Sitting of 15 November 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1989–90 of—

  (1) the total number of Questions to Ministers or other Members which stood on the Order Paper, distinguishing those set down for oral, written priority and written answer
  686
  respectively, the number of days upon which replies to Questions for oral answers were given in the House; and the total number of Questions for oral answer to which such answers were given in the House;

  (2) the total number of Notices of Motions given for an early day;

  (3) the number of Members ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order No. 42 (Disorderly conduct), showing separately the orders given in the House and those given in Committee; and the Members suspended from the service of the House under Standing Order No. 43 (Order in debate) or otherwise, distinguishing whether the offence was committed in the House or in Committee, the period of such suspension, the number of occasions on which more than one Member was so suspended having jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair, and the number of occasions on which the attention of the House was called to the need for recourse to force to compel obedience to Mr. Speaker's direction; and

  (4) the number of public petitions presented to the House distinguishing separately those brought to the Table at the times specified by Standing Order No.133 (No debate on presentation of petition).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  CLOSURE AND ALLOCATION OF TIME
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1989–90 respecting—
  (A) applications of Standing Order No. 35 (Closure of debate) during Session 1989–90:
  (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Question before House or Committee when claimed

  Whether in House or Committee

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and
  (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Question before Committee when claimed

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and
  (B) applications of Standing Order No. 28 (Powers of Chair to propose question) during Session 1989–90:
  (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Whether in House or Committee

  Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and
  (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and
  (C) the number of Bills in respect of which allocation of time orders (distinguishing where appropriate orders supplementary to a previous order) were made under Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills), showing in respect of each Bill—

  (i) the number of sittings allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee by any report of a Business Sub-Committee under Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) agreed to by the Standing Committee, and the number of sittings of the Standing Committee pursuant thereto; and

  (ii) the number of days or portions of days allotted by the allocation of time order and any supplementary order to the consideration of the Bill at any stage in the House or in committee, together with the number of days upon which proceedings were so taken in the House or in committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Return ordered,
  or Session 1989–90 of the number of Instruments considered by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of
  688
  reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and of those within the Committees' orders of reference for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute; setting out the grounds on which Instruments may be drawn to the special attention of the House under Standing Order No. 124

  689
  (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and specifying the umber of Instruments so reported under each of these grounds; and of the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., and by the House respectively, showing the number where the Question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under Standing Order No. 101(5).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1989–90 of

  (1) The Number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House, and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed, specifying also the dates of the House's consideration of the several stages of such Bills;

  (2) All Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated by the House or partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;

  (3) All Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended;

  (4) The number of Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, distinguishing those proceeded with under section 7 and under section 9 respectively; specifying, in the case of Bills proceeded with under section 9 against which petitions were deposited, whether a motion was made to refer the Bill to a joint committee, and if so whether such motion was agreed to, withdrawn, negatived or otherwise disposed of; and stating for each joint committee to which a Bill was referred the names of the Members of this House nominated thereto, the first and last day of the committee's sitting, the number of days on which each joint committee sat for the consideration of the Bill referred to it, the number of days on which each Member of the committee served, and whether the committee reported that the order ought or ought not to be confirmed;

  (5) The number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the committee; and

  (6) The membership, work costs and staff of the Court of Referees and the Standing Orders Committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PUBLIC BILLS
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1989–90 of the number of Public Bills (other than Bills to confirm Provisional Orders and Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, showing: (1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and (2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at
  690
  which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of Prorogation.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1989–90 of the days on which the House sat; stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; the total numbers of hours occupied in the sittings of the House; and the average time; showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and specifying, for each principal type of business before the House, how much time was spent thereon, distinguishing from the total the time spent after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1989–90 of

  (1) The number of Special Procedure Orders presented, the number withdrawn; the number annulled; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved and be amended respectively; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders: and

  (2) Special Procedure Orders which were referred to a joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The First Deputy chairman of Ways and Means.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1989–90 of

  (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present;

  (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), or Standing Order No. 103 (Standing Committees on European Community Documents) considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by which it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered (including, in the case of the Scottish Grand Committee, the number of Meetings held in Edinburgh, pursuant to a motion made under Standing Order No. 95(3) (Scottish Grand Committee)) and the number of Members present at each of those sittings; and

  (3) the membership, work costs and staff of the Chairmen's Panel.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SELECT COMMITTEES
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1989–90 of statistics relating to the membership, work costs and staff of Select Committees (other than the Standing Orders Committee).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Free Television Licences
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the provision of free television licences for pensioners.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We have no plans to introduce free licences for pensioners or to extend the present concessionary arrangements.
    Mr. Winnick: Although the licence fee is excellent value and far better than any alternative scheme, is the Minister aware of the strong feeling of many pensioners that they should not have to pay the full sum? Is he also aware that two thirds of pensioner households are on low incomes? Why do the Government give every concession to the rich, but deny poor pensioners the concession for which Labour Members ask? Is it any wonder that the Government are so detested?
    Mr. Lloyd: I wonder whether the hon. Member would think it fair, when many pensioners are well off and many non-pensioners have low incomes, for £435 million which would otherwise go to the BBC to be spent in that way, with the result that low-income families would have to pay 50 per cent. more for their licences, up to £107. Is that fair?
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) were followed, hundreds of thousands of extremely wealthy people over the ages of 60 and 65 would get handouts from the taxpayer and that if any Government were to subsidise pleasure we should be on a slippery slope?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend and so, I believe, does the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place. He made it clear in a letter to The Guardian that there was no question of exempting pensioners who were able to pay. My hon. Friend is right to say that if money is available it should be used for projects which benefit the lower paid and are targeted on them. That is why, in October last, we increased the pensioner addition to income support by £200 million.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is the Secretary of State aware that, more than the question of free television licences, it is the nature of programmes which gives offence to pensioners, and that this problem should be tackled? Is he aware that deep offence was caused on 1 November, during a by-election in Dungannon district council, when on voting day the BBC transmitted a programme which highlighted the fact that the previous member for the seat had been shot by security forces when on IRA activity, and——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his supplementary question to television licences for pensioners.
    Mr. Maginnis: I am talking about the offence given to pensioners and the deep upset caused to them by news items such as these.
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that that supplementary falls very much on the edge of the issue raised by the question. I understand the feelings expressed by the hon. Member, but they are matters not for me but for the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council, which have been set up to look at issues of that kind.
    Mr. Holt: When my constituent Mrs. Littlefair received notification that, along with all her neighbours, she had been given a concessionary licence, she was naturally delighted. However, she received a further letter saying that, because of the inefficiences of Middlesbrough council, the bureaucratic bungling in the Home Office and the intransigence of the advice given by my hon. Friend, her concessionary licence was taken away, as were those of her three immediate neighbours, but not those of any of the other people. I have now been asked by the chief executive of Middlesbrough to bring in the ombudsman to see whether he will investigate the way in which Middlesbrough council has failed in its duty and the Home Office has been so intransigent.
    Mr. Lloyd: I have much sympathy for my hon. Friend's constitutent, but the law gives no opportunity for Ministers to grant a concessionary licence when the individual concerned does not fall within the rules. The individual must be in a property which falls within the rules or have had a concessionary licence prior to the relevant date. If the individual did not have one but understood from Middlesbrough council that he or she would have one, that one was in force or that one was applied for, the remedy surely lies with the council. That, however, is a matter for my hon. Friend to pursue.
    Mr. Corbett: Do not the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and other comments on this issue demonstrate that the concessionary licence scheme is arbitrary and unfair as between pensioner neighbours?
    Mr. Ashby: Abolish the concession.
    Mr. Corbett: Yes. The Government did not have the bottle to do that, but I agree that that is what they wanted to do.
    Is the Minister aware that when a flat in a block occupied by pensioners is taken by a person under pensionable age, all the other pensioner residents lose the concession? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to put that right?
    Mr. Lloyd: The concession is carefully drawn to ensure that pensioners living in the equivalent of residential care, in warden-controlled or sheltered accommodation, may have the concession. As the rule has to be clear and understandable at law, and not challenged at law, the detail must be set out clearly. There can be no concessions for those who fall outside the rule. It is regrettable that that is so, but it is necessary for local authorities to organise themselves so that their tenants can take advantage of the scheme and to ensure that they do not let accommodation of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred to people not of pensionable age. That is the remedy and the solution.

    Radio Frequencies
    Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends next to meet the chairman of the BBC to discuss the allocation of radio frequencies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of the BBC from time to time to discuss a wide variety of broadcasting matters.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the adverse effect that the introduction of the new frequency arrangements could have on sports coverage, especially the ball-by-ball cricket test match commentary? Does he agree that those continuous commentaries, which have an international as well as a national audience, are an essential part of our lives and should be maintained even when there are competing sporting events on the same day? It is important that all of us should have the opportunity to know who is batting, how many runs have been scored or who has taken most wickets.
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises a matter of great national importance. The changes in the airwaves are to give many more people a much wider range of choice. I understand that most sporting events will be uninterrupted on the new Radio 5. The only likely clashes will be in June when Wimbledon and the test match come at the same time. It is entirely for the BBC to decide how to manage, bearing in mind what it considers audience demand to be. I understand that it intends to broadcast a ball-by-ball commentary of the test match and to intersperse within it occasional reports on other sporting events.
    Mr. Wigley: In any such discussions, will the Minister take up the issue of wavelengths and reception for both radio and television in parts of Wales, as people in Wales are having considerable difficulty receiving programmes which originate from Wales? Will the hon. Gentleman consider the odd situation in which Kenny Dalglish can watch soccer matches from Wales in Liverpool while large sections of the population in Clwyd cannot receive those programmes?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am aware that there are difficulties, especially in Wales, as are the BBC and the broadcasting authorities. There is a programme to improve FM transmission with the move to the new wavelengths for the BBC. The television authorities are aware of the difficulties in certain places, but I believe that broadcasting standards and reception are improving and are designed to improve markedly in the coming years until the old wavelengths are phased out.
    Mr. Hague: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the BBC to discuss radio frequencies, will he remind him of the continuing frustration of people in areas such as Swaledale and North Yorkshire that they cannot receive FM broadcasts and thus cannot listen to Radio 2? Will he urge the chairman to complete the construction of more repeater stations so that the whole nation can listen to FM broadcasts?
    Mr. Lloyd: I note what my hon. Friend says. No doubt those responsible in the BBC and other broadcasting authorities will read our exchanges. As I said to the hon.
    694
    Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the BBC is mindful of the speed with which it needs to improve FM transmission in particular.

    Broadcasting Act
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications for the provisions of the Broadcasting Act of the merger of BSB and Sky Television.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, the ownership provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 apply to the existing DBS contractor until 1993, and the IBA is accordingly considering whether the merged company is in conformity with the 1981 Act. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading is currently considering whether the merger falls within the scope of the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.
    Mr. Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that while the Broadcasting Act 1990, which placed great emphasis on choice, gathers dust on the shelf, thousands of families like mine around the country who chose not to have Sky but to wait for the better quality and technologically superior BSB have had choice effectively removed from them without being consulted or having their wishes considered? What consultation will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to ensure that the rights of such people are protected and that manufacturers, retailers and customers who do not wish to avail themselves of the offer that they cannot refuse from Sky are properly and fully compensated?
    Mr. Waddington: The Act is designed to open up new opportunities. It is for entrepreneurs to take up those opportunities and for viewers to decide whether they deserve to succeed. It is no part of the Government's duty to prop up and subsidise the entrepreneurs.
    Mr. Maclennan: What action would the Secretary of State propose to encourage diversification by Sky or BSkyB when it reaches a dominant position in the marketplace?
    Mr. Waddington: It is not a matter for the Government, but I mentioned earlier that one of the consequences of what happened a week or so ago is that important decisions must be taken by the IBA and the Office of Fair Trading.
    Mr. Hattersley: Bearing in mind the BSB-Sky merger and this week's announcement that Mr. Rupert Murdoch seems likely to acquire an interest in yet another newspaper, what are the Government's objections to and arguments against a general reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission asking it to inquire into the concentration of newspaper and media ownership?
    Mr. Waddington: That goes far wide of the question and of my responsibilities. We are dealing today with the consequences of what happened a week or so ago.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the application of the law on Sunday

    695
    trading; and what is the latest figure he has for the number of actions instituted this year against stores contravening the Shops Act 1950.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Since I answered a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 1 November, five written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and three against have been received. Figures for the number of prosecutions instituted this year are not yet available.
    Mr. Field: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people find the Sunday trading laws rather more confusing than one of Dr. Habgood's sermons? Is it not possible for the Government to consider giving the power to borough and district councils to take decisions about whether to allow Sunday trading so that decisions are taken at a local level, giving more power to the people and less to the prophets and the politicians?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will know that local authorities have the opportunity to bring prosecutions in such matters. It would not be right for us to go further at present.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Minister aware of the law? If she is aware of it and believes, as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, that it should be enforced, will she ensure that those who attempt to enforce the law are not pressurised by companies? I have a full list of companies that have gone to court to appeal against local authority decisions to impose the Sunday trading laws. It is about time the Minister sent a circular letter to all local authorities defining their responsibilities and, indeed, the legal position under the Sunday trading laws.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no need for a circular letter. The law is perfectly clear. It is within the remit of local authorities to undertake to prosecute in such cases if that is what they wish to do.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Government were to adopt as a sensible compromise the REST—recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and travel—proposals of the Keep Sunday Special campaign, there would be no difficulty in getting that reform through the House?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As my hon. Friend knows, it is difficult at present to see how progress can be made because so many people hold divergent views on this matter. If there were any reasonable proposals that could command the support of a majority of the House and of Parliament it would, of course, be possible for us to consider legislation.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that the Conservative Government are encouraging law breaking because of their failure to reform the Shops Act 1950? That is happening despite the lecture on law breaking that the House received from the Home Secretary on Monday during the debate on the Queen's Speech. Is the Minister also aware that the Government's procrastination is resulting in allegedly threatening letters being sent to elected members of Macclesfield borough council by B and Q plc of the Kingfisher group, which is continuing to trade illegally? I notice that this matter is also causing concern to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), whom
    696
    I see in his place. The Minister is responsible for this mess. When is she going to reform that Act? The House wants to know.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. He knows perfectly well that it is not long since the House had a perfectly good opportunity to reform the legislation on Sunday trading, but hon. Members declined to do so. The hon. Gentleman's party participated fully in that debate. If the Opposition wish to have reform, it is in their interests to ensure that reasonable proposals come before the House so that all parties can agree on the way in which legislation should be framed.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend ensure that in this country the law of this country is upheld? If undue pressure and threats are brought to bear by B and Q on officers and councillors of the borough of Macclesfield, will she ensure that the Government are prepared to support the council and to ensure that a company is not allowed, because of its wealth, to bring such undue, unfortunate and undemocratic pressure to bear upon a duly elected council?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is aware that the place for such disputes is undoubtedly and indisputably in the courts. It is important that my hon. Friend should remember that it is not possible for Ministers to do more than that which falls within the scope of their responsibilities, which is to uphold the rights of local authorities to pursue such matters in the courts.
    Several hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Exceptionally, and to ensure balance, I call Mr. Patrick Duffy.
    Mr. Duffy: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister noticed the strength of the Keep Sunday Special movement in Germany? What consideration is she giving to the known intentions of some of its promoters in Germany to campaign for wider acceptance within the European Community?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that Sunday trading is a matter for this Parliament and that we must discuss their wishes with the people of this country. It is because there is a discrepancy among the different groups that we have so far been unable to put forward any proposals that could command the support of the majority of the people of this country and enable Parliament to pass an Act.

    Prison Population
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current level of the prison population.
    Mr. Waddington: This morning, there were 44,540 prisoners held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. In addition, a further 970 were held in police cells.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that those figures are already encouragingly below the trends forecast some years ago? Will he ensure that the Government's twin-track approach to sentencing, which

    697
    involves longer sentencing of violent offenders but greater use of non-custodial penalties for those who commit less serious offences, is fully implemented?
    Mr. Waddington: I will certainly do the last. As my hon. Friend knows, that is the theme of the proposals to be embodied in the Criminal Justice Bill which we shall be debating before long. My hon. Friend is right to say that much encouragement can be taken from recent figures, which show a fall of 2,962 prisoners by comparison with one year ago and a fall of more than 5,000 compared with two years ago.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that in view of the number of suicides and other problems associated with prisoners suffering from mental deficiency, it is time to give prison medical services extra funding pro tern, so as to ensure early diagnosis of prisoners at risk?
    Mr. Waddington: I am not sure that it is just a question of extra funding, but the hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that we have a serious problem on our hands. We asked the chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, to investigate and I expect to receive his report before long. Meanwhile, a number of important measures have been taken throughout the prison estate for dealing with that very real problem.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there has been a reduction not just in the total prison population but in overcrowding within prisons and, in particular, a substantial fall in the past year in the number of three-to-a-cell prisoners?
    Mr. Waddington: A combination of our prison building programme and the important reforms embodied in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and 1988 resulted in fewer young offenders being sent to prison or to young offenders institutions. That has changed the scene radically. The new criminal justice legislation will extend to the whole age range the kind of measures that have proved so successful in respect of young offenders.
    Mr. Battle: In the light of Judge Tumim's report on Armley prison in my constituency, does the Home Secretary accept that it is universally agreed that Armley is a totally inappropriate place to send young, unconvicted remand prisoners? What plans does the Home Office have to provide an alternative and by what date does the Home Secretary envisage that Armley prison's remand wing will be closed down?
    Mr. Waddington: Our response to Judge Tumim's report was made public on 6 November and it is available in the Library. I indicated that action had already been taken to improve conditions within Armley, in terms of staffing and the regime. Harking back to an earlier question, the recommendations on suicide prevention have already been adopted. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must take other measures, particularly in getting young offenders out of Armley. We intend before long to move adult offenders into another prison, so in due course there will be more scope for providing better accommodation for young remand prisoners in Yorkshire.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: In his consideration of the prison population and the prison building programme, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that Northeye
    698
    prison in my constituency is scheduled for closure? Will the site be sold when that happens, or will it be retained indefinitely by the prison service?
    Mr. Waddington: I cannot give my hon. Friend an off-the-cuff answer, but I will write to him. He will appreciate that it was important to undertake the review of the prison estate that I reported to the House in the summer because we must make the best possible use of the accommodation available within the prison estate.

    Security Service Tribunal
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are currently under review by the Security Service Tribunal; and how many of them relate to matters that took place prior to December 1989.
    Mr. Waddington: The Security Service Act 1989 established the Security Service Tribunal as an independent body and it is not for me to make available details of its work. The tribunal is precluded by the Act from considering matters that took place before the implementation of the Act on 18 December 1989.
    Mr. Archer: Is it a closely guarded secret whether the tribunal is declining jurisdiction in cases where the inquiry began before it was established? If it is, will the Home Secretary confirm that that is not what the Act says, and it would surprise hon. Members who voted for it?
    Mr. Waddington: I have made absolutely plain what the Act says. There is not the slightest doubt that the tribunal is precluded by the Act from considering matters that took place before its implementation. It is not for me to give details of the tribunal's work. It was established by Parliament as an independent body—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will wait for a moment.
    The Security Service Commissioner may choose to cover the work of the tribunal in his report.

    Squatters
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has any plans to bring forward proposals to tighten the law on squatters.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 19 June, we are considering the criminal law on squatting as it affects unoccupied residential property. This is a difficult and complex area in which the criminal law has traditionally not played a major role in England and Wales. But we recognise that there is a case for strengthening the law and I hope to announce the Government's intentions in due course.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a number of my constituents who have suffered because of the reprehensible activities of squatters will welcome the answer that he has given me today? Many of my constituents cannot understand why—despite the complexities of this aspect of law—the law cannot be brought into line with that governing a prime residence. Can the Minister advise me when he might be able to make an announcement on this matter?
    Mr. Patten: I know of my hon. Friend's strong feelings on behalf of his constituents, and especially the occupant and owner of The Warren, near Chelmsford. I understand the distress that his constituents went through. My hon. Friend is right. There are serious issues to be considered here and that is exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend and I are doing at the moment. We hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Haynes: Can I make a suggestion to the Minister? He should have a word with the Secretary of State for the Home Department over these problems, that is squatters. Could I suggest that he tell the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Ask a question".] I have already asked a question. When the Secretary of State sits round that table at No. 10 drinking tea, doing nothing else, only doing as he is told by that lady in the chair, he might overcome the problem if he told her to change her policy on housing. So get stuck in and do something about it.
    Mr. Patten: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is a little overexcited. It might be advisable, Mr. Speaker—if I may make a suggestion—if you put the kind ladies and gentlemen in white coats on watch as they may need to take him away a bit later.
    Mr. Haynes rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that was meant in a kindly way.
    Mr. Haynes: No it was not. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I had said that to the Minister you would have thrown me out of the place. It is time that you dealt with him. I am not satisfied. Deal with him. I will whitecoat him outside.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I still think it was friendly and if the hon. Member had said it I should have thought it was friendly, too.
    Mr. John Marshall: When my hon. Friend examines the law on squatters, will he also consider the law on gipsies, who frequently behave anti-socially, are often parasites on society and frequently tax dodgers?
    Mr. Patten: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friend's constituents have some protection under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986, which is a useful Act. It might be of use in respect of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).

