whitehall sources got into the act and were quoted in The Times of 27th January as saying:
"Even when the report concedes mistakes were made, it bends over backwards to explain away errors of judgment".
I believe that we must consider this incident not simply in isolation, but in a broader context. It has occurred in the midst of a major debate on the forthcoming changes in broadcasting and, in particular, on the future of investigative journalism on television. There is mounting concern that, as a new television era evolves, good investigative journalism, particularly on ITV, will be gradually eroded. I believe that it is vital that broadcasters should not be inhibited from making challenging and important current affairs programmes on controversial topics while at the same time maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and integrity. If they are inhibited in that way it will be a great loss to us all and to the quality of life in this country.
It is true that in this case some regrettable inaccuracies have been recognised. I agree with some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord

1123
Longford, and in particular his observation about the bank clerk's evidence. But those inaccuracies were not sufficient to warrant a concerted rubbishing campaign whose effect could be to make broadcasters hesitate to deal with difficult and controversial issues, the discussion of which is essential to democratic debate in a free society.
There will always be some errors. One has had to accept that errors occur in every field that we can think of. It is the price that we have to pay for a free society which allows people the freedom to express themselves. I hope that when the Minister replies he will not disagree with that premise. I believe that the converse proposition leads down the road of authoritarianism.
Finally, most worrying to me in this affair are not the political implications but the human ones. We have seen incidents in the distant as well as more recent past in which individuals have been hounded with either implicit or explicit governmental encouragement. Whatever the merits or demerits of the programme itself—and feelings run high on both sides, as I have said—nothing can excuse the ruthlessness with which one individual has been vilified. In the past there have been men and women who unfortunately were less robust emotionally and who have been unable to stand up to the full force of such onslaughts.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, appreciates that many people inside this House and beyond it are grateful to him not only for the conscientious work that he, with his colleague Mr. Richard Rampton, put into the report, but for his fearlessness in pursuing the truth in a jungle of confusions. During the very difficult time that he must be going through I hope too that he realises that as a result of his efforts, his considerable reputation, far from being diminished, has been enhanced.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are familiar with the events of 6th March last year, but I hope the House will bear with me if I give a short account of them once again. It is important that our debate tonight should not lose sight of the key issue: that on that sunny day in Gibraltar dangerous and unscrupulous terrorists were planning a "spectacular"—to use their own terminology—an obscene act which would have led to the deaths or injury of a large number of servicemen and civilians.
I do not propose to go into any detail of the events prior to 6th March. Suffice it to say that there was reason to believe that the Provisional IRA had planned a terrible atrocity in Gibraltar, the target being the band and the changing of the guard on Tuesday, 8th March. It was believed that the operation would be carried out by a three-man so-called active service unit (I prefer to call them a murder squad). It was further believed this squad would comprise Daniel McCann, Sean Savage, and a third individual later identified as Mairead Farrell. McCann and Farrell had both served sentences for terrorist activities, and all three were known as very active, dangerous terrorists. Finally, it was believed
1124
that the operation would be by means of a large car bomb designed to kill as many soldiers as possible.
I should like to digress here for one moment and make a point to which I shall return later. All this information was in the event proven to be highly accurate. Much has been made of those areas where our intelligence was not accurate—where it was believed, for example, that the provisional IRA would use a remote control detonator to avoid causing another Enniskillen. Yes, we were wrong to think that the IRA would try to avoid the deaths of civilian bystanders. They clearly had no such inhibitions.
It was against this background that the Gibraltar police were placed on high alert, and the police commissioner asked for military assistance in the light of his assessment of the threat and the ability of his police to deal with dangerous, highly trained terrorists who would almost certainly be armed.
That was the state of knowledge on 6th March, and the backdrop against which the rest of the events of that day unfolded. The first positive indication that the terrorists had entered Gibraltar was just before 1 p.m. on 6th March, when a man later identified as Sean Savage was sighted parking a white Renault car near Inces Hall, where the band for the guard-mounting ceremony assembles. The car was therefore ideally placed for killing troops who would he forming up in that area on 8th March. Furthermore, it was also ideal for causing extensive damage and injury to the buildings and inhabitants of the school and old people's home nearby.
Before leaving the car Savage (whose identification had not at that stage been confirmed) was reported to have spent several minutes fiddling with something in the front of the vehicle. He then got out and walked away. An hour and half later there was an unconfirmed sighting of McCann and Farrell crossing the border into Gibraltar on foot. At this point I should like firmly to put on record the fact that there was no surveillance on the Spanish side of the border that day. Though the terrorists had been seen arriving in Malaga on 4th March. their subsequent movements were not known to us nor to the Spanish authorities.