    Police Funding, Staffordshire
    Mrs. Heal: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he is next to meet the chief constable of Staffordshire to discuss police funding.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the chief constable, but Home Office Ministers are in regular contact with chief officers of police.
    Mrs. Heal: In view of the hopelessly inadequate allocation of funds to the Staffordshire police authority for 1990–91, can the Home Secretary assure us that the level of capital grant will be sufficient to meet the known operational requirements of the police authorities for vehicles and other equipment in the coming year?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the capital expenditure on vehicles, plant and equipment was open ended. In 1988–89 it was approximately £150 million. In 1989–90 it leapt to £238 million. Therefore, we had to cap central Government's contribution. That amounted to £174 million. There was, therefore, an increase that year, compared with the 1988–89 allocation. Next year, the figure will rise to £220 million. That is a substantial increase. It will be made available for the capital expenditure to which the hon. Lady referred. There will, therefore, again be more money. Moreover, we are consulting the police authorities about a mechanism to ensure that that money is shared out as fairly as possible.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that earlier this year our right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State received a deputation of county council representatives and Members of Parliament from all parts of the House? Is he also aware that the chief constable was a member of that deputation, that a very powerful case was made and that we are eagerly awaiting a good and positive reply?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I know that such a meeting took place and that my right hon. and noble Friend took close note of what was said. I hope that my hon. Friend has also taken note of what I have said: we are seeking, with the police authorities, to devise a mechanism to ensure that the money is distributed as fairly as possible and that it goes where it is most needed.
    Mr. Sheerman: The way in which the Government have played around with the current and capital expenditure of county authorities such as Staffordshire means that the police have been hamstrung when planning to meet the rising level of crime that faces them, day in, day out, under the Thatcher Government. Is not it about time that the Government gave certainty to the financial structure? That is what the police need if they are to fight crime effectively.
    Mr. Lloyd: That is exactly what we have done. We have changed an open-ended situation that was not used well by some local authorities and police authorities, to the disadvantage of others. We have set a cap on it which allows for a sensible increase each year.

    Bicycles
    Mr. Bowls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to enforce the law requiring bicycles to be adequately lit when being ridden on public highways during the hours of darkness.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Responsibility for the enforcement of road traffic law rests with individual chief officers of police.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we must encourage is responsible cycling? Is he aware of the increasing public concern about the danger to pedestrians, motorists and cyclists due to the practice of cycling at night without lights? Will he draw the problem to the attention of the police, particularly the Metropolitan police?
    Mr. Lloyd: I shall certainly draw this exchange to the attention of the Metropolitan police. As my hon. Friend said, it is an important matter, not least because there has been a considerable increase in the number of cyclist accidents during the last year. Only 20 per cent. of those accidents, however, occurred at night.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not it true, however, that more danger is caused to cyclists by badly maintained roads arid the failure of central Government to give enough money to local authorities to provide cycle ways? Is not it true that cyclists would be much better served if the Government were less parsimonious towards local authorities and provided them with adequate funds?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is trying to construct an extraordinarily unconvincing explanation for people cycling in unsafe circumstances and unsafe conditions with their lights off. The hon. Gentleman's comments seem to have no relevance to the question that I was posed.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that many cyclists who are involved in accidents after dark not only cannot be seen but cannot hear the traffic because they are riding with headphones on, playing loud music? Does my hon. Friend intend to take any action on that matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has made a useful point. As I said earlier, I shall draw these matters to the attention of the police. My hon. Friend underlines the fact that cyclists can do a great deal more to make their cycling safer.

    Policing, Cumbria
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Cumbria on the question of policing.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations from the Cumbria 'police authority since March 1989. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State visited Cumbria police in May 1990.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the high incidence of petty crime and burglary in the county, may I make a special plea on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Cumbrians that the Government look most sympathetically on any request for additional policing resources for the county? Things really are quite bad.
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course, the hon. Gentleman can be sure that we will look carefully at any such request. As he knows, extra police officers will be announced towards the end of the year. I commend the Cumbrian police authority for the way in which it has used the civilianisation programme. It has used the programme sensibly and better than many other authorities in the country. The increase in the crime rate in Cumbria, particularly for the crimes mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is lower than the national increase.
    Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he is looking for examples throughout the country of good relations between the police and the public, he could do no better than offer Cumbria as such an example?
    Mr. Lloyd: Cumbria is a very good example and I have already mentioned some of its successes in my reply to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister have urgent talks with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is under the impression that Cumbria is spending too much on its police? He said that under the standard spending assessment, £1·6 million too much is being spent. It is obvious to the people of Cumbria that that is not the case.
    702
    Is not it a fact that, unless the county council cuts its police budget, we are likely to be capped this year by the Government?
    Mr. Lloyd: The council must make its own judgment in terms of its obligations under the law and the arrangements for the community charge that it receives.

    Petty Criminals
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to ensure that petty criminals receive community-based sentences rather than imprisonment.
    Mr. John Patten: My right hon. and learned Friend's Criminal Justice Bill, with the new framework for sentencing, will ensure that offenders are punished according to the seriousness of their crimes. In all but the most serious crimes the courts will have to consider a pre-sentence report before imposing imprisonment. Custody will need to be justified by the seriousness of the offence or the need to protect the public from harm. A wider and more flexible range of tough and demanding community penalties is proposed to enable more offenders to be adequately punished in the community.
    Mr. Coombs: I strongly support the greater use of community-based punishments, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, if they are to have a deterrent effect as well as a rehabilitative effect, they must be significantly more rigorous and better monitored? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that that is done?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend will recognise that in some parts of the country supervision is not adequately firm and in other parts the probation service does an excellent job. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are trying to ensure higher standards through his proposed legislation and through national standards for the imposition of punishment in the community.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister contemplating any penalties for people who use sexist and abusive language on car phones?
    Mr. Patten: There is a proposal in Lord Justice Taylor's report to outlaw the chanting of racist abuse at football games and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced that we shall pursue that as soon as possible.

    Computer Crime
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to improve police officers' training to investigate computer crime.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The police staff college runs a 20-day course for computer crime investigators entitled "Investigative Techniques in Computer Crime". The course is subject to continuous review and takes account of suggestions from forces and regular contact with the computer crime unit of the Metropolitan police.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Metropolitan police is well equipped to investigate highly sophisticated crimes, the 43 provincial forces are not? Will he confirm that, if necessary, they can enlist the

    703
    help of specialist computer firms with their inquiries, and would not it be a good idea if they were to add computer security to their crime prevention campaigns?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend's question is a matter for chief police officers. One of the advantages of the course that I mentioned is that officers from all police forces make contacts that enable them to know where to obtain additional expertise in the private sector, and it also enables them to have contact with the computer crime unit of the Metropolitan police, whose skills they can take advantage of.
    Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister——
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No.
    Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I insist on raising it now.
    Mr. Speaker: Insist? The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Chairman's Panel. He knows that I take points of order at their proper time, not in the middle of questions.
    Mr. Winterton: I am sorry, but I cannot hear what is going on in this place. Could the instruments be adjusted to enable us to hear? Could they possibly be turned up so that we can hear what Ministers and others are saying? It is important.
    Mr. Speaker: Was that the point of order?
    Mr. Winterton: Yes.
    Mr. Speaker: This is in the hands of the House. If hon. Members do not make a noise or interrupt from the Back Benches, they will hear. The louder the microphones are turned up, the greater is the reflection from the amplifier back to the microphones. It makes even more noise.
    Mr. Skinner: Heseltine will change all that.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us start again.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ashby: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Chief Buthelezi.
    Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1983, when I was elected to the House, unemployment in my constituency was 16 per cent. but is now 3·2 per cent., despite losing its major industry of coal mining? Is she further aware that a recent study showed that there is more employment and greater prosperity than ever before? Is not that a reflection of experience throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend's constituency is doing so well after eleven and a half years of Conservative Government: long may it
    704
    continue. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the Community, with the exception of Luxembourg. We have created some 2 million jobs since we took office and the future will depend very much on precisely how people run their businesses and keep their costs competitive.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Madrid conditions were imposed upon her by resignation threats from the then Foreign Secretary and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: Our undertaking to join the exchange rate mechanism stems from as far back as 1979, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at some of the manifestos of that period.
    Mr. Kinnock: My question was specific, and so was the recollection of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), with the obvious assent of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). Is the Prime Minister telling us that there were no resignation threats on the issue of the Madrid conditions?
    The Prime Minister: I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that the exchange rate mechanism undertaking is very long standing. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard from the Dispatch Box many times that we would join when the time was right; we did join when the time was right, and no one has really been able to criticise that with validity.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that local education authorities in Britain last year spent £18·6 billion? Is she further aware that, if the share carried by the poll tax were transferred to national taxation, according to the House of Commons Library it would mean an increase in income tax of 20 per cent., or more than 5p in the pound? Does the Prime Minister agree that anyone who claims that educational spending could be transferred from local councils to the Government without a huge increase in national taxation must be a political joker?
    The Prime Minister: If all education costs were transferred to central Government and the grant were left with local government, it would mean a huge increase in income tax—as my hon. Friend has said—or a substantial reduction in the moneys available for other services, such as health, pensions, defence and law and order. There would be either a big increase in income tax or a substantial reduction in other public expenditure. The alternative is to take away the grant from local authorities, which in fact greatly exceeds the amount spent on education.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall saying to the London Standard, exactly five years ago yesterday, that she would "go in 5 years"? Does she recall her words at that time? She said:
    "then I would have been in 11½years",
    adding that the time would then have come for someone else to "carry the torch"? What has changed her mind?
    The Prime Minister: I confess that that was not the foremost thought in my mind at the present time. After three general election victories, leading, as I do, the only party with clear policies—resolutely carried out—I intend to continue.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware how disastrous it would be for the United Kingdom

    705
    clothing and textile industries if the multi-fibre arrangement were phased out before we had achieved a real and effective strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines, which, at a conservative estimate, would take at least a decade?
    The Prime Minister: We must negotiate those things at the GATT talks. If we do not extend freedom of trade, many of our exports will be denied admission by third-world countries. In the past, textile quotas in one country have deliberately prevented it from making orders for other commodities—especially in engineering—from this country. We must negotiate that at GATT, and we intend to do so.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: Will the Prime Minister tell us who and what is fiddling the franchise in England, Scotland and Wales, where there is a shortfall of 600,000 on the electoral register? Will she also tell us who and what is fiddling the franchise in Finchley, where 8·5 per cent. have gone missing from the register in the past two years? That is equivalent to 32 people missing from an electorate of 372, however sophisticated or unsophisticated that electorate is. Are not the "who" the Prime Minister's current Government and former Governments—no matter who were members of those Governments—and the "what" the poll tax, which is unreformable in relation to the electoral register?
    The Prime Minister: Local residents have a duty to register for the electoral roll and for the community charge, and they also have a duty to pay the community charge. Those who do not do so are passing their burden on to their neighbours while nevertheless expecting to have all local authority benefits.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the agreement on conventional forces in Europe, which she will sign in Paris next week, represents an historic step forward in arms control? Does she agree that, if the west had not maintained its resolute stand, led by her Government, that would never have been achieved?
    The Prime Minister: Representatives of 35 nations will be at the conference in Paris, where we shall sign that excellent agreement. It is very beneficial to this country. It removes from us the danger of a surprise attack. It reduces the forces that we will have to keep in Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend that none of that would have been possible but for a resolute defence and, in particular, the stationing of cruise and Pershing missiles, Britain being the first to do so.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Because in normal circumstances two heads are better than one, will the Prime Minister consider seeking the help of her right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to sort out the poll tax problems?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment had a review of the community charge and made an announcement. All the effects have not yet come into action. Further orders following the announcement of that review are soon to be laid before the House. There will be some benefits from the extra transitional charge and from the £2·55 billion extra money that was allocated to the revenue support grant which goes to local authorities. All those measures have yet to come into effect.
    Sir Hal Miller: At a time when people are trying to spread doom and gloom about our manufacturing industry, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the performance of the motor industry which, even last month, increased production, exports and investment? Will my right hon. Friend please support that success by ensuring that our continental partners do not impose limits on the export of cars made in this country?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, to both parts of my hon. Friend's question. The British car industry is doing extremely well—better than it has done for many years. I think that Rover is the only company in Europe that is working 24 hours a day. It still has a waiting list for some of its products. That is an enormous change from when it was a nationalised industry. Cars are also exported from Ellesmere Port, which is very good. We shall do precisely what my hon. Friend wishes and try to ensure that all cars made in this country are freely exported and circulated around the European Community.
    Mr. Faulds: In view of the somewhat sleazy appointments of some of the trustees to the boards of national institutions and in view of Gerald Ronson's conviction, what does the Prime Minister intend to do to take him off the board of the natural history museum?
    The Prime Minister: All appointments to national institutions are made carefully, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, and they will continue to be made carefully. People—the overwhelming majority—do a great service for those institutions.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I should like to draw the Prime Minister's attention to the plight of many people in private care homes. As her Government have cut income support payments to those residents in real terms and as her Government intend to end housing benefit payments to those residents, what advice does the right hon. Lady have for those elderly and disabled people who face the prospect of going down market to cheaper, inferior accommodation or becoming homeless as a direct result of her Government's policies?
    The Prime Minister: This Government have increased enormously the amount of taxpayers' money available for residential homes and for nursing homes. If the hon.

    707
    Gentleman looks up the figures, he will find that for every £1 Labour spent on those people in those homes, this Government are spending something over £100. It is a very good record.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when she came into office as Prime Minister in 1979, spinning mills and canning factories in my constituency had closed under the previous Labour Government and that in the small town where I live, almost 600 people found themselves out of work? Today, the unemployment level in that area is about 4 per cent. and take-home pay has increased by more than 25 per cent. over the rate of inflation. Does not that show that my right hon. Friend has done the right thing for Scotland and for the Scottish people?
    The Prime Minister: We have not only the highest number ever of people in jobs in this country but the right background for enterprise to flourish and the lowest unemployment rate in the whole of Europe, with the exception of Luxembourg. It is a very good record. Added to that, we have the highest standard of living that we have ever achieved.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I inadvertently called two Opposition Members running, so I shall balance it up. I call Mr. Brazier.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EC Ministers passed a resolute resolution on the Gulf crisis at the previous summit, but that when it comes to action, we see, once again, that Britain is proving to be the best European?
    The Prime Minister: Both the United Nations and the European Community have passed excellent resolutions making it quite clear that Iraq must leave Kuwait and that the legitimate Government and the normal way of life in Kuwait must be restored. It is not the United Nations that can put its resolutions into effect, but the separate countries—those countries that have kept their armed forces fully up to date, flexible and able to go anywhere at short notice. In Europe, this country leads.
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Darling: The Prime Minister will be aware that her right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) suggested that the poll tax is capable of a fundamental review—despite the fact that he voted for the poll tax for Scotland. He must have changed his mind 12 months later, but I suppose that that is another matter. Does the Prime Minister consider that the poll tax is capable of a fundamental review or does she accept that the only fundamental review that it needs is complete repeal, which will be undertaken by the next Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: There was a fundamental review whose results have yet to show through in the poll tax or community charge payments next spring. I understand that the Opposition are going back to rates. They will have to have a revaluation after 17 years and the effects on people will be utterly devastating.
    Mr. Lawrence: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lawrence: When my right hon. Friend speaks for Britain at the Helsinki review conference next week in Paris, which will be attended by the other world leaders, will she ensure that the momentum in human rights that earlier conferences built up, so that human rights were introduced into the Soviet Union and into the eastern European countries, will be maintained?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that that development was one of the tremendous benefits of the Helsinki accord. It took a long time to show through, although we had increased Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union for some time, which then went down. It meant that those who were fighting for human rights in the eastern European countries and in the Soviet Union knew that they were not alone, and that we could and did inquire regularly of the Soviet Union and of the eastern European countries on their behalf. That was very, very beneficial indeed. We will continue to keep up all our beliefs in human rights and we will constantly raise questions about them. I hope, when I return from that conference in Paris, to make a statement to the House about it next Wednesday.

Business of the House
3.34 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
TUESDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.
Motion to take note of EC document on aid to shipbuilding. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Opposition day (1st Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there win be a debate entitled "The Scottish Economy". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Textile Industry". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1990.
THURSDAY 22 NOVEMBER—Until about seven o'clock Second Reading of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.
FRIDAY 23 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on the GATT round of trade negotiations on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 26 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
[Tuesday 20 November

Relevant European Community documents:

8097/90

Aid to ship-building

9416/90

Report on shipbuilding industry in Community 1989

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 11-xxxii (1989–90)
Friday 23 November

Relevant European Community documents:

(a) Un-numbered

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: Uruguay Round

(b) Un-numbered

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: negotiations on Agriculture

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-i (1990–91)

(b) HC 43-v ( 1987–88 ), HC 43-xxxv ( 1987–88) and HC 15-i (1988–89)]

Dr. Cunningham: Why has not the Secretary of State for Wales made an oral statement on the revenue support grant for Wales? Should not hon. Members representing constituencies in the Principality have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State about the implications of that settlement for poll tax payers in Wales?
Does the Leader of the House intend to arrange a debate on European Community affairs before the intergovernmental conference on economic, monetary and political union takes place on 13 and 14 December? Given the widely acknowledged importance of the intergovernmental conference, and in recognition of the large divisions of opinion within the Government and the Conservative party, should not the House have the
710
opportunity to listen to such a debate so that Opposition Members at least may know which side will prevail before Britain's case is argued at that conference?
The Leader of the House will be aware that today we have had the announcement of the largest increase in unemployment for four and a half years. This is the seventh consecutive month in which unemployment has increased and it now stands at 1·7 million. Is not that yet another indication of the deepening economic and industrial recession that is the inevitable consequence of the policies being pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the Government's economic and industrial policies—particularly as they apply to unemployment?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's first question was about the revenue support grant for Wales. He will recognise that I shall have to look into that matter as, clearly, there are normally other times when that is discussed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about European Community affairs. It has been clear from our recent debates, in which economic and monetary issues and wider European issues have been discussed—most recently, yesterday—that there is substantial agreement on the Conservative Benches. I suspect that the divisions are really among Opposition Members.
The hon. Gentleman asked for time for a debate. As he will know, it is normally for the convenience of the House to hold traditional debates on the EC six-monthly White Paper. I understand that it has now been agreed that in those debates we should look forward as well as dealing with the previous six months. The timing of such a debate is best left for consideration through the usual channels, but if we can look forward in the debate, we can cover points to be discussed at the intergovernmental meeting. I agree that it is important that the House should have a debate on these matters before then.
The hon. Gentleman asked about unemployment. We have been debating industrial and economic matters extensively for the past two days, and the votes last night proved resoundingly that there is support for the Government's economic policies. I cannot hold out the prospect of another debate immediately. The hon. Gentleman will know that employment, which is the key factor, is at an all-time high. As I said in my speech last night, the number of the work force in employment has been rising for the past seven years. It has increased by 3·6 million in that time, and the United Kingdom still has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole Community.
Sir Peter Emery: I am sure that the House would want to thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for and congratulate him on his announcement yesterday which met part of our recommendation about the parliamentary calendar. We now know the dates for the Christmas and Easter recesses.
Is my right hon. Friend progressing with the appointment of members to the special European Standing Committees to deal with European matters which are not to be considered on the Floor of the House? I hope that the members will be appointed to those Committees so that they can begin operating perhaps by the end of the month.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening comments. I hope that the announcement that I made yesterday evening, which of course must be subject to the satisfactory progress of business, will be for the convenience of all hon. Members. My hon. Friend's second point is a matter for the Committee of Selection to move ahead and select the members for those Committees. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. James Wallace: Although we had useful exchanges after the statement on the Cullen report by the Secretary of State for Energy on Monday, does the Leader of the House accept that that report is vast and, given that report and the issues of industrial relations in the offshore industry, do we not need a more substantive debate on the matter?
I am sure that the Leader of the House is doing his best to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, but may I suggest that he gets in touch with the Royal Bank of Scotland to discover whether the leave extended to the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to run the Prime Minister's election campaign can be extended further to allow him to serve on a Scottish Select Committee?
Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday evening about the Scottish Select Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has many talents and he can carry out many functions at the same time, but I am not sure that he could do them all. I have said that I will look into the matter, but I think that it is very unlikely that progress can be made on it.
The House had a full exchange on the Piper Alpha report on Monday. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have accepted the recommendations in the Cullen report. I cannot promise an early or immediate debate on the matter, because we have a very full programme in the weeks ahead.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the House should have an opportunity kr examine not only Government policies but those of the Opposition as well? If he accepts that, will he arrange for at least one day of Government time to allow us to debate and examine the Labour party's education policies which are both deceitful and dishonest in as much as they exist and will contribute nothing to the raising of standards, but will rather lead to the destruction of the grammar schools, city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools and will hinder the education opportunities of thousands of children?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a precise all-day debate on the Labour party's policies. However, there will be many opportunities to raise those issues. My hon. Friend will be aware that last night I made precisely the same points that he has just made about some aspects of the Labour party's education policies.
Mr. David Clelland: Is the Leader of the House aware of the increasing incidence of stolen vehicles speeding through residential areas, one of which last night ended in the tragic death of a 10-month-old baby in my constituency? Can he promise an early statement on that problem which will include an examination of the inadequacies of the law relating to car theft and the resourcing of the police and which will also include the provision of adequate and proper resources to local
712
authorities to allow them to provide traffic calming devices in residential areas without the fear of poll tax capping or having to cut other essential services?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the whole House will be sorry to hear of yesterday's tragic accident. There will be a debate on road safety tomorrow in which the hon. Gentleman can raise such matters.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 4 which deals with compensation for haemophiliac AIDS victims?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for Health urgently to conclude an out-of-court settlement with people with haemophilia who were infected with the AIDS virus in the course of National Health Service treatment and with their families in cases where they have already died.]
Is he aware that there is continuing and growing concern about the plight of people who are suffering through no fault of their own? If the Government would change their mind on the subject, that would meet with universal approval.
Mr. MacGregor: This matter was raised last week in business questions, and I said then that, as my hon. Friend knows, the Government have always accepted the strong moral argument in favour of the haemophiliacs, and that is why we have made £34 million available for ex gratia payments and have promised to keep that figure under review. However, the Government do not accept liability and will resist any settlement that implies admission of negligence. This matter has been discussed on a number of occasions, so I cannot promise an early debate in the normal way.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on energy policy as it affects certain manufacturing industries such as the glass industry? He may be aware that the French are alleged to subsidise their energy costs. As the Government are about to sell off the electricity industry, would it not be fair if the House were to discuss the subject, because glass is more expensive to make here than in France, which is costing us British jobs?
Mr. MacGregor: There was the opportunity during the debate on the Queen's Speech to raise a large number of industrial issues, and I am sure that there will be other opportunities for the hon. Member to raise that issue if he so wishes. I cannot promise a debate on it in the near future.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing today that there will be a debate next week on the textile industry, albeit that that short debate will be in Opposition time and that there will be a debate on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Will he give the House an assurance that in both debates a Minister of the highest level will be present and will take on board the views of the House so that, when the Government negotiate the future of the multi-fibre arrangement under the GATT renegotiations and the new treaty, the interests of an industry that employs more than half a million people will be taken fully into account, and that the views in other European countries that there should be a phasing out period of a minimum of 10 years, preferably 15 years, will be adopted by the British Government?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall not comment on the substance of the matters because, as my hon. Friend says, there will be two opportunities next week to debate them, which is more than we have in any one week. One will be in Opposition time and the other will be a full day's debate on the GATT Uruguay round. I put this subject into next week's business in response to the many requests that I received last week. An appropriate Minister will respond on both occasions.
Mr. Bill Michie: I congratulate the three British women who, through their bravery, delayed the testing of the United Kingdom bomb in the Nevada desert the other day. Yesterday I suggested, on a point of order, that as there had been no debate on nuclear testing, even though discussions are taking place to ensure that there is no spread of nuclear weapons, there should be one. Quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, you advised me to raise the matter with the Leader of the House.
As this is such an important issue—the cold war is over and there is concern about the spread of nuclear weapons and technology—should not the House debate these issues? May we have Government time for such a debate?
Mr. MacGregor: We had a full day's debate on foreign and defence matters last week and there will be other opportunities, such as at Question Time, to raise the matter. I cannot promise a full day's debate soon.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Notwithstanding the fact that we are to have a debate on
the Armed Forces Bill next week—a purely disciplinary measure—and that recently we had a debate during the Queen's Speech debate on foreign affairs and defence, could my right hon. Friend bring forward at the earliest possible debate, preferably before the Christmas recess, the three single service debates, as there is a prolonged deployment of our armed forces in the Gulf and an imminent threat of war in that theatre?
Mr. MacGregor: I have heard what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot say how we shall be spending our time between now and the Christmas recess. I shall bear his point in mind.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is it not pathetic for Tory Members of Parliament to criticise the Common Market on the basis that European manufactured exports to the United Kingdom are vastly greater than United Kingdom manufactured exports to Europe, especially given the Government's policy, which has destroyed vast swathes of manufacturing industry, and high interest rates, which are hampering and hindering that industry? Given the threat to Scotland's steel industry, and manufacturing firms such as Howdens, may we have an urgent debate on Scotland's steel industry and other manufacturing industries?
Mr. MacGregor: Manufacturing investment is at an all-time high. The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard me say that there will be a debate on the Scottish economy next week.
Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend to read early-day motion 30?
[That this House, on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of the expulsion of Jews from Britain, expresses its deep concern at the increase in the dissemination of antisemitic and racist materials in the United Kingdom;
714
notes that none of the 21 antisemitic publications referred to the Attorney-General by the Board of Deputies of British Jews since 1986 have resulted in prosecutions; believes that firm, swift and effective action must be taken to cure neo-Nazi activity; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take such action against those responsible for these odious publications.]
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is widespread concern at the growth of anti-semitism in the United Kingdom. Will he bring the law into line so that individuals who practise it can be prosecuted, which they are not now?
Mr. MacGregor: As I have said to my hon. Friend, I am aware of the concern to which he has referred. I have read early-day motion 30. My hon. Friend will know that there have been 11 prosecutions since 1986 for the incitement of racial hatred, which have included allegations involving antisemitic material. A further case is outstanding. Of the cases drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, nine—the most recent—are still under investigation or consideration.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Leader of the House was helpful when he referred to the Piper Alpha disaster, and the House is grateful to him for that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take into account the fact that a debate in the House is urgent. In addition to the recommendations set out in the Cullen report, which are excellent, there are outstanding matters. I ask the rig ht hon. Gentleman to reflect on the deep concern, and sometimes anger, that is felt by the work force. Many safety-related matters need to be reviewed by the House, not least the role of the Department of Energy, the management and its attitude and the need for a role to be played by the trade union movement. The House would like to discuss these matters.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand the hon. Gentleman 's concernabout the work force. I think that that was made plain on Monday, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made clear the role of the Department and the acceptance of the report's recommendations in that respect. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend. There are difficulties about having an early debate on the specific subjects that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon to discuss the developing structure within the brewing industry? With the possible closure of the Greenall Whitley brewery, the largest regional brewer in the United Kingdom, and the closure of Matthew Brown and other developments, it seems that we are achieving a less diversified and competitive brewing industry. Now might be the time for a review of the industry.
Mr. Macgregor: I know of my hon. Friend's concern about these matters, and especially his constituency concern. I know also that he has raised them on several occasions both in the House and directly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will know that the measures adopted by the Government following the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on beer have been extensively debated in the House on several occasions in the past year.

715
The aim of the Government's measures is to promote a more competitive market for beer and other drinks. It is for individual companies to decide how best to respond to greater competition. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry once again.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some weeks ago I asked the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), when he was Leader of the House, to consider providing a stairlift for easy access to wheelchair users to the Grand Committee Room and the Jubilee Room, and a loop for hearing aid users? The right hon., and learned Gentleman replied that he would give the matter the attention that it deserved. I fear that since then he has been occupied with other matters. I believe, however, that the matter which I raised deserves urgent attention, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see what he can do to provide the facilities.
Mr. MacGregor: I am tempted to say to the hon. Lady, so have I. I shall look into the matter. It is not one that has yet been drawn to my attention. I think that it would be a matter for the House of Commons Commission, and I shall look into it in that context.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motions 2 and 3, signed by both Conservative and Opposition Members?
[That this House abhors the prospect of a resumption in the export of horses and ponies to continental abattoirs after 1992; urges the European Community ( the European Commission, European Parliament and all member states) to recognise that the ending of British export controls linked to minimum values would mean the rounding up of Dartmoor and other wild ponies for degrading and wholly unfamiliar transport to and across Europe; and calls for changes to proposed European Community measures on the protection of animals during transport, in order to maintain restrictions which avoid cruel treatment to British horses and ponies during long journeys and at continental slaughterhouses.]
The matter causes great anxiety to people throughout the country. The motions deal with the export of live equines after 1992. There is huge anxiety that after that date, unless suitable alternatives to the minimum values controls are put in place, there will be brutal slaughter of our equines. That will be unacceptable to the people of Britain. May we have a debate on the entirely unacceptable policies of the European Commission on the matter?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand and share my hon. Friend's anxiety. Many of us have had many representations from our constituents on the matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who takes such a close interest in matters relating to horses and ponies, will be aware that the Government are fully committed to retaining controls to ensure that horses and ponies are not exported from Britain for slaughter abroad. The matter is being debated in the European Community. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is well aware of the views of the House, but I shall again draw his attention to my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the Leader of the House aware that today is the fifth anniversary of the imposition of the infamous Anglo-Irish diktat and that Ulster Unionists and British citizens in Northern Ireland remain totally opposed to it? It has been rejected. Our opposition is no less than it was when a quarter of a million people protested peacefully at the city hall in Belfast. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the territorial claim in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Republic's constitution is offensive? Will he undertake as soon as possible to provide a proper debate in the House so that hon. Members' views on those two major issues can be expressed and constructive suggestions can be made to the Irish Government?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware that today is the fifth anniversary. The hon. Gentleman will know that there will be an opportunity for a debate on Monday next when the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill comes before the House. No doubt that will be an opportunity for some hon. Members to express their views again about the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the House has set an excellent example in saving trees by introducing the new slimline Order Paper. The change seems to have the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, my right hon. Friend may not be aware that Departments still send copies of replies to questions even when the hon. Member has had an answer in oral questions. Will my right hon. Friend use his considerable influence to make Departments stop that time-wasting exercise and save even more trees?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter and for saying that the change has had such a favourable response from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It saves not only trees but substantial sums of money in publishing costs. Therefore, it is a sensible measure. I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we expect a statement next week announcing the promotion of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) from the Northern Ireland Office to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of his expertise on the diagnosis of mad cow disease?
Mr. MacGregor: I myself have had to deal with BSE in the past. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question has much to do with business questions and I cannot see any opportunity for the matter to be raised next week.
Mr. John Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday Coventry cathedral and Coventry city council arranged a magnificent and moving commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the blitz of Coventry? Will he, together with you, Mr. Speaker, consider sending the bishop and the leader of the city council an appropriate appreciation of the way in which the event was put together? Will he also advise Members of the House on protocol and a sense of responsibility on such occasions? The President of the German Republic was present and the Queen Mother was present; three Labour Members of Parliament were absent. Surely that discloses a pretty awful lack of responsibility——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not an appropriate matter to raise with the Leader of the House at business questions. The hon. Member must ask for a debate.
Mr. Butcher: Surely that displays a lack of responsibility and a lack of courtesy whether——
Mr. Speaker: No. It is not the object of business questions to make attacks across the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must ask a business question, and I think that he has done so.
Dr. Cunningham: May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his attack on my colleagues?
Mr. Speaker: It was an inappropriate matter to raise at business questions, and I shall be grateful if the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) will rephrase what he said.
Mr. Butcher: In due course, there should be some discussion of these events, which are important, and, in due course, there should be a debate. I have been challenged about whether those hon. Members were invited—[Interruption.] My point is—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. In terms of good order in the Chamber and between both sides of the House, the hon. Gentleman should withdraw any aspersions that he has made against Opposition Members, because he has already said that he has no knowledge of whether they were invited.
Mr. Butcher: I am perfectly willing to withdraw any allegations about whether or not hon. Members responded to an invitation. I am simply saying that we in the House should have a sense of priorities about attending such events in any capacity—even as members of the general public.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the whole House will agree with what my hon. Friend said about the importance of yesterday's event. I heard some reference to it on the radio and therefore share his views about it. My hon. Friend made some reference to you, Mr. Speaker, and to myself, which I shall happily discuss with you.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I add my voice to those who have pleaded for the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement to the House about the Welsh revenue support settlement because, as a result of the way in which the poll tax is working—and especially the way in which the community charge is working in Wales—there is a desperate need for an early statement, next week if possible?
Will the Leader of the House clarify whether the debate on the GATT round on Friday of next week will be broad enough to encompass all the serious issues hitting agriculture at the moment because they raise some further topics?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I cannot add to what I have said already, but obviously I shall look into the matter. On the second point, yes, next Friday's debate will cover all the GATT issues, of which agriculture is clearly a prominent, if not the main, issue.
Mr. Harry Ewing: May I ask the Leader of the House a simple and uncontroversial question on a House of Commons matter that might need urgent
718
attention next Wednesday? In the event of a change in the personage of the principal occupant of the Treasury Bench, would the Leader of the House ensure that the Mace is firmly secured in its place when the House meets next Wednesday?
Mr. MacGregor: I expected a comment like that when the hon. Gentleman began his question. I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will be Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be Prime Minister then—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which right hon. Friend?"] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have already made that clear.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Leader of the House will be well aware that private Bills have caused the House considerable trouble and have taken up a great deal of time in recent years; that a joint Select Committee of this House and the other place was set up to study the future of such procedures, that the Government produced a consultation document in the summer and that the consultation responses had to be in by the end of September. Is it not now time that we legislated to reform the private Bill procedure? Will the Government bring forward some proposals at an early opportunity?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), was looking actively at this matter, and he has already discussed it with me. I hope to give some attention to it myself fairly shortly.
Mr. Max Madden: May I thank the Leader of the House for responding favourably to early-day motion 6, which has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members of all parties and which asks for a debate on GATT?
[That this House, recognising the importance of the textile and clothing industries to the economy of the United Kingdom, urges Her Majesty's Government to arrange an early debate to discuss the present and future trading prospects of these industries; and believes the Multi-Fibre Arrangement should be retained unless adequate transitional arrangements are agreed and proper safeguards for the British industries are incorporated into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.]
I echo the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I understand that Ministers will be occupied with other matters over the weekend, relating to leadership elections, but could the Leader of the House telephone the hapless Ministers who will speak in the debate on textiles on Wednesday and on GATT on Friday and tell them that they can expect considerable trouble unless they can give the House firm assurances that the multi-fibre arrangement will not be phased out unless and until firm safeguards are incorporated into GATT, and that even then we will tolerate the MFA being phased out only over a minimum of 10 years? Anything less than that and there will be considerable trouble. Will the Leader of the House warn those Ministers in advance?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my right hon. Friends will be well able to make their cases in both debates.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the Lord President has been in office for a few days, and now that we have an alternative Cabinet in waiting—or at least

719
canvassing—may we have a little more fairness in the answering of questions, for which the Lord President has some responsibility? Is it fair in the run-up to the election for the Prime Minister for only one answer to be given to every question, when there are two key contestants for the job? In the interests of balance and political impartiality, it would make sense for the House to hear the views of Ministers representing the Prime Minister and——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is in the same category as that of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). Questions should be about next week's business.
Mr. Skinner: I want a statement as early as possible next week, before Tuesday's election, or afterwards if it runs on, so that, instead of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) telling people in the Tea Room about his policies on education, the poll tax, housing, cardboard city, and taxation, they can be explained in this Chamber. Will the Leader of the House arrange that for next week? We are all waiting.
Mr. MacGregor: As always, the hon. Gentleman has raised many points, but I shall respond to only one. The shadow Cabinet seated on the Front Bench opposite me will be waiting for a very long time.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement on the proposed Nevada desert test explosion, which was stopped by four gallent and courageous people yesterday? Will a Minister explain how the Government pick and choose their support for the United Nations? They support the United Nations when it comes to the Gulf, but sling out its nuclear non-proliferation treaty when it comes to spending £10 billion on Trident nuclear weapons and the testing of nuclear weapons to keep them in potential operational use. Clause 6 of that treaty places an obligation on the Government to get rid of nuclear weapons. When will the Government do something about that, realise that the cold war is over and that the warmonger who has been leading the Conservative party for 11 years is under severe criticism and may be sacked in any case, and get rid of nuclear weapons and testing?
Mr. MacGregor: I said in response to an earlier request that I do not see an opportunity for a debate on that subject next week. However, in relation to disarmament generally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be signing the
720
important CSCE treaty next week, and will report to the House on that matter. That is a clear indication of the effectiveness of the Government's action.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this is merchant navy shipping year. He will also be aware of the concern of the General Council of British Shipping that that service may not be able in future to provide ancillary vessels to support any military operation. Will it be possible to debate next week that very serious matter?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that it will be possible next week. However, the House will be debating a European Community document on aid to shipbuilding. Although it may be narrowly focused, it may give my hon. Friend an opportunity to make one or two points.

Business of the House
  BILLS PRESENTED
    SCHOOL TEACHERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS
    Mr. Secretary Clarke, supported by Mr. Secretary Patten, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Tim Eggar, Mr. Alan Howarth and Mr. Michael Fallon, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11.]
    ATOMIC WEAPONS ESTABLISHMENT
    Mr. Secretary King, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Patten, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Francis Maude, Mr. Alan Clark and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with any arrangements that may be made by the Secretary of State with respect to the undertaking carried on by him and known as the Atomic Weapons Establishment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]
    IMPORT AND EXPORT CONTROL
    Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Wakeham and Mr. Tim Sainsbury, presented a Bill to repeal section 9(3) of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

Indirect Tax Harmonisation and Statistics
4.8 pm
The Paymaster General(Mr. Richard Ryder): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6762/89 on approximation of indirect taxes, 9775/89 on excise duty rates, 9776/89 on taxes on cigarettes and manufactured tobacco, 9777/89 on excise duties on mineral oils, 9778/89 on excise duties on alcoholic beverages, 6641/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on 12th November 1990 on supplementing the common system of value-added tax, 6642/90 on administrative co-operation in the field of indirect taxation, 6725/90 and 8801/90 on statistics relating to trading of goods between Member States, COM(90) 430 on the general excise regime, COM(90) 431 on general arrangements for the movement of products subject to excise duty, COM(90) 432 on harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcoholic beverages, COM(90) 433 on taxes other than turnover taxes levied on manufactured tobacco and COM(90) 434 on structures of excise duties on mineral oils; and supports the Government's view that the technical proposals can form the basis of a single market without fiscal frontiers that is effective against fraud and provides the statistics needed by Government to control its economic policies while minimising the burdens on business, particularly for the smaller traders; and recognises the need for early progress on these proposals, separate from those on indirect tax rates on which decisions need not be reached before 31st December 1991.
At the Economic and Finance Council next week, Finance Ministers will be asked to consider a package which has been drawn up during many months—indeed years. My purpose this afternoon is to explain these technical proposals as concisely as I can and to listen to some of the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House which could influence the line that the British Government take at next week's Council meeting and subsequent ECOFINs. First, I should explain that in the normal course of events this debate would have been opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is responsible for negotiating on Britain's behalf in Europe. The reason for his absence today is that he is negotiating for us at a Budget Council in Brussels, and I am acting as a stand-in.
Mr. Barry Field: Even if my hon. Friend is a stand-in for the Financial Secretary, can he confirm that he will resist with equal zeal the European Commission's demands for value added tax on passenger transport, especially on ferry transport, as that would have a disastrous effect on offshore islands in the United Kingdom? When discussing harmonisation of taxation, will my hon. Friend be able to consider concessions on duty-free sales being phased out under EC regulations, as that is a matter of considerable concern to British shipowners and would have a considerable effect on increases in the price of cross-Channel travel?
Mr. Ryder: The existence or abolition of duty-free sales will not be tackled in earnest at ECOFIN on Monday. As my hon. Friend says, however, it is an issue which will be considered at ECOFIN during the next few months. The British Government have yet to make a decision on the line that we shall take on duty-free sales. I am in the process of meeting several delegations of people who wish to maintain the existing duty-free procedures, as I suspect my hon. Friend does. Only yesterday, I met my noble Friend
722
Lord Rees—a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury—who led a delegation of people representing the industry, who want to maintain the status quo. I shall meet other deputations during the next few weeks, before the Government take a final decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) will recall that I wrote him a letter on 24 October about passenger transport.
Mr. Barry Field: An excellent letter.
Mr. Ryder: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind remark. I hope that the arguments that I expressed were helpful to him. That is the present Government position and at this stage I have nothing further to add.
Abolition of fiscal frontiers has been one of the most contentious areas of the entire single market programme. There is no argument about the objective—indeed, abolition of fiscal frontiers is firm Government policy—but there has been considerable discussion about what needed to be done to achieve that objective. The United Kingdom's approach to the package of measures that we are discussing this afternoon has been an excellent example of the Europe that the Government are committed to—a practical Europe which offers benefits for people and businesses.
European Finance Ministers meet next Monday to consider progress of the official working groups on the Commission's VAT and excise technical proposals. The proposals follow agreement by the Finance Ministers' Council last year that, for the time being, the present, familiar system, whereby goods are exported untaxed and subjected to VAT and excise duties in the country of destination, should continue to apply, but without fiscal frontier controls. It is proper that the House should have the opportunity to debate these proposals first, and that the information available to the House should be as up to date as possible. I therefore submitted a supplementary explanatory memorandum on Monday to inform the House of developments on the Commission's proposals for control of the VAT system, once fiscal frontiers for intra-EC trade have gone.
As the House knows, the United Kingdom Government have spearheaded efforts to work out the practical fiscal arrangements for the creation of a single market, so as to provide a better environment for wealth creation through increased competition and unrestricted trade. During the negotiations on the technical systems to replace the existing customs formalities, the Government have kept it in mind that the new systems should be deregulatory, simple, as close to domestic arrangements as possible and as strong as possible against fraud without involving an unacceptable level of additional bureaucracy. Moreover, the new systems must be capable of implementation by 1 January 1993. Our intention is that traders should be left free to concentrate on what they are supposed to be doing—trading.
Under the VAT technical and administrative co-operation proposals—Council document Nos. 6641/90 and 6642/90—the great majority of intra-Community supplies, those between VAT registered businesses, will continue to be zero-rated. However the conceptual basis will change, since the idea of "import" and "export" will have no place in the internal market. Instead, tax will become due on the acquisition of goods by a business from another member state and the business will show this