Shortly before 3 p.m. the three terrorists had joined up and were positvely identified. They were studying the assembly area, and in particular the white Renault car. It was at that point that the watchers were able to confirm that it had indeed been Savage who had parked the car. These actions appeared highly suspicious and consideration was given to arresting the three. However, they then moved away in a southerly direction, away from the Spanish border.
Their intentions were not at this stage entirely clear. They did not appear to be abandoning the vehicle and heading towards Spain, and it was therefore decided to keep them under surveillance. About half an hour later, at 3.30 p.m. the three terrorists returned to the Inces Hall area and again appeared to study it and the car. They then moved off towards the Spanish border. Given the belief that the terrorists would employ a car bomb, and the suspicious way in which the three had been behaving

1125
towards the car, there was every reason to believe that it contained the bomb intended for the guard mounting ceremony On 8th March. A rapid visual examination of the car by the bomb disposal adviser who was part of the military team found no reason to dispel suspicions that the car contained a bomb. Indeed, the presence of an old aerial on a new car served only to reinforce the belief that the suspect car contained a radio-controlled bomb. Much has been made of Colonel Styles's view that, had the car contained a bomb this would have been obvious from its posture. Noble Lords will appreciate that Colonel Styles retired a number of years ago and is perhaps not fully up to date with the latest terrorist equipment and techniques. Would that it were so easy to detect the presence of a bomb these days.
Once the Gibraltar Commissioner of Police had satisfied himself as to the identities of the terrorists, and that they appeared to he abandoning the car and heading hack over the border to Spain, he asked the military to effect the arrest of the three before they left Gibraltar. Very shortly after, McCann and Farrell were approaching the Shell petrol station on the cast side of Winston Churchill Avenue, a dual-carriageway leading northwards to Spain, and were walking along the pavement towards the border. Savage, who had been accompanying them, had turned hack and was heading towards the centre of Gibraltar.
Just as two of the soldiers were moving up to McCann and Farrell to effect the arrest, it would appear that the unexpected sounding of a police siren alerted McCann. He looked hack over his shoulder and made eye contact with one of the soldiers. He suddenly seemed alerted and alarmed. Despite a challenge given by one of the soldiers both terrorists then made movements which appeared to the soldiers as threatening moves towards a radio transmitter or a gun. Believing that the terrorists were about to commit an act which would endanger possibly dozens of lives, the soldiers fired at the terrorists.
It would seem that these shots alerted Savage, who was making his way hack towards the Landport Ditch. As he turned towards the two soldiers following him, one of them shouted a challenge. Disregarding this warning, Savage adopted a crouching stance as if' to draw a weapon or reach for a device. The two soldiers believed they had no option hut to open fire.
At this stage I should like to pause and pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of the soldiers. Not only did they carry out their duty believing that these unscrupulous and dangerous terrorists would he armed and would have no hesitation in using their weapons. But more than that—and this has particular relevance for what I shall come on to discuss—the soldiers volunteered to give evidence at the inquest. And this despite the fact that sections of the media, not least this so-called investigative programme "Death on the Rock", had already in effect branded them as murderers. The soldiers did not have to attend to give evidence at the inquest. They could not he compelled. They chose to do so of their own free will: a decision which we fully
1126
supported. Perhaps I may quote the words of Soldier D:
"We were not told: we were not press-ganged into coming here. We came here because we wanted to come here and because we wanted to give our evidence and because we wanted to get the story right".
Your Lordships may think, as I do, that the action of the soldiers on 6th March and their subsequent demeanour is worthy only of the highest praise.
Nor should we forget the part played by the security service. It was due to their patience, dedication and effort that so much was learnt about this cowardly plot to detonate a bomb in the peaceful streets of Gibraltar, and the IRA's murderous endeavour foiled. I mentioned earlier that the intelligence provided by the security service was absolutely correct in the main particulars. All too often the security service is criticised because it does not get things 100 per cent. right. How sadly symptomatic of that trend it was to see during the inquest a newspaper headline "MIS blunders in Gibraltar". Your Lordships may care to speculate on how that newspaper would have reported a failure by the security service to acquire the intelligence that pre-empted the I RA's wicked intentions. The security service, like the rest ails, is not infallible. But it does a first class job protecting the public from terrorist outrages. I am glad to have this opportunity—and I hope I have the support of the whole House$of paying tribute to all those brave men and women who took part in this operation, and thereby prevented the loss of many innocent lives in Gibraltar last March. I should also like warmly to thank the Spanish authorities for the co-operation we received from them.
On the day following the events I have just described, my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary, as was appropriate, made a short statement in Parliament describing in brief terms what had occurred. The Government took the view that thereafter the proper forum for detailed consideration of the circumstances surrounding the shootings was the inquest in Gibraltar, which it was known would take place in due course.