723
liability on the normal periodic VAT return used for domestic transactions, with the concurrent right to deduct tax as appropriate. In this way, VAT will still accrue to the member state where the goods are consumed.
For example, a United Kingdom business purchasing furniture from Italy is currently liable to pay VAT at the time the furniture actually enters the United Kingdom, with the inevitable costs and delays of formalities at frontiers. Under the concept of "acquisition", VAT would become due on transfer of the legal ownership of the furniture and would be accounted for through the United Kingdom's purchaser's normal records, without any need to endure frontier formalities.
To avoid significant trade and fiscal distortion, special arrangements will be introduced for private purchases of new motor vehicles and mail order sales, and cross-border purchases by exempt businesses and non-taxable organisations in excess of 35,000 ecu per year.
Mr. Alex Carlile: May I put to the hon. Gentleman a point that arises from what he has just said? If liability is to arise on transfer, that raises serious problems about when title to goods passes. The law on when title to goods passes is very different in the various Community countries. Indeed, there are differences between the laws of England and Scotland on that subject. Those differences are but small compared with the differences between the law of England and, let us say, the law of Greece. Is an effort being made to harmonise the law on when title to goods passes?
Mr. Ryder: The hon. and learned Gentleman highlights an important point. I know that that point was made when these matters were discussed at official level in Brussels. Efforts will be made to ensure that his point is taken on board. My view, although it may be proved wrong, is that there is little chance of the Economic and Finance Council reaching agreement on Monday next. An agreement in principle will, I believe, be reached at a later stage. I shall certainly ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North, who will represent the Government next Monday and who will read Hansard before he departs for Brussels, is made aware of the hon. and learned Gentleman's points.
Inevitably, removal of customs fiscal frontier controls will risk creating new fraud opportunities. To counter this, the Commission has proposed an enhanced system for mutual assistance between national tax authorities after 1992. That would provide the means for much greater exchange of information to ensure that the benefits for legitimate traders of removing those frontiers are not also a benefit for the fraudulent. This information will be supplied by one Administration only for the use of another. It will thus be confidential and, save as allowed by the providing member state, will be used only for taxation purposes or in connection with judicial or administrative proceedings connected with tax assessment.
Other member states, for reasons of their own, have gone for much heavier controls which we have consistently opposed. They have argued for controls such as mandatory listings of all intra-EC trade, transaction by transaction. This would impose major new burdens on business. The domestic system of audit of traders' ordinary commercial records is already well proven by Customs and
724
Excise; we shall therefore continue to argue that, in providing information for this cross-border verification, only the minimum additional requirements for business to provide information necessary should be considered. To this end, we are considering a less burdensome compromise proposal, that traders shall periodically provide a summary of customers and aggregate sales to each.
In revising the sixth VAT directive, the basis of the Community VAT system, to provide for the post-1992 technical arrangements, the Commission's text neglects to carry forward a number of derogations, including that for our zero rates. The Commission already accepts the continuation of zero rates and its objective is, therefore, certainly not to eliminate them. It may, however, be an attempt to obtain more leverage to press for early agreement on the precise scope of the zero rate category.
Of course, the Government have pledged to protect the United Kingdom's zero rates—not only in the specific pledges given in respect of food, domestic fuel and power and children's clothing and footwear, but as a general defence of the indirect tax structure which we believe suits this country. The United Kingdom's position is ultimately protected by the need for unanimity on fiscal proposals. However, other member states with important derogations to protect also cannot give final agreement to the technical proposals. Conscious of this, we are seeking to reach agreement in principle on the technical system, without becoming sidetracked once more in the rates harmonisation argument. Once agreement in principle on the technical system has been reached, we shall return to this question and the important details of the proposals where existing arrangements need to be protected.
The Commission's technical proposals provide a clear basis on which fiscal frontiers can be removed, and the economic benefits of the single market obtained without the straitjacket of centrally determined tax approximation. Our priority this year is therefore to reach agreement at Community level on the technical systems to apply after 1992. This is an imperitive if we, and businesses, are to be ready for 1993. We do not intend to become sidetracked by fruitless discussion about rates. Indeed, Finance Ministers have agreed that decisions on this issue need not be reached until the end of 1991.
The Commission finally presented to EC Finance Ministers at the Economic and Finance Council proposals for controlling cross-border commercial consignments of excise goods.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: My hon. Friend has confirmed that one of the features of the complicated negotiations has been a willingness on all sides to compromise and accept an emerging package that will be beneficial to all. I apologise for having missed the initial part of my hon. Friend's speech.
There are always special national interests in member states, even for Euro-enthusiasts to refer to legitimately so has my hon. Friend been able to clarify further the position of British sherry in respect of the proposal for higher duty rates on fortified alcoholic products, which would harm the position of British sherry? I declare a direct interest—it is on the public register—as the parliamentary representative of the, British Wine Producers' Committee. Will the December meeting with Customs and Excise in Brussels, at which a representative of my hon. Friend's Department will be present look into that again carefully

725
to ensure that the interests of British sherry are properly safeguarded, as are the many other national interests of member states in these complicated negotiations? Can he reassure me?
Mr. Ryder: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I explained just before he came into the Chamber that the negotiations at ECOFIN on Monday were being undertaken by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who is today at a Budget Council in Brussels. The negotiations are entirely in his hands. Nevertheless, I am aware of the problem about British sherry, though I did not know of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject until he mentioned it. I can assure him that we will continue to do our best to protect the interests of British sherry as long as those interests are consistent with our general approach to the negotiations which, as my hon. Friend knows, have been going on for the past few years. As my hon. Friend appreciates, the discussions are extremely technical and we have come a long way relatively quickly, bearing in mind the position from which we started.
The Government have played a constructive role in trying to reach compromises. Indeed, many of the compromises that I have set out are the direct result of ideas suggested in Brussels by the British Government. That is a further example of the positive way in which we negotiate on these technical matters. Such negotiations take place almost every week, but are little noticed in the House or by the press.
As I said, the Commission finally presented proposals for controlling cross-border commercial consignments of excise goods to ECOFIN in October. There are four proposals: one on controlling intra-EC movements without frontier checks, and three on excise duty structures for alcohol, oils and tobacco. The essential elements of the proposal on controls are that excise duties would continue to be charged in the member state of consumption, with the majority of commercial movements travelling under a duty-suspension scheme between authorised warehousekeepers and traders. We broadly welcome the new movement proposal, which, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), largely follows United Kingdom ideas.
Common excise duty structures facilitate cross-border trade by creating an understandable and recognisable common system of classification and an agreed basis for taxation. They are also essential for determining a common system of control. The Government therefore believe it sensible to enter into negotiations on the structure proposals. However, they are linked with the earlier Commission proposals for harmonised duty rates, to which I shall refer shortly. That is unacceptable and will be resisted, in accordance with our market forces beliefs.
A subsidiary point arising from these arrangements to ensure that commercial transactions in excise goods pay duty in the country of destination—but one of considerable public interest—is the implications for personal cross-border shopping. As one part of the fiscal preparations for the single market, in July 1989 the Commission proposed an increase in three annual stages in the travellers' allowances for goods acquired duty and tax-paid in another EC country. By 1992, these proposals would quadruple the value allowance for goods subject only to VAT to about £1,100 and double the allowances for wines, spirits and tobacco.
726
The Government have consistently supported increases in those allowances. Indeed, we are willing to agree straight away to the levels proposed by the Commission for 1992, rather than to have annual rises. Increased allowances are an important signal that the single market is for people as well as businesses.
So far, the proposals have been bogged down because some member states that are concerned about fiscal leakage are unwilling to adopt the proposed transitional increases. We are willing to consider all compromise proposals which may achieve movement on this key issue. After 1992, in general, limits on travellers' allowances should not be necessary, but we will need some means to distinguish excise goods—drink and tobacco—for personal use which can be bought at low duty rates in other member states from commercial importations which should pay United Kingdom duty. A high limit, beyond which larger quantities could reasonably be considered commercial in intent, may be a strong possibility. By gradually increasing travellers' allowances for cross-border shopping, the Government believe that market forces will be given the scope to bring about such convergence of tax rates as is necessary.
The Commission's revised excise duty rate proposals, published in January, are not very different from the previous 1987 proposals, and are therefore equally unacceptable. Essentially, it suggests, for tobacco and alcohol, differentiated minimum rates to be applied from 1 January 1993, coupled with target rates, for which no date is specified. For mineral oils, the proposal is for minimum rates, without target rates, for petrol, LPG, methane and kerosene used as engine fuel, and rate bands for diesel, heating oil and heavy fuel.
We do not believe that such changes to United Kingdom excise duties are necessary for the single market or desirable, given the very different economic and social circumstances of the 12 member states.
The United Kingdom's visible trade statistics are gathered mainly from customs documentation, which is completed when goods pass through frontier controls. With no fiscal frontier controls, those customs declarations for EC trade will join the bonfire of paperwork. Instead, the new statistics proposal creates a link between VAT returns and statistical systems. The majority of traders would simply provide aggregate details of EC imports and exports on their normal VAT return. Only larger traders would be required to provide a specific statistical return. Our objective is that this detailed return should be limited to about the largest 20 per cent. of traders, in terms of the value of intra-EC imports and exports. This would capture details of some 96 per cent. of United Kingdom trade with the EC.
I have attempted to keep my opening remarks as clear and concise as possible, but a wide range of issues are encompassed by the motion and I have tried to cover the main issues. I believe that these proposals, while not perfect, reflect well on the Government's persistence and commitment to a practical, achievable system—an approach which has succeeded this year in persuading others in Brussels of the need to focus priorities on the practical requirements for removing fiscal frontiers by the end of 1992.
Much remains to be negotiated, and I welcome the opportunity to hear hon. Members' views.
4.30 pm
Dr. John Marek: I am pleased that the House has been given the chance to debate these topics. As the Paymaster General pointed out, there are many different issues and papers before us. However, although some of the issues may be technical, they are nevertheless important as they will affect future indirect taxation in Britain and the future collection of statistics. Therefore, it is only right for the House to be able to debate them. I pay tribute to the Select Committee on European Legislation for its work before today's debate.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may have missed the first few minutes of the debate, but he has been here ever since—unlike the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who came in and intervened before the Paymaster General had said anything of real substance, apart from his apology for the absence of the Financial Secretary, who is no doubt absent for some lobbying purpose. The hon. Gentleman then immediately disappeared, and has not been seen in the Chamber since. If he returns while I am speaking, I shall repeat what I have said and give him a chance to intervene if he wishes.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful for the encomium that my hon. Friend addressed to the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I have the privilege to be Chairman. Will he also pay tribute to the staff of that Committee, the civil servants who write memoranda about complicated documents and the Vote Office staff? Is it not both notable and a scandal that the motion encompasses 37 documents, all of which were made available to hon. Members and the Vote Office but which constitute a very indigestible meal? I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can say more about the matter.
Dr. Marek: I gladly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of staff from all parts of the House who have brought forward these documents, but their work has meant that we ought to have more time to consider them. I wonder whether last Thursday's business statement gives hon. Members enough time to consider all these matters—especially in view of the fact that the Vote Office has also been caught unawares, and cannot collate the documents until Thursday night or Friday morning.
I share some of the worries of the hon. Member for Harrow, East that some of the banding for duties on liquors and spirits is a little odd. The band should encompass different products within the whole range; the duties should not perform arbitrary jumps, as they appear to do at present. That is a technical point, but I hope that the Paymaster General will look into it so that, for example, British sherry is not disadvantaged and still table wine is placed in a single category, regardless of its strength.
There are other little inconsistencies. For instance, the Commission's latest proposal seems to have abandoned the principle of levying duty on alcoholic beverages according to their alcoholic strength. There are now different proposals for wines, spirits and beer. Both sides of the House agree. We look to the Paymaster General and the Financial Secretary to put our case at ECOFIN and at the further meetings which will no doubt be necessary.
This big topic falls into four parts. Some papers deal with changes relating to excise duties, others with changes relating to value added tax and its collection, and others
728
with co-operation between member states, principally for the purpose of protecting the Revenue. We must not forget that those papers are important. A further set of papers deals with the collection of intra-EC trade statistics. There seems to be general acceptance in this country that that should be continued.
The discussions between the Government and our Common Market partners have been fairly co-operative. There have been no histrionics about these matters or the kind that occurred recently about a single currency. There has been no Minister shouting, "No, no, no," from the Dispatch Box about these proposals. Yet the proposals were clearly unacceptable to this country some years ago. There has been co-operation and they have been changed. The system for VAT will not be based on an origin system. There will be a transition period, and a destination system of taxation will be available until 1996.
That can be compared with the difficulties that we had when the last European Council decided that stage 2 of the Delors plan should start in 1994. We must interpret these matters in a European way. If an agreement cannot be reached by then, the clock can be stopped. Whether one likes it or not, this simply means that discussions will continue until an agreement is reached. I far prefer negotiations to take place in a cool, calm and deliberate way, unlike the rather public discussions about a single currency and its effects on this country.
Mr. Dykes: What about the planning for a single market development with the deadline of 31 December 1992 and matters such as European monetary union and the proposal for the deadline for the second stage? It was apparently all right to have a deadline for the single market and to work out the details after the deadline was agreed, but not all right for EMU. Why is there a difference?
Dr. Marek: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's point of view and I know what is behind his question, but it is not for me to answer. Perhaps he should address himself to the Minister when he replies or to those on the Government Front Bench in a subsequent debate. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point.
These matters can be dealt with co-operatively. The proposals are not all completely acceptable, but they are much better than those before us when we last debated this issue on 11 May 1988. At that time, the Opposition tabled an amendment and my view has not changed since then. The amendment stated that the House of Commons should be consulted in advance of Ministers of the Crown agreeing to taxation changes at European level. I say that on the basis not of sovereignty but of democratic accountability. The House should know in advance what Ministers propose to do about taxation. Our amendment did not find favour with the House two years ago, so we decided not to table it again because that would be an abuse of the House's time.
We have come a long way. The proposal for the 14 per cent. to 20 per cent. band rate has been replaced by a minimum rate. The lower band, in which the rates of VAT could range from 4 per cent. to 9 per cent., is to be retained, but it is now recognised that certain goods can be zero-rated. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome that and the refreshing new attitude taken by the European Commissioner, Mrs. Scrivener, to this matter. Clearly, minimum rates for VAT are all that is required. We do not

729
have to set a band rate for the top rate of VAT, because it is up to individual countries. If it were too high, citizens would be able to go to another Common Market country to purchase those goods at a lower rate. However, the matter is important and I am glad that the Paymaster General said that the Government are committed to zero-rating food, domestic fuel and children's clothes and footwear.
I wish that the Paymaster General would add to that list books, periodicals and newspapers, because that is an important point. The Government have had plenty of time in which to do that and as discussions are proceeding within the Council of Ministers in a co-operative manner, I should have thought that the Government could make this pledge to the British people. I will not go through the arguments for retaining zero-rating on books, periodicals and newspapers, save to say that it is important for educational and for cultural purposes.
When we have an agreement, it is also important that any zero-rating is not allowed simply as a derogation for a number of years or on sufferance. It should be clearly recognised that items such as food can and should continue to be zero-rated in this country as of right, if our Government so decide, and the Opposition would support that. Such zero-rating makes the VAT system a far more progressive taxation system and is to be welcomed.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on a point of substance which I feel that I must raise now, as well as later. Has my hon. Friend thought about the implications of a non-statement from the Government? I think that I did not hear a statement from the Treasury Bench about zero-rating on domestic fuel, on transport and on water services—the provision of clean water and the disposal of sewage. Does my hon. Friend recollect that there was some discussion on that? Is not it right for the Government to tell us distinctly at this stage—if they have not already done so—whether they contemplate that those areas of taxation will be allowable for VAT or whether they will hold out and maintain zero-rating in those areas which, so far as I am aware, have never been taxed in the United Kingdom?
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point and I should be delighted to give way if the Paymaster General wishes to intervene. If he cannot, I suggest that he consults his Prime Minister—whoever it is—next Wednesday and makes that point to him or to her. It is an important point and it would arouse great indignation in this country if some of those services——
Mr. Spearing: Any of them.
Dr. Marek: —indeed, if any of them were to be subject to VAT in the future.
It would be very much to our benefit if all food taken away from shops were to be zero-rated. At present, there are difficult distinctions between—to use a well-known example—different types of chocolate biscuit. If a biscuit has chocolate in it, it is not liable to VAT, but if it is chocolate-covered, it is liable to be rated at 15 per cent. Hon. Members must wonder whether a jaffa cake will be liable to VAT. At present, it is not liable for VAT although 50 per cent. of it is covered by chocolate because it is not a biscuit, but a cake.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Tax the top half only.
Dr. Marek: It depends which is the top half. We have a chance to introduce a new system of indirect taxation and legislation, so it is important that it should be simple and that it should cover large categories without the need for making many individual exceptions.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Is it Labour party policy that if a Labour Government ever came to power they would zero-rate those items, and how much would that cost?
Dr. Marek: I suspect that the costs are minimal for some of these matters. However, I am discussing this within the context of changing the system of indirect taxation, with which the discussions, the papers and the debate are concerned. Some of the changes may produce a revenue gain. Perhaps we should consider banding for VAT. Why should we have 15 per cent. or zero? It is a debating point—although not for this afternoon. Perhaps some items may be liable for 5 per cent., others for 15 per cent. and others for zero. All these matters form part of the whole. The general principle is that, when making these changes, we should make the system simpler—and perceived by the public to be so.
Mr. Ryder: I want to point out some facts that may be helpful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek( and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). The total tax raised on the items to which the hon. Gentleman referred is about £500 million a year. Zero-rating would mean the total loss of that revenue. Inclusions within a reduced rate band, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, of between 4 per cent. and 9 per cent. would mean a loss to the Revenue of between £200 million and £350 million, so the answer to my hon. Friend is that it is the dickens of a lot of money.
Dr. Marek: The amount depends on which items the Paymaster General has included in that category. I am sure that £500 million of VAT does not currently escape on jaffa cakes. These matters are complicated and it may have been wrong of me to mention particular examples. However, no one would object if revenue was forgone in certain cases and increased in others but greater simplicity and fairness resulted. I am trying to get that point across, and I hope that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) agrees with me on it.
There has been considerable concern in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution recently. I suggest to the Paymaster General that it would be useful for him to intervene if he has figures on this. A number of hon. Members have had letters suggesting that the European Commission is about to start imposing VAT on lifeboats. I know that the hon. Member for Gosport is interested in this matter and that, in this case, he is rightly keen to decrease revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Can the Paymaster General help us on this?
Mr. Ryder: I hope that this information will be helpful to our deliberations. As the hon. Member for Wrexham may know, I have received dozens of letters from hon. Members of all parties on this issue, which concerns many people. The Government are very conscious of the valuable role played by the RNLI, and we are keen to secure the right conditions in the single market for this organisation and for other charitable bodies. The Government see no reason why the existing zero rate for charities, like other United Kingdom zero rates, should