When therefore it became known that Thames Television was about to transmit a programme that purported to investigate the circumstances of the shootings, my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary represented to the then chairman of the IBA, the noble Lord, Lord 'Thomson of Monifieth, that the programme should be postponed until after the inquest. The grounds for this request were the risk of prejudice to the inquest and of contaminating the evidence to be given in court, points to which I shall return in a moment. Regrettably the IBA declined to accede to the Government's request and the programme was transmitted. Its contents fully justified the Government's concern. In addition it contained a number of serious and damaging inaccuracies and presentational flaws. The Government therefore believe that the Independent Broadcasting Authority made a serious error of judgment in authorising the transmission of "Death on the Rock".
Following the inquest, when it had become apparent that Thames TV had got the facts so badly wrong and had relied heavily on an anonymous and

1127
unsigned statement that was disowned in court, Thames TV set up an inquiry into the programme and invited my noble friend Lord Windlesham and Mr. Richard Rampton Q.C. to conduct it. As your Lordships know, their report in effect gave Thames TV a clean bill of health. The Government profoundly disagree with this conclusion, for reasons which I shall now seek to explain. However, I wish to emphasise that neither I nor any Member of the Government would wish to cast the slightest aspersion on my noble friend's integrity or indeed that of his colleague Mr. Rampton.
I should first like to make two observations about the approach adopted by the authors of the report which I believe are fundamental to an understanding of the difference of view between us. First, there is the question of the programme's message. The report's view is that the programme did not conclude that the terrorists had been unlawfully killed, but simply pointed to this as one possible explanation. I know that many of your Lordships have now seen the: programme. Having seen it myself more than once, I must say that I find that conclusion insupportable. The ordinary viewer could not have gained any other impression than that an accusation of murder was being made. The centrepiece of the programme was Kenneth Asquez's evidence, which the report itself describes as "a dramatic account of a deliberate act of murder". Other evidence was adduced to support this and, as the report acknowledges, no alternative explanation was canvassed in any depth. Indeed the reactions of the popular press showed clearly that it thought an accusation of murder had been made. The report seeks to excuse Thames TV by saying that it was not their fault if the media received the wrong message. In that case whose fault was it?
I make no judgment as to whether Thames Television set out deliberately to make a programme that accused the security forces of murder. But I draw your Lordships' attention to the view of Thames's director of news and current affairs that by 8th March there was in his own words,
"a growing suspicion that the three terrorists had been virtually executed and that the security services had acted outside the law".
On that basis he agreed that work should go ahead on the programme. Your Lordships may draw your own conclusions.
My second general observation concerns the report's approach as to what actually happened in Gibraltar on 6th March. I quote:
"We do not see ourselves as adjudicating upon the controversial issues of fact to which the shootings gave rise. We express no opinion on the validity of the differing explanations that have been put forward."
Your Lordships may share my incredulity that equal weight should thus be placed on the tendentious and one-sided theories of an investigative television programme, and on the outcome of a meticulously conducted inquest at which all relevant evidence was weighed and evaluated. Is it any wonder that the report is as flawed as the programme it examines?
I turn now to specific criticisms of the programme. The first concerns the risk of prejudice to the inquest. The concern here is the vulnerability of jurors, as laymen, to the possibility of forming preconceived
1128
views and coming with them to the inquest. The programme was of course broadcast in the UK while the inquest was to be held in Gibraltar. But the report acknowledges that the likelihood of some seepage into Gibraltar was foreseeable; and this did in fact happen, with an extract shown on television, comments in imported English newspapers and private video recordings in circulation. But the report takes the view that the programme did not risk prejudicing the inquest because juries are sufficiently robust to ignore prior publicity and concentrate on the facts presented to them in court. While that may be a view shared by some, it calls into question the whole basis of contempt of court in this field. I doubt for example whether "Death on the Rock" could have been transmitted if the inquest had been held in this country. It was a view that was definitely not shared by the Attorney General of Gibraltar or by the High Court of Gibraltar, which granted him an injunction against the local press and broadcasting media preventing them repeating or reporting any part of the programme. Is it not puzzling that my noble friend—and in particular his learned colleague—should regard themselves as better placed to make a judgment on this issue than the local judiciary?
The second criticism concerns the risk of contaminating the evidence to be given in court. This can arise either when a witness feels obliged in court to stand by evidence previously given to the media, even though he has realised it was wrong; or when a witness changes his story with the effect that his true evidence in court is discredited because he had previously given different evidence. In the case of evidence given on television the dangers of contamination are particularly acute because of the dramatic nature and the unforensic way in which evidence is sought. The report concludes that there was in this case no real risk of contamination. I do not agree. Who can tell to what extent witnesses, consciously or not, felt constrained by the evidence they had already given to Thames? In the case of Asquez, his true evidence in court was manifestly discredited by his earlier unsworn evidence on television since the coroner invited the jury to choose between them. The report excuses Thames by saying that it could not have been expected to foresee that Asquez would change his story. But whether it was reasonable for Thames to have foreseen actual contamination is not the issue. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has made so clear, what matters is the risk that contamination might take place, as indeed in the case of Asquez it did.