731
not remain after 1992. We welcome the greater flexibility shown by the Commission in its revised approach to indirect taxation in the single market. Although the Commission is still suggesting that future zero rates should be limited in scope and subject to certain conditions, we have not accepted that. That position, which was confirmed again by the Government at the meeting of ECOFIN last December, is true of all our zero rates, not just of those of particular interest to charities.
Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for that explanation. The position is much as I had hoped. There has recently been some new thinking in the European Commission and during the passage of various Finance Bills we have been able to secure concessions on matters relating to charitable work. For example, we had a good response from Europe on community halls.
Some of the documents deal with the collection of trade and VAT statistics—the latter principally to prevent fraud. Business must realise that it is in its own interests and in the interests of the Revenue that there should be as little fraud as possible. That necessarily imposes a burden on business, but those speaking on behalf of business cannot simply say that we should do away with all barriers and all burdens. That is too glib, because if we did away with too many of the burdens, fraud would increase, which would be to the detriment of business.
Clearly, the statistics collected need to be kept to a minimum. The Government have to do their job. They have to be able to forecast and to plan and manage the economy, and to do that, they need statistics. Over and above that, the collection of statistics can rightly be regarded as a burden on business.
It is vital that smaller firms should only have to fill up statistics forms once. It would be quite wrong for a small business which had to fill up a VAT form and perhaps a form to allow authorities in other member states to access a database then to have to fill up yet more forms for the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not know whether the Paymaster General has addressed himself to that question but I hope that he accepts that small businesses should have to fill up forms only once in a given period. They should not have to fill up different forms for different purposes.
Mr. Chris Butler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is coming to this point, but it would help us to follow his argument if he explained which of the five systems that Ministers will be considering next week he thinks most closely fulfil the conditions that he has described.
Dr. Marek: I do not have direct experience of form-filling so I have to rely on expert advice, but if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me I shall be coming to that matter.
Large firms may have to supply more data when the checks and barriers to trade are moved inland from the ports of entry. That may be said to increase the burden on them but that will be more than compensated for by the lack of problems at the ports. I hope that the data required will be kept to a minimum, but they must be adequate to allow the Government to do their job and the VAT authorities to satisfy the public that fraud is being kept to a minimum.
732
I was reasonably reassured by what the Select Committee on European Legislation said in its paper dated 14 November, which is available in the Vote Office today. Page 2 of the document says:
"Under this proposal, each Member State would hold the listings on the data base to which member states could gain access directly, but only for details of sales to them."
If we adopt the listing proposal, perhaps listings will be confined to details of sales alone and not used for anything further. That will not be enough to ensure that fraud is kept to a minimum because two companies in different member states could collaborate to perpetrate a fraudulent act without its ever being detected. Inspectors must be able to follow audit trails, as they can in this country.
The Select Committee's paper continues:
"United Kingdom trade bodies who have been consulted as the negotiations progressed are not enthused by the proposed requirement for the supply of further information, but they agree that periodic aggregate sales listings would be preferable to the far more onerous proposals for detailed monthly transactions sales listings, strongly pressed earlier by some member states."
Perhaps the Financial Secretary could pursue that at ECOFIN next week. Such a new system may well be acceptable so long as it is part and parcel of fraud detection mechanism which allows audit trails to be followed in certain circumstances.
I welcome the proposal to extend the arrangements whereby VAT can be charged on the destination principle at least until 1996, although I wonder whether the eventual results of the negotiations will be satisfactory and whether the system will work. I have yet to be convinced that we should adopt a system based on the origin principle and I hope that the Government will press the Commission to justify its proposals in that regard.
Clearly, it could not do so in time for the introduction of a new system in 1992–93, and I think that it is now beginning to realise that the matter is irrelevant to the single market. On the other hand, it would be useful to have a degree of harmonisation. If the Commission badly wants to apply the principle of tax being paid at origin, it must persuade us. I have yet to be persuaded and I do not think that the Commission has gone out of its way to persuade either the Parliament or the Parliaments of the other member states.
I am very much in favour of the argument for co-operation with other member states in the exchange of information. The document produced by Customs and Excise, dated June 1990 and entitled "The Control of Intra-Community Excisable Goods after Completion of the Single Market" is useful and many of its provisions seem to have been accepted by the Commission and reproduced in the various documents before us. In some of its aspects, however, the Commission could perhaps go further. Fraudulent traders should not only be caught; they should be banned from trading again for five or 10 years or perhaps for life.
I do not necessarily agree that dutiable goods that have come out of a bonded warehouse should be allowed to go back into bond for transfer from one member state to another. We do not do that in this country, although this is not necessarily a sticking point on which the agreement will stand or fall. We should get round the problem. If dutiable goods leaving a bonded warehouse do so permanently, there will be less fraud.
I welcome the fact that the Commission has abandoned its earlier plans simply to average exise duties across the

733
Community and insist that the new levels are observed by each member state. That would have had serious repercussions for our policies on health and would have had a disastrous effect on the Revenue. We are talking not about £230 million but about £3 billion or £4 billion. The Commission's proposals are such that there could be quite a loss of revenue.
The Commission has stated that it will insist on a minimum duty with target duties above that minimum. The Opposition can travel along that road. Clearly, we must consider health. The problem is difficult because southern European countries which produce wine or tobacco tend to have much lower duties than northern members of the Community. Agreement or duties in that regard will be reached only after many years.
I believe that some of the minimum duties are welcome, but I have a reservation. As I understand it, under the proposals, if our ad valorem tobacco duty is higher than the target price, is that target price to be preserved? Is it to be inflation-proofed? I hope that the Paymaster General can help me on that point.
As I read the documents, any movement in the difference between what particular countries in the Community levy as duties on tobacco cannot go in any direction other than towards the target price. Would that preclude our increasing our duty to take account not only of inflation, but from keeping our duty at the same percentage in real terms—or at the same fraction—higher than the target duty on an annual basis? I am not sure what the answer to that is.
However, if that does not happen as inflation is higher in this country than in most of the other European countries, any duty that we levy that is higher than the target rate would simply disappear very quickly. That would be completely unacceptable. If the Paymaster General understands my point, and if he has read the documents, I would welcome an answer to my question. If he cannot answer me now, I hope that he will consider the matter and perhaps write to me. I hope that he will ensure that the ECOFIN Council produces an answer.
I can also be persuaded about the banding of mineral oils, but we must be careful about introducing changes which might significantly alter consumption. If the proposals are accepted, there will be an increase in diesel consumption in this country. There are health risks with diesel and I would prefer legislation in that area to be preceded by an environmental and health assessment so that legislation could back up such an assessment. I cannot see that happening at the moment.
There is an atmosphere and a feeling within Europe that we should get our policies unified and harmonised where that would help trade and an understanding between the different peoples. We could refuse to take part in such a harmonisation. For example, our Government refuse to have anything to do with the social charter. We could make ourselves extremely unpopular in Europe, as our Prime Minister has. As a result of that, anything we propose tends to be pooh-poohed immediately by our European partners simply because the British produced it. That is very regrettable. We must change that because we can and should play our part in Europe certainly on such things as a single currency and possibly on such things as the harmonisation of indirect taxation and the collection of statistics.
With regard to a single currency, if all members of the European Common Market united and said that they
734
would have a single currency, it is inconceivable that business and the City would allow a Conservative Government in this country to opt out, because that would be the death knell of the City and would cause enormous problems for British business. That fact needs to sink in to certain Members in this Chamber.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I had understood that the Opposition opposed a single currency. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if the other 11 countries in the Community support a single currency, we should automatically support it as well?
Dr. Marek: The right hon. Gentleman must not trap me into saying something that I do not intend to say. I said that if 11 members united and said that they would have a single currency, and they went ahead and had one because we were obdurate and kept taking the cricket ball home and would not take part in negotiations or co-operative discussions with our Community partners, then it is inconceivable that British business and the City would allow any Government to keep Britain outside the system. That must be considered very carefully, but it does not mean that I am in favour of a single currency, willy-nilly and come what may. However, if the other 11 members of the European Community go along that road, we have a duty to do our best to see whether we can formulate proposals to enable us to partake of that system.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Leaving willy and nilly out of it, will the hon. Gentleman answer the question? Is the Labour party in favour of a single currency? He said that it should "sink in" to some people, but he said that it was something that could not be avoided. What percentage of his Labour colleagues has that fact sunk into so far? Would he agree that the figure would be about 20 per cent. if those hon. Members were to show their hands?
Dr. Marek: I was thinking more about Conservative Members. However, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is seeking to extract from me something that I do not know——
Mr. Carlile: You do not know the answer.
Dr. Marek: It is not a matter of knowing the answer—the question is hypothetical.
Mr. Carlile: You do not know the answer.
Dr. Marek: I gave the hon. and learned Gentleman time to intervene. He can intervene again if he wishes—we have plenty of time. However, his was a hypothetical question. It will be a question when negotiations are about to take place. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will read carefully tomorrow what I have said. I have outlined a perfectly acceptable position for the Labour party to take at the present time.
Mr. John Biffen: Before the lion. Gentleman leaves this fascinating subject, as he is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench with all the authority that that confers, would he say what the position would be of a Labour Government confronted with a situation in which the decision to have a European central bank was to put it under banker control rather than political control?
Dr. Marek: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get me to move forward into a hypothetical situation which in principle does not exist at present.
Mr. Alex Carlile: You are in trouble now.
Dr. Marek: Not at all—I stick by what I have said. It is on the record and I am sorry that I cannot provide amusement. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is trying to tempt me into a discussion on the matter, but I do not intend to be tempted.
There is a world of difference between a central bank under the political control of one nation state and its Government, and a central bank that is under the political control of 12 nation states, and therefore 12 Finance Ministers. There is also a difference between a central bank modelled on the lines of the Bundesbank and a bank which is truly independent of political control. I shall not say which I prefer. We need political control of a central bank.
The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we would enter the negotiations in a co-operative spirit, knowing that we would have a more than even chance of producing something that would be acceptable to the British people. The Government, led by the present Prime Minister, are pursuing policies which make us irrelevant to the other member states. That is the difference.
Mr. Christopher Gill: In his reply to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the hon. Member implied that it was possible to have political control by 12 Chancellors. Is he suggesting that as a way in which we could proceed?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that, although the debate can go reasonably wide, if we were to develop this point, we should be getting beyond the terms of the motion.
Dr. Marek: I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that right hon. and hon. Members have not succeeded in what they have mischievously been trying to do.
Any changes should ensure that accurate statistics are kept and are comprehensive enough for the Government to do their job in managing the economy. They must, wherever possible, lessen the burdens on trade and keep the clients' costs to a minimum. Any changes must protect revenue. I welcome the progress that has been made so far by the European Commission, but there is more to be done. I hope that, at the ECOFIN council next week, the Minister will argue his case along those lines and will succeed, without hectoring, lecturing, huffing or puffing—I know that Treasury Ministers do not do that—in persuading our colleagues in the European Community by cogent and friendly argument.
5.12 pm
Mr. Roger Sims: One of the directives is concerned, among other things, with the target rates for the tax on cigarettes. The House will have heard me express my views on the health hazards of smoking and I do not intend to make that speech again, but I want to express my concern at a passage in the memorandum, which says:
"The proposal has significant implications for health policy, since a cut in the absolute level of duty would make cigarettes cheaper overall and because a rise in the proportion
736
of tax raised by an ad valorem charge would widen the span of retail prices, offering more opportunities for selling cheap products."
It is curious that we should have these proposals before us only a day after the Commission issued a paper about the adoption of the proposals amending the directive on the labelling of tobacco products. That document starts by saying:
"smoking is still a major health problem; one cancer out of three in Europe is caused by smoking. In other words, cancer prevention must start with smoking prevention."
If the proposal goes through in its present form, far from deterring people from smoking by increasing the price of cigarettes—there is no doubt that price is a relevant factor—it would encourage them by reducing the price. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the point on board and that our objections to this aspect will be noted and ventilated.
Another of the documents before us deals with duties on spirits. Here, I have to declare an interest as adviser to the Scotch Whisky Association. My hon. Friend the Minister has already referred to possible proposals for the phasing out of the duty-free allowance and said that this is not an immediate matter, but it is clear that it is under consideration and could come in the fullness of time. The duty-free market is a special market and were it abolished, it would not be replaced elsewhere. All of us have experience of taking advantage of duty-free sales to purchase a product that we would not otherwise have purchased. If duty-free sales are abolished, the market is lost. For the Scotch whisky industry, if the duty-free market were to go within the Community, that would mean lost sales to the value of £40 million per annum. That is the equivalent of the loss of a complete market such as that in Germany.
Furthermore, it seems that the Commission is now moving from the original ideas of harmonisation on duty levels on alcohol products. The very effect of the proposal is to maintain discrimination between duty on spirits and the duty on wine. It does no more than maintain it, because, as an explanatory memorandum says:
"The ratio between the duties on spirits and wine would increase from about 2:1"—
that is unreasonable in itself—
"to about 8:1, with possible adverse consequences for UK spirits producers, both in terms of the domestic market and exports to the EC."
That discrimination of 8:1 between spirits and wines does not chime with the idea of a single market. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to stress again that consideration should be given to proper harmonisation of the duties on alcoholic products and, ideally, that the duties should be based on the alcoholic strength of the product, regardless of its nature.
5.18 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I broadly support the view expressed by the Paymaster General about these documents. However, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a number of matters. The first relates to tax points for VAT and the matter that I raised earlier in an intervention about the title to goods. There is already a minefield in domestic law relating to the question of when title to goods passes. It is difficult to determine even where the dispute is between a United Kingdom supplier and a United Kingdom purchaser. Already, there is a great deal of case law on the

737
passing of title to goods where there is a transaction across international frontiers. When VAT law is harmonised, it is important that we do not face an exponentially increased minefield. It might be of great benefit to my colleagues at the commercial Bar, but I doubt whether it would be of much benefit to those traders whose interests we are trying to serve by the single market and harmonisation.
Attempts at harmonisation of the taxation regimes of the European Community and the achievement of harmony within the Community are as different, unfortunately, as my singing in the bath and the heavenly sounds of the Bach choir. On the face of it, I suppose that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) presents a slightly more hopeful prognosis for harmony, yet that is little comfort as I suppose that realistically we must regard him merely as the leadership candidate who is seen but not Hurd.
It is time that the Government, carefully and rightly avoiding slavish acceptance of all Commission suggestions, began to demonstrate a wish to make effective the concept of Europe of which the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) spoke with such eloquence on Tuesday. Unfortunately, as we have heard in the debate—I am pleased that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), having left the Chamber to have his bruised fingers bandaged, to use a cricketing analogy, has now returned to his place—it is clear that we would not obtain any greater clarity of commitment from the Labour party, which is riddled both with deeply committed anti-Europeans and pragmatists, as well as with wholesale consumers of fudge. That is as destructive a combination as one could imagine when it comes to making real progress.
In the Labour party there are three schools of thought—some committed pro-Europeans, some committed anti-Europeans like the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—the hon. Gentleman does not make his position unclear—and those who spend their time sitting on the fence, like the hon. Member for Wrexham. I fear that the iron may well have already entered his soul on the subject of Europe and that we shall have no greater clarity from the Opposition Front Bench between now and the result of the next general election than we have had in recent years.
It is rather like having a Government—I repeat the fashionable use of cricketing metaphors—who play 12th man in Europe, and deliberately so, and therefore rarely obtain any significant slice of action on the field. To adopt a footballing analogy, we have a Labour party which, if it were to be allotted a position in the European team, would be playing as substitute, or possibly at left-right-outside.
Mr. Spearing: I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman was slightly inaccurate when he mentioned my position. His inaccuracy illustrates one of the problems of what is sometimes called, but mistakenly, a debate. I am not anti-European. I am a European person, but I am not in favour of the terms or the philosophy behind the treaty of Rome. There is a great deal of difference between the two positions.
Mr. Carlile rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is in his preamble, and I am sure that he will come to the motion that is before the House.
Mr. Carlile: I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall.
The hon. Member for Newham, South has made his position clear, as one would expect. He is opposed to the European Community.
It is nearly two decades since we accepted the introduction of value added tax, that being a key indirect tax within the European Community. It is a relatively simple tax, although it has become complicated by some fairly abstruse regulations and exceptions for certain goods and services. It is easy and cheap to collect, mainly because it is collected by the suppliers of goods and services at vast cost to themselves but not to the Government. It probably makes good sense on those grounds.
Although fraud is common, it is generally easy to detect, provided that there are enough staff available in Customs and Excise in the United Kingdom, and in equivalent departments elsewhere, to carry out the detection. I hope that we shall hear from the Paymaster General a commitment on behalf of the Government to ensure that when harmonisation takes place the Community will ensure that there is a Communitywide force of people who are employed to detect and prosecute fraud and are trained and skilled in that detection and prosecution. I pay tribute to the great skills of the staff of Customs and Excise, who have a record second to none throughout the world in the detection of fraud in the importation of goods and, in more recent times, in VAT transactions.
As part of our VAT regime, we have shown a determination that some goods and some services—those that make a major contribution of especial utility and merit—should be zero rated. In the proposals produced by Commissioner Scrivener in May, zero-rating would remain permissible for clearly defined social reasons for the benefit of the consumer. However, that acceptance is couched in somewhat grudging terms. It is important, therefore, that the Government make it clear that we are talking about harmonisation rather than unison and that we shall retain zero rating for appropriate areas of goods and services which are part of commercial life.

That recognition of the basis of zero rating, albeit for a limited range of goods and services, shows that, grudgingly on the Commission's part, there is growing an admirable sense of reality and flexibility—of which we should make the most.
I shall direct my remarks on zero rating to two subjects that have been mentioned already. The first subject is charities. It is important to remember that charities in the United Kingdom are not replicated in the same form anywhere else in the Community. British charities are a unique species. For the most part, they operate differently from charities in other parts of the Community. They are much more independent of government. They are often extremely small, and fulfil functions that are undertaken as a matter of course by local government elsewhere.
An obvious example is the network of entirely independent charitable village halls which exist throughout my geographically large constituency and those of the two Shropshire Members whom I see in their places, who I know strongly support the charitable status of village halls within their constituencies and the zero rating of goods and services provided to and by those halls, especially the hiring of the halls. The halls are the

739
backbone of village life in Wales, and in Shropshire, too. They are but one example of the many small charitable institutions in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to add Hampshire to his list?
Mr. Carlile: I am more than happy to do that, although I am less familiar with Hampshire than Shropshire as I have to drive through Shropshire on my way home, the train services being what they are.
Some extremely large charities also benefit from zero rating. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has already been mentioned. It could be affected in two ways by the removal of zero rating. The first, which was mentioned earlier, is in its purchase of lifeboats. The second relates to the huge quantity of goods sold by that institution and by many similar charities. We can all think of examples immediately. The National Children's Home is one. Such charities sell vast quantities of goods at sales of work and VATing those goods would remove the illegitimate advantage which, most right hon. and hon. Members agree, they should maintain over the ordinary high street retail sector.
Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He enables me by making an intervention to avoid making a speech. As vice-president of the RNLI, I endorse everything that he said. He will be aware of early-day motion 27 which was signed by 61 Members across the board. When the Government engage in negotiations, they will perhaps win some points and have to make concessions on others. Does he agree that one area in which they should not make concessions is zero-rating of VAT for the RNLI?
Mr. Carlile: The House appreciates the work that the hon. Gentleman puts into the RNLI. I entirely agree with him and with the early-day motion, which I signed today. The RNLI fulfils a role which is unique in Europe and perhaps in the world. It is important that its position should be maintained.
Another aspect of zero rating is sometimes referred to as "books, newspapers and periodicals." I prefer to describe it as "products related to literacy." Britain's level of illiteracy and reading difficulties is still between 6 and 10 per cent. Books, newspapers and journals, despite the ever-present television screen, are the most important source of informed knowledge. Local newspapers in particular play a crucial role, especially in rural areas.
If I may be allowed to be parochial for a moment, Montgomeryshire's County Times Express and Gazette which appears on Friday afternoon each week, carries an enormous range of information which is simply not available elsewhere. We do not have a local radio station in mid-Wales which carries a notice board. My constituency is about 900 square miles so it is impossible to tell people what is going on in the district at some public point or by some form of public annunciation system.
Such local newspapers—in the private sector, of course—serve a crucial role, which would be severely wounded by the introduction of VAT. Furthermore, Wales is a bilingual country. Books and periodicals in the Welsh language serve as a crucial bridge between the English-speaking Welsh and the Welsh-speaking Welsh.
740
They help to make Wales a country in which everyone can understand everyone else. Therefore, they fulfil an essential and useful function.
Minority languages have been the subject of much discussion in the European Community. The existence of a strong national language in Wales is a factor which should be put into the scales when discussions take place about the VATability of books, newspapers and periodicals—in other words, the VATability of literacy.
We support the notion and the aims of harmonisation, as exemplified by the documents before the House. We should bear in mind that in my party we aim for harmony, not unison or uniformity. Harmony can be heard in many forms, from Tallis's great six-choir, 36-part choral work, to a barber shop quartet—which is probably the most that we could ever achieve in the House. But harmony is different from expecting everyone to say the same, adopt the same rules and provide exactly the same tax for every aspect of life.
Whether one uses the term federalism or retention of sovereignty—the two are often difficult to distinguish—it is important that harmonisation means that local circumstances, traditions and needs, such as those of the RNLI, which is peculiar to the United Kingdom because we are a group of islands, should be taken fully into account. Therefore, the reason why we have chosen to zero-rate particular goods and services is an essential inclusion in any negotiations.
5.35 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: In a desire for virtue and brevity, I shall be brief, partly because what my hon. Friend the Minister said was encouraging and to a great extent he covered in spirit the essential points that I wanted to make. I wish to refer to the VAT controls on inter-Community trade post-1992. I declare an interest which is duly recorded. I am involved in trading companies which would be affected by legislation on this matter.
I have a real and growing anxiety, voiced recently by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Union des Industries de la Communaute Europeene, the Communitywide organisation, about the choice between the five systems. The matter is on the agenda for 19 November. I hope that I understood my hon. Friend the Minister correctly when he said that he did not anticipate that a final decision would be made then.
I am extremely pleased to hear that. There are grounds for anxiety that a decision might be rushed into prematurely in favour of system 3, which appears to be a front runner at present. I do not need to go into the detailed arguments. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that there are fears that the system could involve excessive cost, excessive flow of information, not all of which is relevant to the tasks that it seeks to achieve and that the form of the information and the way in which it is compiled and used could give rise to mis-matches. There are serious worries that system three is defective.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister refer to his acceptance of audit-based controls. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) likewise accepted that principle. It is the guiding principle behind system five. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will take to heart the worries about system three. Let us hope that there will

741
be time for consultation before a decision is made. In my judgment, that decision should not be in favour of the third system.
5.37 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I intervened earlier in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) to remark on the number of documents before the House today. I must confess that I came into the Chamber only to listen and perhaps to clarify some of the complex matters before us. My Committee has had the opportunity of reporting on them, but in view of what has been said—or rather, what has not been said—I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The debate is far more important than the attendance in the House today suggests. Indeed, it is inversely important. I call it "a debate" but in effect we are having three debates in one—I should be glad if the Paymaster General would correct any of these hazards—in that we are debating the future of British excise on alcohol, tobacco, and fuel oils, particularly for motor cars. A debate on a specific proposal relating to any of those topics could fill the Chamber. We are having a debate on VAT and on whether we should retain or whether we can retain our zero-rating. Most hon. Members who have spoken have already referred to that. Again, a specific debate on that aspect would fill the Chamber. We are also debating the arrangements within the European Community for future interstate arrangements for VAT and the question of trading statistics. If frontiers disappear, exports and imports must also disappear. That, too, is a fairly big topic, especially as we are not doing too well in that regard.
All those matters are contained in no fewer than 37 documents—supplied through the efficiency of the Deliverer of the Vote, who is rarely mentioned in this place, but to whom I pay tribute—which have a bearing on no fewer than 14 documents arising from the Commission itself.
We are often told by the media and by our colleagues about the terrible, boring debates which take place late at night after 10.30 pm and which no hon. Member ever attends. People often ask, "Why can we not have these important debates earlier in the afternoon?" Well, today we have just such a debate on the topics that I have listed. A colleague has suggested that the absence of hon. Members from the Chamber is due to the fact that half the House is away canvassing and the other half laughing. Be that as it may, I find this state of affairs seriously ironic. The important and possibly epoch-making speech that we heard in the Chamber only two days ago was about these very matters—about style, approach and fundamentals. I fear that in two or three years, when the results of some of these proposals are known, there may be debates in the House in which there is retribution, wringing of hands, mystification and possibly resignations. Some hon. Member will ask, "How did all this happen?" Another will reply, "It was debated on the Thursday of the week when the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) made his speech."
We have been here before—in the late 1970s. I remember a debate conducted, I believe, by my then right hon. Friend Joel Barnett, now Lord Barnett, in which the then hon. Member for Southampton, Test and myself pressed him on certain matters and he, in his efficient way,
742
was dodging a bit. Ten years later, VAT was imposed on housing repairs. Nobody could understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did what he did. Nobody told the House that the Chancellor had received a letter from the Commission—we got that out of him later in Committee. We then had VAT on glasses, with a court order and statements, and then on commercial building and many civil engineering constructions. All those things arose as a result of a debate held 10 years earlier.
The implementation of the proposals that we are considering in this debate is rather closer than that. As I understand it, the proposers hope that the proposals will come into effect as soon as possible, with a transitional period until the end of 1992 and something more permanent in 1993 and thereafter. Although I fancy that there will be a bit of delay, even if the proposals are implemented in the Budget of 1993, that is close enough.
As I have said, the debate is of much greater importance than many colleagues have yet understood. I do not blame them for that entirely because most things about the Community are wrapped in mystery either until much later or until those who have the privilege of having someone to help them understand these things try to explain what they are all about. As Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, I have that obligation this afternoon. I shall therefore do something which may be very boring, but which is necessary. I shall read into the record a list of the reports of the Select Committee on European Legislation and where they may be found so that those who read the report of this debate will at least be able to see something of the importance of what is going on and can read the documents.
Our first report bearing on this debate was the 11th report of the 1989–90 Session, HC II—xi, in which we dealt with exise duty rates and EEC documents 9775/89, 9776/89, 9777/89 and 9778/89. Our second report was the 31st report of the Session, HC II—xxxi, on indirect taxes (administrative co-operation), dealing with EEC document 6642/90, and that on value added tax, 6641/90. We then considered the 32nd report, on indirect taxes and harmonisation, 6762/89, and then an extract from the 33rd report of the last Session, relating to HM Customs and Excise, and COM(90) 430, 431, 432, 433 and 434. As late as yesterday afternoon, we considered the report on EEC document 6641/90, relating to Customs and Excise and one from the Central Statistical Office, 8801/90.
That is the comprehensive list of the documents relating to the motion. I understand that a representative of the Treasury will be discussing them in Brussels on Monday. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about any of this, because it is difficult even for the Select Committee to keep up with the range of matters happening yonder. I understand that it is hoped that some agreement will be reached in the new year, perhaps before Easter——
Mr. Ryder indicated assent.
Mr. Spearing: I see the Minister nodding. Whether the House will have a further opportunity to discuss these matters is very much open to question. Indeed, I believe that according to the revised motion which was passed following the last speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surry, East as Leader of the House, we are now having that debate.
Mr. Ryder indicated assent.——
Mr. Spearing: I see the Minister nodding again. I make no apology for my more measured tone when I say that that emphasises the importance of this occasion.
I confess to the views to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has drawn the attention of the House. I shall now depart from an entirely objective stance and select matters which I believe are accurate and correct but which I know that some hon. Members will say reflect my own position, which is well known. I therefore take off my Chairman's hat and put on that of the hon. Member for Newham, South.
I believe that these proposals replace those of Lord Cockfield—a name from the past. In the Cockfield report, 290-odd regulations and draft directives created the so-called "1992 single market". We are nearing the completion of that list as its provisions are now coming into force—we do not have to wait for any big bang. The proposals relating to VAT and excise duty were particularly contentious. We debated them some time ago and I believe that it is true to say that they did not find acceptance throughout the Community for one reason or another, which is understandable because Lord Cockfield was probably being too ambitious.
I am no expert in this matter, but I appreciate that trying to reconcile the VAT structures of Ireland, Denmark and Italy, for example, stretches the imagination and political ingenuity of anyone concerned. The deep interests within each of those countries, their political structures, and the assumptions of their populations are difficult to reconcile—let alone those of the United Kingdom and the attitudes to taxation which are habitually and justifiably held by our friends in France and Germany. All that is being done to the great god of the benefits of harmonisation, although I am not sure that they have been agreed or even estimated.
The new VAT proposals would create two bands. I will first read into the record the Government's attitude, although the Paymaster-General has already made it clear. The Explanatory Memorandum relating to document 6762 of 1989, signed by the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, states on page 4:
"The move away from both the fixed band for the standard rate of VAT and fixed rates for excise is welcome, as is the Commission's acceptance that certain zero rates may be retained on social grounds, though the list of items to be included is not indicated. But the Commission's long-term aim remains the centrally imposed approximation of indirect tax rates, which the United Kingdom Government continues to believe to be unnecessary and inappropriate."
That is a clear statement, not shouted or discourteous. The key is that the list of items affected is not indicated, and nor are the precise figures, although I make no complaint about that as a technique.
When VAT was first introduced and was subsequently doubled, there were many great debates. We are now considering an adjustment to our 15 per cent. standard rate, and ingenious proposals for what amounts to a double band. I am not sure whether that arrangement is meant to be transitional or to operate after 1993, but I do not suppose that that makes such difference, because the all-important timing has yet to be decided.
There is to be a standard rate somewhat above 9 per cent., but the minimum amount above 9 per cent. has yet to be decided. It could be 12, 13 or 14 per cent. Each country will be allowed to impose a higher rate if it suits
744
its convenience and accords with certain desiderata. Commission document No. 6762/89, published on 22 May 1989, states in paragraph 8:
"An alternative to the rate band would be to replace it with a minimum rate applicable from 1 January 1993 without any upper limit being set for Member States' needs in so far as the standard rate is concerned. Each Member State would choose a rate at least equal to the minimum rate, having regard not only to the national budgetary implications of its choice but also to the 'competitive pressure' that would stem from the rates chosen by neighbouring Member States or by the Member States which were its main trading partners."
That is the suggested criterion for the standard rate, which would apply to almost everything.
There is a proposal also for a reduced rate. Paragraph 10 of the same document states:
"The Commission considers that the proposed band (4–9 per cent.) best meets the needs of the situation and that the essential task is to agree on the products to be taxed at the reduced rate relative to those chargeable at the standard rate. For the Commission, it is indispensible to reach agreement from the outset of the prepatory phase on the fact that a common structure based on two rates is the necessary condition for attaining a sufficient degree of alignment."
Some may consider that proposal a little fuzzy, but we can see what the Commission is driving at. I understand that that is the document on which negotiations are to take place. Some may welcome the ability to reduce VAT on certain commodities or services, but I reckon that the reduced rate will be fairly limited. It is more likely that certain goods which are currently zero-rated will be lifted into the 4 per cent. to 9 per cent. tax band, with a minimum of 4 per cent.
That brings me to the vexed question of zero-rated commodities. It is notable that hon. Members who have spoken so far who might otherwise be in favour of the procrustean harmonisation thrust upon us by the treaty of Rome pointed out the need to retain zero rating, which was the subject of my earlier intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), in respect of the Government's intentions.
Perhaps we should get that issue out of the way immediately. The Prime Minister said something about it at the time of the last general election. I do not know whether she was supported in her view then by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) or by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, but I suspect that she was. I refer to the question of children's shoes, and so on. But what about transport, domestic fuel, water supply and disposal, books, magazines and newspapers, referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and with whose remarks I wholly agree.
I understand the Prime Minister's position and her resentment on occasions. At the time of the general election, neither she nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give an undertaking—any more than they can now—that books, magazines and newspapers would never be taxed. That situation already confronts the Government and the public. I referred earlier to the relative obscurity of debates on technical documents having long numbers. I make no apology for commenting now that there does not appear to be for this debate any representative from this country's great newspapers in the Press Gallery at a time when we are debating whether or not there should be a tax imposed on this country's newspapers in the future. Important matters are debated in the House without the public realising their importance. If the Minister wishes to

745
intervene at this point, I shall certainly give way. If not, I will describe the Commission's general views on zero rating.
Zero rating was something of a derogation in any case because there is a big difference between exemption and zero rating. We achieved exemption for certain goods through the good wheeze of zero rating. In 1970 or 1971, before we even joined the EEC, the House had a great debate on the subject of VAT on children's shoes. I remember that my noble Friend Lord Barnett moved an amendment to exempt them, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) voted against and there was a tremendous row.
We may be able to retain that exemption, but what about other commodities? Page 5 of the 22 May letter states:
"Since there is a twofold need to reduce the present coverage of zero-rating"—
there we are, they are talking of reductions—
"and to take account of the social role assigned to VAT in some Member States, a relaxation of the Commission's position could be envisaged provided a number of conditions were met.
It would be necessary, in the framework of a final compromise, to authorise Member States who so wish, to maintain zero-rating for a very limited number of products currently subject to the reduced rates, provided this did not pose any risks of distortion of competition for the other Member States."
That is a big proviso and it means that zero rating in one state and the standard rate in the neighbouring state would be regarded as a distortion of trade under the relevant article of the treaty, and people could be taken to the European Court as a result.
Even if we want zero rating on some commodities, it might be difficult. For example, if water is free of VAT in one country, production costs would undoubtedly be lowered for certain products, and that could result in court proceedings.
The section in the document on excise is specific in meaning but obscure in its language. When Lord Cockfield produced the proposals on harmonisation of excise, great attention was paid to changes in alcohol excise duty. The Paymaster General may correct me if I am wrong, but there were staggering reductions in the duty on certain alcoholic drinks, favouring products with a high alcohol content—such as spirits. Beer came off least well.
There were great reductions which put down the cost of alcohol remarkably—by 30 per cent. in some instances—because our excise duty had to be reduced considerably to harmonise with the rest of the European Community. That was one of the reasons why the Cockfield proposals were withdrawn. I understand that the Treasury stood to lose between £3 billion and £4 billion because of the reductions in alcohol duty. I give those figures from memory—the Paymaster General can correct me and perhaps give his estimate of the range of revenue loss to the Treasury under the present proposals.
I am not as worried as other hon. Members may be about the loss of taxation. Taxation of alcohol has been a part of social policy in this country, whether one likes it or not. I mentioned that fact to an EC official, and he told me that social policy comes under another article of the treaty of Rome—that is the way some people view these issues.
I shall read the letter of the proposal and then try to interpret it. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. Paragraph 23 states:
746
"The Commission will propose that differentiated minimum rates, which would vary according to the principal products, should be compulsory from the end of the transitional period, i.e. from 1 January 1993.
In fixing the minimum rates, particular attention will be paid to countries with low excises so as to ensure that the effort they have to make remains reasonable. The solution reached cannot take the form of frontier controls.
The existence of these minimum rates would not prevent those Member States which apply the highest duties on such products from progressively aligning their duties on the long-term reference values adopted for each category of product."
That is not very clear.
I gather that the Commission is to put long-term reference values on excise on all types of alcoholic liquor. Countries with lower rates at present—especially the Mediterranean countries—can gradually raise rates to that value, and countries with rates well above, such as United Kingdom, can gradually reduce them until, after a period of time, they are more or less the same. In the meantime, we shall have to put up with whatever frontier disparities may exist. We shall have to lump it for the time being.
That is the Commission's proposal, and it is radical. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery or his constituents would approve,but it is an ingenious bureaucratic and administrative solution to what would otherwise be a difficult problem. I have tried to explain the proposal in ordinary language and I invite the Paymaster General to correct me if I am wrong.
If one eliminates frontiers, one eliminates exports and imports and therefore trade statistics. In a document relating to the exchange rate mechanism, Lord Jay said that a country with a persistent structural trade deficit is turned into a depressed area by the ERM. Scotland and Northern Ireland are not depressed in human terms, but those and some of our other regions could be described as depressed areas. We do not deal with their imports and exports. Lord Jay suggests that the entire country will be turned into a depressed area by the ERM. Does the Paymaster General envisage a period after 1993 when trade statistics will disappear? If not, what trade statistics shall we have? Is he confident that their bases will be correct?
Finally, I wish to focus attention on excise duty on energy, especially on fuels. One cannot listen to the radio or watch television without hearing comments or discussion on the effects of carbon dioxide on the ozone layer. The Prime Minister says that we must have world solutions. Others say that we need international action and that we must get moving. If that is to happen, the impact of excise duties imposed by the EC, and variations on duties which will affect the relationship between one hydrocarbon and another, will have to be considered irrespective of whether duties are harmonised.
Fuel prices cannot be market-oriented if we are to minimise carbon dioxide emissions caused by combustion in energy production. If we are seriously to tackle this problem, we cannot be market-led. In this case the treaty of Rome—in terms of market competition—will have to go out of the window. It would be for the Commission to act in a non-market way if it wished to protect the ozone layer.
I have made a longer contribution to the debate than some might wish and a longer contribution than I expected to make when I entered the Chamber. I did so because I believed that, unless I did so, it would be extremely difficult for anyone reading Hansard to understand what the 37

747
documents meant. In a normal United Kingdom Budget, each would be the subject of a major debate on the Finance Bill. I shall be glad if the Paymaster General will correct any false impression or false facts that I may have given to the House.
6.10 pm
Mr. John Biffen: The Paymaster General has sat through the debate with characteristic courtesy and stamina. My remarks will not detain him for much longer.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the signficance of the debate and to the relations of the House with the Executive and the wider law-making authorities of the Community. We are still unfamiliar with how to use what influence we have. It is very much a question of influence rather than of a formal mandate.
When my hon. Friend goes to Brussels on Monday, what will be the reaction of the House? He will go with the good wishes of us all. The nuances of the debate and the tone of voice are known to him and will be assessed by him. That is all. There will be no formal vote. No Division bells will ring. He cannot even turn to his European ministerial colleagues and say, "Give me a break. You've no idea what a rough time I've had with the hon. Member: for Wrexham. Don't think that the Opposition are a soft-touch alternative."
My hon. Friend knows that the best way for us to assist him is to say that we recognise that he will not have an easy task and that his job is not just to agree to any compromise that is reached. He knows that he must express the earnest anxieties of all parts of the House. To some extent, domestic political loyalties merge in a common national attitude. The problem has been made no easier in the recent past. An attempt is being made to shoehorn Britain's relationship with the Community into the unnatural fit of domestic party politics.
I know that the hon. Member for Newham, South and I share a great deal more than we share with our colleagues. It has never been easy to fit the Community debate into the niceties of Westminster politics. That does not mean that Westminster has no real responsibility, through the Minister, to make its views known on a range of subjects, even when they seem to be technical. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South that it is the volume of documents that will almost certainly convince every research assistant that they are hardly worth dealing with when it comes to the minutiae of VAT arrangements planned for the far distant future. That, however, is not so.
If, for example, one takes the VAT rates that in the past have convulsed the House, nothing will be decided on Monday. It will be just one more canter around an almost endless circuit, but sooner or later we shall have to reach a decision. What is so unsatisfactory is that we shall move gradually from the inconceivable to the absolutely unavoidable. "Like it or not" is the most chilling phrase that can be used in EC debates.
Although this is a thinly attended House, it has to be said that, unless there is a conscious determination to give up our traditions and our authority, we shall proceed not
748
by means of further abdication but by means of filling out our responsibilities and the opportunities for influencing decision taking in the Community.
I came to speak about statistics. I did not imagine that the debate would turn to constitutional matters, but that happened when the hon. Member for Newham, South spoke. He has done a great service to the House. I did not think that the debate would be a means of dealing with the more mundane issue of the single currency, which was the subject of a good-natured exchange between the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and myself. The Minister is in a classic dilemma over the statistics: to what extent do we go for comprehension and to what extent are we deterred by the cost? The Minister has to solve that dilemma.
I agree completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I hope that full account will be taken of what he said. I am grateful to the Institute of Directors for having provided me with a brief. Members of Parliament are heavily dependent on outside assistance when assessing these issues. I do not want to be told by the Confederation of British Industry that the House failed its industrial sector, particularly as I have yet to receive any communication from the CBI on the issue. When the Minister makes his contribution and moves towards a common position on Monday, I hope that he will take account of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, which I do no more than echo.
My final point links up with what was said by the hon. Member for Newham, South. I should prefer an almost unintended benefit to emerge from this exercise. The Treasury is a most admirable institution, but I have some unease about the reliability of its trade statistics. That unease is widely shared. I realise that Government policy is to some extent controversial, but not even Government policy could have produced such a massive current trade deficit without any convincing offset in the form of an explicable current capital surplus
This is an opportunity to see how our statistics can be implemented with a degree of cost-effectiveness. I hope that the Minister will not allow his gaze to be blinkered by merely European horizons and that we shall emerge from the process with a better grasp of our trade statistics. Then, for once, the exercise will produce a modest dividend for the greater national good. In that spirit, I send my very good wishes to the Minister and wish him well in Brussels on Monday next. Whatever may be the nature of the present acrimony over the United Kingdom's future relationships with the European Community, on this issue my hon. Friend can speak for the whole House.
6.17 pm
Mr. Ryder: It feels as though I have consumed a mammoth meal during the last two hours. I have eaten about 15 courses. Now my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), with his characteristic fluency, has presented me with the bill. On his final point about statistics, I am sure that he knows that efforts are being made to improve their accuracy. Recently, the Central Statistical Office moved its home.
Without going too far on this public occasion, may I assure my right hon. Friend that his reservations and misgivings, even criticism, of the way in which our statistics are produced are shared by others, some of whom are close to Government. I am grateful to him, therefore,

749
for underlining the point. He was right to do so. Without accurate statistics, the Government's entire monetary policy could be seriously affected. If, according to the statistics, our deficits are larger than they are in reality, any Chancellor has to take account of the statistics rather than of his own instincts.
I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North in congratulating the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on the assiduous way in which he always tackles these debates and reads all the documents. I share my right hon. Friend's opinion that these debates are not as well attended as they should be and it is a benefit to us today that we have been able to take part in a debate in so-called prime time. On most occasions, these debates take place for an hour and a half after 10 o'clock. I hope—I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, as a former distinguished Leader of the House will share this view—that the new system of monitoring European legislation upstairs in the new Committees will be a success. I have every hope that it will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has given me his apologies. He had to leave to attend a meeting. He raised a number of points, including one connected with his representation of the whisky industry. I assure him that I have already met representatives of the whisky industry through the Scotch Whisky Association and am due to meet them again in two weeks. I am fully conscious of the reservations they hold about the extent to which the future of duty-free allowances may be affected by decisions taken in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst was also concerned about the unitary taxation of alcoholic strength. It is true that the current duty structure is largely a result of historical developments. Governments have set out to collect revenue on various drinks rather than on alcohol as such. However, no Government have ever accepted that relative alcoholic strength should be the sole determining factor for setting duty rates, and there is no reason why it should be. Just as costs and market conditions vary across different sectors of the drinks market, so the levels of duty which each sector can bear will be different.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst was also concerned about the Government's public health objectives and the effect of allowing individuals to satisfy their personal demand for tobacco. As my hon. Friend knows, fiscal instruments are only one of a range of measures at the disposal of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to influence the consumption of such products. The Government are particularly aware that there is a fine balance to be struck between allowing a citizen the freedom of choice to consume as he wishes and the efforts to prevent the undesirable social consequences that excessive consumption may cause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst was also concerned about unfair tax discrimination against spirits. The Government have not accepted the need for such a system. Nevertheless, it is our objective to try to ensure maximum flexibility in any agreed Community frame-work. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, together with the House, will retain full freedom to set duty rates at levels which are appropriate and necessary for the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) rightly underlined the importance of a point made during an
750
intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). As the hon. Member for Wrexham knows, British sherry usually pays duty at the same rate as table wine. It is the rate that applies to all wines up to 15 per cent. alcohol. The Commission has proposed that the dividing line for the higher wines rate should be 13 per cent. alcohol. That is not acceptable to the Government, as British sherry would fall into a higher rate duty category than at present. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East—that the British Government will continue to represent the interests of British sherry in Brussels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North reflected the views of the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry. I assure them that officials from Customs and Excise have had meetings with the various people most concerned with the issue, including the Institute of Directors and the CBI. Indeed, a meeting with the CBI took place only this morning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North is right to say that we have a dilemma because two important considerations need to be weighed. We want to ensure that businesses obtain as much benefit as possible from the creation of the single market. That means keeping the burdens on them as small as possible.
On the other hand, we recognise that the end of fiscal frontiers creates new opportunities for fraud and consequent revenue losses. If we and other member states fail to have adequate control systems, revenue losses will simply mean that honest taxpayers will end up paying more. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend underlined, there is a difficult balance to be struck, but we are determined to achieve a balance that is right for British businesses and the British taxpayer. I hope that the attitude that we adopt at ECOFIN on Monday and at subsequent negotiations will fulfil the objectives set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke.
In an intervention, I set out the Government's position on the RNLI. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has sat through much of the debate and I should like to join others in paying tribute to the work that he has done on behalf of the RNLI.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asked about the law on transfer of title. He is right that we have an agreement in principle as being that on invoice or payment. Detailed legislation has yet to be considered, but it will be considered during the next few months.
The hon. Member for Wrexham raised a number of points. He was concerned about whether all the returns for small businesses will be on the same document. For statistical purposes, the Commission problems would simply require the information to be provided on the normal VAT return. The hon. Gentleman also highlighted possible difficulties on the origin system after 1996. I think that he will appreciate that the Government are opposed to an automatic switch to an origin system. That view is supported by most member states. We are content to agree that the system should be reviewed in 1996 but without commitment to any change. Of course, the unanimity requirement protects the Government's position now and subsequently.
The hon. Member for Wrexham identified the need for audit trails to counter fraud between member states. I

751
agree with his judgment, and that is why we have been strongly pressing this approach at official and ministerial level. We have achieved some success.
The hon. Member for Wrexham was one of several hon. Members to raise the issue of zero rates. The Government's position has been set out in numerous occasions. The hon. Member for Wrexham referred to the possible zero rating of chocolate biscuits. He may have received the good briefing that the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance sent hon. Members. If we tried to add to existing zero rates, we would place ourselves in a difficult position, because arguing for additional rates is more likely to create opposition to our existing zero rates and make our negotiating position rather more difficult.
Dr. Marek: I have certainly received no briefing. I intended to convey the principle that any change to the taxation system should simplify it as much as possible. When taxation was introduced, we held discussions upstairs, certainly on biscuits. I suggested that the system could be simplified or made more transparent.
Mr. Ryder: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but following an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport I pointed out that large sums of money are involved—rather larger than many hon. Members imagine.
As the hon. Member for Newham, South knows, the sixth directive, which was adopted by the Labour Government in 1977, does not permit the adoption of new zero rates, although I understand that the hon. Member for Wrexham may have been alluding to the possibility of a banded system. In the next few months, no doubt, we shall discover whether the Labour party favours banded rates.
The hon. Member for Wrexham inquired whether unanimity is required for decisions on statistics. The answer is that only a majority decision is necessary.
The hon. Member for Wrexham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North were concerned about aspects of the statistics proposals, particularly how they will affect intra-EEC trade statistics after 1992. This data is necessary for the measurement of gross national product and for macro-economic management. The Government will remain responsible for their own macro-economic management after 1992, so it is vital to continue to collect comprehensive trade data. Estimates of GNP must be as reliable as possible because a substantial part of the Community budget contribution is based on it. Those estimates will be important in monitoring the effect on the United Kingdom economy of the completion of the single market, and they will continue to provide an essential tool for many United Kingdom businesses competing in the new single market.
The hon. Member for Wrexham queried the target rates for excise. Under the Commission's proposals for the approximation of excise duty rates, member states will be required to apply a minimum rate from 1 January 1993, and those below the target rates will be required to move towards them afterwards. For member states whose rates are already above the target rates, the proposals would impose a standstill. The proposal provides for a review of target rates every two years, but the details under which
752
the review would be carried out have yet to be decided. We remain opposed to that and to any proposal for centrally imposed tax approximation that is not necessary for the completion of the single market.
Dr. Marek: The Minister said that the proposals would impose a standstill on rates levied by a member state. Does he mean a standstill in real terms, in cash terms or as a fraction of the rates over the target rate? It is not clear which possibility the Commission has in mind. I hope that it is not a standstill in cash terms, which would be completely unacceptable.
Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly legitimate point. I do not have a an answer readily to hand, and if I may I shall write to him.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and others identified the risks of fraud in the Community following the proposals that will be introduced on 1 January 1992. Primarily, anti-fraud control will use existing audit-based techniques, centred on commercial documentation and traders' records. Our domestic VAT control system is based on audit-type controls of traders' normal commercial and accounting records, on risk assessment and on a low level of random checks. Our experience of this method of control gives us confidence that such a system would effectively control fraud after 1992. In 1989–90, control visits by Customs and Excise yielded more than £1 billion in additional tax revenue. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was kind enough to refer to the success of Customs and Excise, and his generous remarks will be much appreciated by those who work for it.
The hon. Members for Newham, South and for Wrexham were worried about whether the Government would change their policy on zero rates. I have already alluded to the fact that we have no intention of doing so, but for the purpose of this debate I shall reaffirm our position. We have made specific pledges to the electorate to retain zero rating on food, domestic fuel, power, children's clothes and footwear, all of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Newham, South. We neither wish nor intend to go back on any of those pledges.
Apart from those specific pledges, which were made in exceptional circumstances—the hon. Member for Newham, South reminded us of the general election—no specific pledges have been made that would restrict the freedom of action of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to limit the freedom of the Chancellor in such matters.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery emphasised his personal interest in charities. I think that he was asking whether we can give a commitment to a zero rating system for charities, and several hon. Members have tried in the past to persuade us to do that. We are anxious to secure the right conditions for charities to flourish in the single market, but we are concerned to defend all existing rates, not just those of benefit to charities.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery knows, charities benefit not only from VAT reliefs on some of their more specialised purchases but from general zero rating of most food, new construction and fuel and power supply for their non-business activities. The Government have made several changes in the taxation of charities in recent years, which must have been helpful to

753
them. The charitable organisations with which I come into contact are only too happy to recognise that we have come a long way during the past few years, and it would greatly surprise me if we did not make further progress during the next decade.
The hon. Member for Newham, South asked me about revenue loss on proposed target rates for alcohol. The estimated loss, according to Customs and Excise, is £2,830 million; he was right in his assessment. He is also right to say that the overall cost of the excise proposals is £3,165 million.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned that the Commission had proposed to reduce the number of zero-rated items subject to conditions. He mentioned that not only during his speech but in an intervention, suggesting that a distortion of competition would result. He quoted the Commission's proposal accurately, but the Government do not accept it. However, it was an advance on the previous proposals, which did not accept the retention of any zero rates. On a number of occasions the Government have made it clear—in the House and, most notably, in Brussels—that they are not prepared to accept a loss of ability to zero rate.
This has been a very helpful debate in the lead-up to next Monday's ECOFIN. It has been a longer debate than usual; we have been here for two and a half hours instead of the one and a half hours that we are usually given to discuss such issues after 10 pm.
I end as I began, by agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North and the hon. Member for Newham, South that, whenever possible, important issues of this nature should be raised in the House so that hon. Members have an opportunity of airing their views, however technical the proposals are supposed to be. I reiterate my sincere hope that the new system developed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) will assist us, making our deliberations far more efficient in matters European than they have been in the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6762/89 on approximation of indirect taxes, 9775/89 on excise duty rates, 9776/89 on taxes on cigarettes and manufactured tobacco, 9777/89 on excise duties on mineral oils, 9778/89 on excise duties on alcoholic beverages, 6641/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by H M Customs and Excise on 12th November 1990 on supplementing the common system of value-added tax, 6642/90 on administrative co-operation in the field of indirect taxation, 6725/90 and 8801/90 on statistics relating to trading of goods between Member States, COM(90) 430 on the general excise regime, COM(90) 431 on general arrangements for the movement of products subject to excise duty, COM(90) 432 on harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcoholic beverages, COM(90) 433 on taxes other than turnover taxes levied on manufactured tobacco and COM(90) 434 on structures of excise duties on mineral oils; and supports the Government's view that the technical proposals can form the basis of a single market without fiscal frontiers that is effective against fraud and provides the statistics needed by Government to control its economic policies while minimising the burdens on business, particularly for the smaller traders; and recognises the need for early progress on these proposals, separate from those on indirect tax rates on which decisions need not be reached before 31st December 1991.

Fisheries and Aquaculture
6.42 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary of State to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8317/90 on technical measures for the conservation of fishing resources and 8240/90 on measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector; and supports the Government's view that changes in existing technical conservation measures are needed to improve the conservation of fish stocks and that these should achieve a balance between conservation and maintaining a viable fishing industry, the Government's recognition of the need to match Community fishing capacity with available fisheries resources, and the principle of strengthening the structural measures to reduce fleet size, provided that such measures can offer value for money.
The motion refers specifically to two proposals from the European Community, which are fairly narrow in scope. They concern the new-structures proposals, and specifically the proposals on technical conservation. The latter are of particular importance, as they affect the whole way in which fishing fleets operate. However, I shall confine myself to minute detail, because that is where the effect of the proposals will lie.
In fisheries, the status quo is simply not sustainable. We are seeing damage to the stocks, low spawning stocks and an unacceptable level of discards. In recent trials in the Heather Sprigg, for every 10 fish landed above the minimum landing size some 12 were below that minimum and had to be discarded. The problem must be tackled by Community action, and we shall discuss the proposals at a meeting of the Council of Ministers on Tuesday. When I attend that meeting, I shall have two objectives: first to conserve fish, and secondly to conserve the livelihoods of fishermen.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: At that meeting, will my hon. Friend ensure that the concerns of east-coast Canadian fishermen are taken into account? They are concerned about the activities of Spanish and Portuguese fishermen who are operating off the coast of the Grand Banks—outside the territorial waters, but nevertheless in the area concerned—and causing problems for Canadian fishermen who make their livelihood obeying the quota arrangements from the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation.
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is attempting to lead me about 3,000 miles adrift. He is referring to the problems in NWAFO area off the Canadian coast, which will be discussed as part of the negotiations concerning TACs and quotas on which we will embark in December. However, I have met the Canadian Minister twice to discuss technical conservation. I know that he is in touch with Brussels, and that recently relations have improved somewhat.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we are attentive to the problems. As he said, the causes are related to the exclusion of Spanish and Portuguese vessels from the major Community-controlled waters because of their late entry into the Community.
As I have said, there are two objectives: to conserve fish, and to maintain the livelihood of fishermen. It is fairly easy to achieve one at the expense of the other. It is relatively simple to conserve fish by having nets so large

755
that the fishermen are driven out of business entirely. In the short term we could conserve the livelihoods of fishermen by enabling them to fish at will, but they would then run out of fish and their livelihoods would disappear in any event. It is important to keep a balance.
The steps discussed in the negotiations may not be dramatic in themselves, but their cumulative effect is to deliver a significant conservation payload. The practical steps must have the fundamental aim of improving the selectivity of the gear. It is a great mistake to believe that there is one glorious grand design or idea to solve all our problems. In a multi-species fishery, that just is not the case. We must avoid the temptation to think, "Here is the Holy Grail to solve our fisheries problems." Even if we solve the haddock problem, for instance, we may then find that another species is at risk.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that—especially in the North sea—there are problems with the size of fish because of the different water temperatures? Moving to 120 mm nets will kill off many white fisheries, especially in the areas that I represent.
Mr. Curry: I shall be referring to that shortly, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with what I have to say.
The requirements of cod, haddock and whiting—the principal species sought by Scottish fishermen—are not the same. Conservation efforts devoted to one species could result in different consequences for another.
Let me briefly outline the Commission's proposal. It is proposing a mesh size of 120 mm for the traditional diamond-shaped net, to operate in the North sea and the northern part of the west of Scotland. The whole top half of that area should have the square mesh, but the Commission would permit the continued use of the diamond-shaped 90 mm nets if they could guarantee a 50 per cent. whiting catch. In those circumstances, there would be no minimum landing size for whiting. The Commission's proposal also deals with the geometry of the cod end and proposes that fishermen should carry a single net.
Parts of the proposal are constructive, because they draw on experiments and proposals from the United Kingdom. Square mesh has been developed and given trials in the United Kingdom, especially off the north-east coast of England and in Scottish waters.
I am willing to credit the Commissioner with constructive intentions. In negotiations, it is sensible to assume good rather than bad will at the beginning. However, I must make it clear that the proposal as it stands is unacceptable to us, and I am fairly confident that most of my colleagues in the Council would say the same. I have done a great deal of leg work meeting other Fisheries Ministers here before the meeting, and I am fairly confident that there will be very little support for the proposal—although I am not sure what the Luxembourg position is on mesh size.
Our reservations are not limited to the proposals on mesh sizes. We do not think that a specific whiting fishery of the kind implied in the proposals will be possible. With that sort of fishery, there would be a massive level of discard of stock other than whiting—notably, it would
756
mop up a great deal of small haddock, consequently promoting the industrial fishery. The Government's firm policy is that more and more fish should go into the human consumption fishery.
One of the most notable changes over the past few years has been that species that were once given to the cat or went into industrial use are increasingly going into a high-value human consumption fishery—the horse mackerel being a species in point.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister accept that the whiting proposals might not just promote the industrial fishery? Given the interests of certain Fisheries Ministers in the European Community, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the intention might be to promote the industrial fishery? Will the Minister say clearly that it is not acceptable for 1 million tonnes of pout, small fish and sand eels in the North sea to go into the industrial fishery when the haddock quota is down to under 40,000 tonnes? Will the hon. Gentleman say clearly that he will come forward with further measures to clamp down on the industrial fishery, as opposed to allowing such measures as we have before us, which would promote it?
Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that we do not believe that an industrial purpose is the best destiny for fish. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman reads Fishing News. Today's edition contains an interview with the Danish Fisheries Minister in which he said that he has a good relationship with me. That is true and I am delighted to acknowledge that. The Minister said that we do not see eye to eye on industrial fisheries. Those words came out of his own mouth.
Mr. Neville Trotter: Is there ever debate on the subject of industrial fishing on its own, or is it always lost in the fish trading that goes on in Brussels? It never seems to be put to the Commission as an individual issue.
Mr. Curry: It tends to be absorbed into the general debate on total allowable catches and quotas, which we have in the marathon session in December. We defend vital interests in that debate—for example, mackerel flexibility is of particular importance to the Scottish fleet. The klondiking operation is closely linked to that in Scotland. There is currently some debate in Scotland about that operation. This matter happens to be of particular importance to the Danes. A balance and a bargain must be struck. That does not alter the fact that we constantly make it clear that we are not supporters of the concept of an industrial fishery, but I have to recognise that my Danish colleague has an interest which he is pursuing.
The Commission's proposals are not acceptable. We have tried them. We do not just make a theoretical statement. Boats have been rigged to tow that net and have been compared with boats with a conventional net. The boats end up without many fish in the net. It will not work. The system is not practical. We have explained that to the Commissioner. We have sent him and just about everyone else videos with commentary. To give him credit, in starting this debate by putting forward fairly radical proposals, his intention was to pull other Ministers along with him so that they recognised that something had to be done. That is a legitimate purpose. We have made clear the

757
changes that we want and said that this is simply a bridge too far in terms of protecting the livelihoods of fishermen and that it does not necessarily deliver on conservation either.
What is the essence of these proposals? What do we want out of the negotiations? As I said, the key is selectivity. The aim is to stop the mesh closing. To use an old analogy, diamond-shaped mesh is like a string bag containing a 31b bag of self-raising flour—the more weight in the bag, the more the mesh closes.
What can be done? We are considering the option of rigging part of the net with square mesh, but even the square mesh is not the answer to a maiden's prayer in terms of all conservation. For example, it is not necessarily a great help in catching cod, although it is of significant help in catching haddock. The United Kingdom has 46 per cent. of the Community cod quota and 78 per cent. of the Community haddock quota, so we have a major interest in these matters. There is a clear conservation dividend in getting 80 mm square net. That is less than for the diamond shape. We must be careful that we do not assume that experiments are categorical in every respect. But they give clear evidence that there is a pay-off.
Mr. James Wallace: No doubt, as an ardent reader of Fishing News, the Minister will have seen the comments in last week's edition by Mr. George Traves, the president of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. He suggested that experimentation on the square nets was not getting support from the top. He specifically mentioned the lack of co-ordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Sea Fish Industry Authority on the square net experiments. Has the Minister any comment to make on that allegation?
Mr. Curry: At the very moment I noticed the article in Fishing News, I was sitting across the table from Mr. George Traves and representatives of the NFFO. I found it slightly bizarre that he had apparently said to Fishing News that we never talked to the NFFO and that it did not know what was happening, when the date of our meeting had already been fixed. We are in constant communication with the NFFO. I met its representatives last Friday. Just for the record, so that we have no difficulties in Anglo-Scottish questions, may I say that this morning I met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Aberdeen and had an extremely constructive and friendly meeting in which we achieved a large measure of understanding.
Mr. Wallace: But we have spoken to them.
Mr. Curry: I think that I met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation more recently.
We wish to limit the meshes in the cod end to ease a problem of escape and to prevent the ballooning effect. We believe that certain attachments should be banned, notably, topside chafers. I am trying to use parliamentary language to describe "topside chafers" because it has a slightly titillating feeling about it. It is an outer net which goes over the cod end to protect it. It is more prosaic than one would imagine at first glance. We should also like a ban on lifting straps except in nephrops fisheries.
There is a difficult choice to make on mesh sizes. I put it clearly before the fishermen's organisations. I did not try
758
to pretend that the choice would be anything other than difficult. We know that the 90 mm mesh which exists now is wasteful. I have said that the status quo is unsustainable. I do not think that anyone disagrees—the fishermen do not. It is clear that an 80 mm square panel appears to cut discard by 10 to 14 per cent. in experiments, but there are some signs that the level might be higher. Clearly, there is a dividend from this. If we have 90 mm square mesh, we get a much bigger saving of about 40 per cent. on haddock discards, but then there is whiting loss. If whiting escape, there is a problem with predation on other fish.
That all rests on science that is 10 years out of date. We need to look hard to see whether that is true. A new programme is coming up next year to consider it. At the moment, it is generally thought that whiting pose a predatory problem, but we must bring ourselves up to date on the behaviour of a multi-species fishery. If we have the 100 mm diamond shape, the haddock discards are cut, but there is a big whiting problem.
There are clear benefits from those proposals, but we must carry the fishermen with us. I do not want us to try to do things that appear to be unreasonable and the fishermen to say that they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a goat. I do not want them to have an incentive not to make conservation work rather than try to make it work. That is the purpose behind this step-by-step approach. We need action. We believe that there is a big year class of haddock in 1990. In summer next year, we will have to protect the survivors of that class so that they can go into spawning stock and provide the fishing resources for future years. We do not want them to be hammered, particularly if it turns out to be a very promising class.
The other set of proposals relates to structures. I shall go through them relatively quickly. If hon. Members want specific details on grant levels, I shall undertake to supply them rather than detain the House unnecessarily. The Commission wishes to extend the modernisation grants and new vessel construction grants in the small fisheries to boats under 9 m in length. In the United Kingdom, that represents about 55 per cent. of our registered vesseles, but only 1 per cent. of our tonnage. I am sure that the House will understand why I have some hesitations about the programme when I say that 80 per cent. of the combined Spanish, French, Greek and Portuguese fleet is under 9 m. There is a danger of going into a bottomless pit of expenditure and engineering an increased pressure on stock while, in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, the problem is pressure on the stock.
Increased aid will be proposed for joint ventures. There will be payment of a proportion of the cost on a contract basis so that Community fishermen can exploit third-country stocks for landing in the Community market. There are redeployment proposals to encourage boats to fish outside Community waters. There are joint ventures which will permit the transfer of boats into other waters and there is a decommissioning proposal which would increase the rate according to the age and size of the vessel. By and large, the rates would go up by about 20 per cent. and there would be a 70 per cent. Community contribution below the 12 m level.
Mr. Salmond rose——
Mr. Curry: I should have been disappointed if the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had not risen to his feet at this point.
Mr. Salmond: The last few words of the motion are:
"and the principle of strengthening structural measures to reduce fleet size, provided that such measures can offer value for money".
I and, I suspect, other hon. Members had substantial hopes that the Minister was about to recant the ridiculous policy of opposition to decommissioning. If not, what benefit would it be to Scottish, English or Northern Irish fishermen to have an increase in the grant to 70 per cent. when they are not entitled to any take-up because of the Government's hostility to a measure that is part of the fisheries policy of every country in the Community with the sole exception of southern Ireland?
Mr. Curry: The only problem with the hon. Gentleman's thesis is that at present, only four countries qualify for Community grant on the ground that they have met their multi-annual guidance programme targets. All the other countries have failed to meet their targets and do not qualify for grants, so the idea that the rest of the Community is a pack of people who are redolent of virtue while we are sinners is a misrepresentation of the position. The motion shows that we attach particular importance to value for money—the hon. Gentleman would have been disappointed if I had not repeated that phrase—and we still do not believe that this scheme offers value for money. The position has not changed. Hon. Members may raise the matter as much as they like this evening, but they will not get a different answer.
Mr. Wallace: Following the meeting between the fishermen's leaders, and the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the Conservative party conference, there were suggestions in the fishing press that the door was not as tightly shut as it had been. Can the Minister enlighten the House on what gave rise to such expectation? Does he have any proposals that would allow "value for money"? Clearly, that is the Government's objective. How does the Minister think that they will achieve it?
Mr. Curry: It is true that there was a delegation of some members of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation at the Conservative party conference at Bournemouth. The delegation met me and my right hon. Friend and we discussed the problems facing the fishing industry. I met members of the federation again this morning, when they raised their concerns again—no doubt in the same terms—and I told them that there was some suggestion that the Commission was considering a voluntary scheme. They asked what our reaction would be and I said that we should have to wait to see what the scheme was.
We always listen to proposals. As one would imagine, with my right hon. Friend as Minister, we are very ecumenical. However, we have still not been persuaded that a decommissioning scheme would give value for money. The Government's position has not changed at the margins of any conference.
We are seeking to keep expenditure within agreed ceilings. The Commission has provided a fiche that sets out the costs of proposed new measures in 1991 and shows that the ceiling on expenditure set in 1986 should not be exceeded provided that no changes are made to the proposals. We will watch the situation closely, as some member states are seeking to increase the already generous rates of grant and the estimates of costs for successive
760
years have not been provided. We are requesting that they should be drawn up so that our future commitments to the budget are clear.
I must remind the House that, although the Community may put forward 70 per cent. of the cost, much of that 70 per cent. is United Kingdom finance because of the operation of the Fontainebleau mechanism. To assume that this is largely Community money is wrong; it is largely British money no matter what flag it carries when it comes into the country.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister has made clear his position and that of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is it his impression that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is equally unpersuaded about the merits of the decomissioning scheme?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that my noble Friend who has responsibility for Scottish fisheries accompanied me at all my meetings this morning.
Mr. Salmond: That is Lord Strathclyde.
Mr. Curry: I am aware of his name and I know his first name as well. We had a good meeting and he did not dissent from my propositions. There is no difference between the positions of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on this matter. There is certainly no difference between us on any of the proposals that are our subject for debate tonight.
Sir Michael Shaw: I understand that we have to make a contribution. However, under the Fontainebleau arrangement, is not there a kick-back by way of taxation benefiting the Treasury which would largely alleviate this?
Mr. Curry: There are rebates to the United Kingdom once expenditure goes beyond certain limits. However, if there is a net inflow of new funds into the United Kingdom, the rebate itself is rebated—that is, diminished by the same amount. In other words, the flow of funds to the United Kingdom abates the rebate. It is a complicated matter, so I took the precaution of boning up on it before I came here in case one of my hon. Friends asked me such a question. If my hon. Friend the Paymaster General were still here, he would confirm my answer.
Mr. Trotter: Are not we, in effect, contributing to the grants that go to other countries through Brussels?
Mr. Curry: Broadly speaking, the United Kingdom pays 20 per cent. of the Community budget, so there is 20 per cent. of British money in these grants. Similarly, whatever proportion is paid by other countries is reflected in any money that comes to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: That means that we are contributing to the modernisation of the fleets in the four countries that the Minister mentioned, which come here to catch our stocks. It is useful to know that.
The Minister did not answer the point made by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) who asked whether there was a return to the Government in the taxation of the grants that are paid out under a decommissioning scheme. That would lessen the British contribution.
Mr. Curry: The answer to the second question is no. The answer to the first is that the United Kingdom is not subsidising other people to catch our fish, because there is no competition in fisheries. We have divided up the Community waters. There is a British zone and British fish, and British licensed vessels are the only vessels that are permitted to take that fish. The Dutch cannot, for example, put on a brand-new beamer and fish in United Kingdom waters unless they have a specific agreement that gives them access and unless a licence appertains to it.
During my introductory speech, we have already had a mini-debate. The proposals that we intend to pursue in Brussels are realistic and sensible and take a practical approach. The fact that each may not be dramatic in itself does not alter the fact that the conservation that they will deliver is significant and worth while. It is a step which our fishermen would endorse, welcome and implement. Once those proposals prove to be a success, we may then wish to take further steps. Consensus and collaboration with the industry form part of the way forward, but the Marin proposals do not give us that basis. In very difficult negotiations, our proposals will seek to attain that basis, so I ask for the support of the House for our proposals.
7.8 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I welcome many of the Minister's comments about the aspects of the regulations that are causing concern to our fishermen. To emphasise the urgency of the need to act, I quote from the explanatory memorandum to the EC proposal:
"In its report of 30 May … the high-level working party found that the conservation of fishery resources, particularly the North Sea, is inadequate and that the long-term advantages of satisfactory conservation of stocks is not guaranteed. For almost all the stocks for which analytical assessments are available, fishing of the stocks has increased, the biomass has decreased and the percentage of juveniles in the catches has increased. The situation of cod and haddock in the North Sea is particularly disturbing and urgent."
It is against that background that we must consider the proposals concerning the conservation of fish stocks and the technical measures that are required to make progress.
There is concern that the total allowable catch figures are not working to preserve fish stocks and I am informed that at present scientists cannot set a TAC for North sea stocks. Whatever happens in the coming round, I suspect that pressure will be brought to bear for a further reduction—on top of the disastrous reductions that took place this year.
Mr. Curry: I will give the hon. Gentleman some information on that to help our debate. The advisory committee on fisheries management has declined to recommend TACs and quotas and has suggested a method of effort reduction. We wish to have that translated into the form of TACs and quotas. The Commission agrees and has therefore suggested quota levels in the context of the Norwegian negotiations, which are the preliminary to negotiations within the Community. As yet, however, there are no Commission proposals as such for us to consider. What the hon. Gentleman says is right, but I thought that it would help the House if I clarified the point.
Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Whatever comes out of the agreement, I suspect that it will bring pressure for still further
762
reductions in catches, which in turn will place further pressure on our fishing fleet. That emphasises the need for positive help.
I welcome the Minister's remarks about the proposal for a mesh size of 120 mm. There is no doubt that that would be to the advantage of the fishery in terms of conservation. The question is whether the fishery could stand the financial loss that it would face while the stocks recovered. I know that the Commission is doing its best in terms of conservation, but the 120 mm mesh size is not acceptable, and I am pleased to hear that the Minister will be arguing for a compromise agreement when he meets the Commission.
I accept what the Minister says about square mesh panels, for which there is considerable enthusiasm among fishermen. The research pioneered in this country appears to have been very successful. I am concerned that the Commission does not seem to have given enough thought to the exact location of those panels within the net structure in the light of continuing research. I hope that such matters will be brought before the Commission. Gill clogging can be a problem. Moreover, I understand that there has been no research into the effectiveness of square mesh panels in the Irish sea, in sector 7. There is also concern about the selectivity of square mesh panels, with cod in particular, although we know that it works with haddock and whiting which tend to go up into the cod end.
I share the concern that has been expressed about the EC's attitude to whiting. I am suspicious about why it is being argued that the mesh size can be smaller for whiting and that no minimum size for landing can be justified. In a letter in this week's Fishing News, a fisherman wrote that, in all his years of gutting fish, he had rarely come across juvenile cod and haddock in the stomachs of whiting. He argued that whiting prey mainly on fish other than the high-value fish stocks. There is a suspicion that the inclusion of whiting is to the advantage of the industrial fishing nations.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments about industrial fishing. The time has come to tackle the issue head-on. With fish stocks declining, and given the pressure on our marine ecology, large-scale industrial fishing for use in fertilisers and animal feed can no longer be justified where alternatives are available. I hope that the Commission will give more thought to the waste which occurs in the gutting of fish. I note that the American fleets now have fishmeal factories at sea, so rather than being thrown over the side and wasted, the guts can be collected and processed at sea, thus maximising fishmeal resources and reducing the need for industrial fishing on its scale currently occurring in the North sea. The Commission has not tackled the problem seriously enough. I hope that the Minister will open a debate on the issue, because if fleets are to be restructured, serious consideration should be given to a major restructuring of Britain's industrial fishing fleets.
I welcome the proposal to consider the closure of spawning and other sensitive areas. Not enough has been done about that. Regional fishermen are well aware of areas in their coastal patches that it would be advantageous to close at certain times of the year. I know that that is already done with some species and in some grounds, but I should like an extension of the practice based on scientific fact. The regional fishermen should be involved and we should seek their advice and draw on their expertise in deciding where closures should take place.

763
I digress slightly, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I should like the Minister to consider the development of a total coastal zone planning policy so that we may identify the sensitive areas and control disturbances caused by dredging and industrial output as part of an overall plan for the management of our fisheries. I emphasise that there is a role for the fishermen, who could be involved on a regional basis and could identify the areas where——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the narrow debate on the documents. I am sure that he will come back to them.
Mr. Morley: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker; I shall certainly come back to the strait and narrow, but we are discussing conservation measures and EC proposals and I merely seek to make some proposals of which I am sure the Minister is taking note and which he could put before the Council of Ministers and the EC for their consideration.
I can see the logic of the one-net rule in terms of stopping abuse, but it will cause problems for some fisheries where nephrops are fished as well as white fish and where more than one net is carried. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the problem of enforcement.
One cannot separate technical and conservation measures from structures and I think that the Minister recognises that there is still a problem of capacity in terms of the pressure on our fish stocks. That brings me to a point that has already been raised: given that funding is available for a decommissioning scheme, why does the Minister continue to reject the suggestion?
We have been through these arguments before, but on my travels around the country I have talked to many fishermen—to the harbour commissioners in Bridlington, as well as to those in the small ports in the south of England and to those in the larger ports on Humberside—and I know that the whole industry is asking for a proper decommissioning scheme to help it to meet the problems that it faces. The 70 per cent. funding of a decommissioning scheme is now proposed; Governments have only to find 30 per cent. of the cost. As it is, we are paying into a pool to help restructure other countries' fleets but we are to receive no benefit at all.
The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) referred to the Fontainebleau agreement. I stand to be corrected, but I understand that any expenditure that the Government put into the scheme can be recovered through capital gains tax, payable for those in receipt of decommissioning grants.
Even the small proportion that the Government would have to find to make the scheme work could thus in some part be clawed back through taxation, so we are talking about an even smaller proportion of finance than the 30 per cent. in the scheme. Given that fact, how can the Minister continue to argue that decommissioning is not the answer? He has admitted in earlier debates that it is not beyond the capabilities of his Ministry to come forward with a cost-effective and workable decommissioning scheme. If he accepts that he has the expertise to meet the criteria for decommissioning and to recognise the faults
764
which occurred in earlier decommissioning schemes, there is no reason why a coherent scheme cannot be introduced to help the industry.
Some of the EC's proposals are meant for modernisation and construction, as well as for decommissioning. While we have such overcapacity, why is the Commission still devoting resources to modernisation and construction? Surely the priority, should be decommissioning. Given that priority which the Commission recognises even if the Government do not, I do not see why more money should not be devoted to decommissioning so as to move towards a 100 per cent. scheme. If necessary, that could be achieved by reducing the money available for modernisation. The Government have not yet met the targets in line with the multi-annual guidance programme, because the measures that have been brought forward so far are not adequately reducing the effort of our fishing fleet. That underlines the need for a decommissioning scheme.
I noted the Minister's comments on joint ventures and there are proposals to give those ventures more assistance. However, there are also proposals to remove from EC waters some of the ships taking part in joint ventures, and compensation is being made available for that. Would that have an effect on preferential trade agreements which have been built up with third countries? I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
I understood the Minister's point about the Canadian problem and the fact that as a result, in particular, of Spanish over-fishing due to the EC's failure to agree quotas with the North Atlantic Fishing Organisation, United Kingdom vessels are prohibited from operating within the Canadian 200-mile limit or from landing at Canadian ports. If we are looking for new waters and new species to exploit, those issues must be resolved.
Does the Minister share the concern of organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations about differentiation between the ages of vessels and their respective tonnages? While the logic of the calculations is not disputed, that logic does not seem to apply to the multi-annual guidance programme. There should surely be a correlation in terms of the calculations.
Does the Minister accept that there is a danger in the regional approach as outlined in his proposals, particularly if East Germany is included as a preferential region, with all the expense to which that might commit the EC as part of its own very large fleet? I am also concerned about the exclusion from the Minister's proposals of cessation grants for retiring fishermen. I accept that one of the criticisms of previous decommissioning schemes in this country is that most of the money went to a few owners of vessels. If we are taking vessels out of our fishing effort, there must be some compensation for the crews.
Will the Minister comment on recent tribunal cases, which have found that former Hull and Grimsby fishermen who lost their jobs following the cod wars were actually redundant and were not part of the classification of casual labour?
Mr. Curry: To clarify the point about grants for fishermen who, as it were, go out with their vessels, the Commission withdrew those proposals after legal advice, on the grounds that it was not an appropriate part of the FEOGA funding operation. The Commission said that, if that point was pursued, it had to be pursued in the context

765
of the social fund. We need not have an argument across the Dispatch Box about that, because the Commission took the initiative to withdraw it on legal advice.
Mr. Morley: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of why the proposal was withdrawn. People were very concerned about that. The issue can be pursued in other venues and under different budget headings. I want to pay tribute to people like my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) who have been involved in the campaign for redundancy for our fishermen. I hope that the Minister will join me in pressing the Department of Employment to settle in full the outstanding claims of those fishermen who lost their livelihoods as a result of the fishing grounds that were lost following the cod wars.
I am a keen supporter of the aquaculture sector of the industry and I am keen to see it grow. I accept that care needs to be taken in terms of financial support because there is considerable overcapacity of certain species, particularly of salmon. Careful thought must be given to the effect of encouraging more capacity in areas where the price is falling because of the problems not only of this country but of third countries entering the market.
Will the Minister consider the fact that some countries, particularly Spain, have said that they see aquaculture as a future way of reducing efforts and the role and size of their fishing fleets? They see it as a way of providing compensatory employment. That is a welcome step forward for restructuring employment, but should not support for aquaculture be linked with a reduction in fleet capacity for the countries applying for that support? A new industry can be encouraged and that can be linked with the contraction of an industry which has a problem with overcapacity.
Will the Minister consider safety support for our ships and support grant aid for proper clothing and equipment, particularly for flotation suits? I stand to be corrected if such equipment is already eligible for grant aid. The Minister will be aware that a company in this country called Mullion has a considerable market in flotation suits. Those suits allow fishermen to work on deck. They do not restrict them and they offer considerable protection should a fisherman fall overboard. Not only are they flotation suits, but they allow air to be trapped inside the suit to protect the fisherman from the cold northern seas.
I must confess that those suits are made in my constituency, so it is only reasonable that I should declare an interest in the matter. It seems ironic that Canadian fishing boat owners are buying those suits in large quantities to protect their crews, while in this country, where the suits are made, they are rarely to be found on the decks of our boats.
The whole issue of reduced effort is linked with conservation measures and a proper and effective decommissioning scheme. We have all heard the arguments against the decommissioning scheme and about the weaknesses of earlier schemes. However, it is not adequate simply to judge decommissioning schemes on what happened in the past and on their faults and weaknesses. We can structure a scheme in this country which will meet the needs of our fishing fleets and provide a sensible, structured and careful reduction in effort in a way which will assist our fishermen and ensure that they do not suffer as a result of the restructuring which must take place.
766
I do not believe that the Government have given enough thought to that. They have not been serious about it. When 70 per cent. of the cost is to be met by EC funds into which we are paying, our fishing fleets have a right to expect a proper decommissioning scheme, and the British taxpayer is entitled to know that the money that we are paying into schemes is redistributed to the people in our country who need that help and support.
7.28 pm
Mr. David Harris: I suspect that the House might have been puzzled by the intervention at the beginning of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who has now left the Chamber, on behalf of the Canadian fishing industry. As far as I know, Hereford is not one of our main fishing ports. The explanation is simple. Yesterday, six Canadian parliamentarians came here to see hon. Members on both sides of the House who have an interest in fishing to complain about the situation in Canada. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford is an officer in the body that links this place with the Canadian Parliament, and that was his interest. What interested me about their remarks was the similarity of the problem faced by those of us who represent fishing constituencies in the United Kingdom and that faced by the Canadians—the old problem of overcapacity in fleets chasing limited fish stocks.
There are other aspects of the problem with which we are also familiar. They spoke mainly against the Spanish fishermen and about the misreporting of catches on a big scale. I do not want to upset what I think will be a harmonious debate, at least on the Back Benches, but I have to say that I am receiving still more complaints about misreporting of catches from Scottish fishermen who are allegedly catching fish in the North sea and then counting them against the quotas for the south-west of England.
This cheating is to the detriment of fishermen in the south-west, in two ways. It exhausts the quotas for that part of the world quickly and leads to Scots fishermen building up a considerable track record of catching in those waters. That historical track record will be of great importance in the years to come. However, I do not want to say too much about that.
Mr. Wallace: Given the tenor of those remarks, is it not a pity that there is not present a single Conservative Member representing a Scottish constituency, whether or not it is a fishing one, to give us some information?
Mr. Harris: I look to the hon. Gentleman to give: us information and to contradict, if he dares, what I have said.
Mr. Calum MacDonald: I support what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but will he be a little more specific? The fishermen about whom he is talking are generally from the east coast of Scotland. I have the same complaint from my fishermen as the hon. Gentleman gets from his fishermen, only about east-coast fishermen fishing in west-coast waters.
Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in the House before and, although I do not claim to be an expert on the position in his part of the country, I suspect that there is a grain of truth in what he has said.

767
I happened to receive today a letter from Mr. Michael Townsend, the chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. He maintains:
"Most species have a certain amount of misreporting this year but the real concern is for the area VII Haddock, which I assess, and no one disagrees with me, at 340 tons out of the annual quota of 600 tons, i.e. 56 per cent. misreporting."
If that is the situation, and I am sure that he is right, it is serious, not just for this year but for future years when the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation will take up its sectoral allocations.
Although I do not expect a detailed reply from my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter, he knows my concern about it, as I have had meetings with him. I ask him to look at the situation again with Ministers and officials from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland so as to get to the bottom of the problem. It cannot go on as it is. We often complain about fishermen of other nations cheating, but the matter becomes even more serious when, unfortunately, we have to make such allegations about fishermen from other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member is making a serious point. If misreporting is going on to the extent that he alleges, there is something seriously wrong with the enforcement of fisheries legislation. Has he any comment on that?
Mr. Harris: I agree. As it is difficult to police to perfection, we cannot have a perfect enforcement system. I acknowledge the steps that my hon. Friend the Minister has introduced, such as dealing with the reporting in of vessels. What has been suggested, in the past at any rate, is that vessels that have claimed to be fishing in the south-west have been nowhere near that area. We must have measures on that, and I know that my hon. Friend has met those points.
Mr. Curry: Let me try to lay this issue to rest, as far as possible. My hon. Friend will know that we are consulting on the proposal that, when producer organisations take a sectoral allocation in one species, they take it for all the sectors. This would get to grips with the problem of boats, owned by whomever, fishing in one sector and claiming that the catch came from somewhere else. We are looking into reporting requirements. I note his point about the track record, but I do not wish to pursue that at the moment. I am sure that he will be delighted to know that we managed to get some more cod for the Irish sea following those allegations.
Mr. Harris: I am grateful for that assurance, and I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend in handling this difficult situation.
The word that will be repeated throughout this debate is "decommissioning". My hon. Friend the Minister put up a skilful defence, as one would expect, of the Government's position, but he will find on both sides of the House a feeling that the Government will have to look again at decommissioning, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) in a fair, reasonable and thoughtful speech. I did not disagree with much in it.
We must not close our minds. We all know the difficulties that accompanied the last scheme, and I can understand the Government's reluctance to go down the
768
road of decommissioning grants again, having had a mauling by the Public Accounts Committee over the workings of that scheme. However—I say this