The third point of criticism is simply the fact that many of the assertions and supporting passages of the programme were shown by the inquest to have been, quite simply, untrue. I will not rehearse these inaccuracies again. They are summarised in a three-and-a-half-page document submitted to my noble friend and his colleague which is available in the Library. The effect of these serious and damaging inaccuracies was to support directly the thesis that the terrorists were unlawfully killed. This criticism is very largely ignored in the report. Your Lordships may share my mystification as to why the report dismisses these grave matters which were specifically drawn to its attention. There are, I suggest, two

1129
possible explanations which do not, I fear, reflect much credit on my noble friend and his colleague. First, despite the outcome of the inquest the report appears to take a neutral stance between fact and fiction, even when subsequent information clarified matters beyond peradventure. Secondly, the report deliberately overlooks information which came to light after the programme was prepared and concentrates on evidence which was or could reasonably have been available to Thames. Even if one accepts this latter approach, it is, I would submit, an indictment of the programme that it made so many serious mistakes. And it vividly illustrates the dangers of transmitting an investigative programme of this kind before the inquest.
My final criticism concerns Thames's failure to present fairly the information available to it. In short, in a number of important particulars it failed to pursue the truth, to clarify the facts or to present evidence impartially. The case of Asquez is a prime example of what I have in mind. As I said earlier, his evidence was the centrepiece of the programme, in effect an accusation of murder. It was described as a detailed statement given to a lawyer representing Thames, and was presented graphically and convincingly. What was not made clear was that the statement was unsigned and unsworn and that Asquez had in fact refused to sign it. Nor did Thames mention that there were other witnesses in Asquez's car who had not been interviewed, though their identity could have been discovered, and who would have denied Asquez's claims.
In his report my noble friend rightly, but surprisingly mildly, criticises Thames for the manner in which this evidence was presented, which gave it a spurious credibility. But he says that it was reasonable for them to place some reliance on Asquez's statement. There is a world of difference between placing some reliance on the statement and making it the centrepiece of the programme. Moreover my noble friend acknowledged in his report that it would have been quite wrong to use the statement as support for an accusation of murder. But as your Lordships have seen, the programme did just that.
The presentation of evidence from other witnesses was also flawed. The programme asserted that four key witnesses said that the soldiers opened fire without warning and that none of them saw the terrorists make any threatening movements. This assertion is simply untrue as it stands and indeed the report accepts that it contains three errors. But my noble friend concludes that these lapses, although they cannot be dismissed as insignificant, need to be weighed against the programme overall, which sought to obtain a wide range of evidence and to present it as fairly and accurately as possible. That conclusion sits oddly with the view earlier in the report that the programme was mainly devoted to one possible explanation and to that extent could be regarded as one-sided. Nor can I accept that these lapses, which after all were in a passage that was fundamental to the murder thesis, can be regarded as somehow excusable.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the real and serious concerns I feel about "Death on the
1130
Rock". There is of course a place for investigative journalism. But the freedom of the press is not to be treated as a licence to distort. It carries with it a duty to act with responsibility. Thames Television did not in my judgment live up to that duty.
We have read the report with great care. But the Government believe that the authors have singularly failed to draw the proper conclusions from the evidence submitted. In addition it seems to me to have leaned over backwards to give Thames the benefit of the doubt. Coming from one with so much experience in the television industry, the report strikes me as a sad commentary on the standards now expected of the media.
"Death on the Rock" was a flawed programme which cast a shameful slur upon the reputation of those brave men who guard our safety and our freedom. It is a great pity that my noble friend's report so singularly failed to expose its shortcomings.
House adjourned at three minutes before nine o'clock.

  MOTOR VEHICLES (WEARING OF SEAT BELTS BY CHILDREN) ACT 1988
  MOTOR VEHICLES (WEARING OF SEAT BELTS BY CHILDREN) ACT 1988
  INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL
  INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL
  LOCAL AUTHORITY RENT ARREARS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY RENT ARREARS
  NITRATE POLLUTION
  NITRATE POLLUTION
  WATER AUTHORITY LAND: PUBLIC ACCESS
  WATER AUTHORITY LAND: PUBLIC ACCESS
  OUTER SPACE TREATY: AMBIT
  OUTER SPACE TREATY: AMBIT
  FEMALE CIRCUMCISION ACT 1985
  FEMALE CIRCUMCISION ACT 1985
  METROPOLITAN POLICE: DEPLOYMENT OF RESOURCES
  METROPOLITAN POLICE: DEPLOYMENT OF RESOURCES
  MR. EARL BARTON: POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY INVESTIGATION
  MR. EARL BARTON: POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY INVESTIGATION
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS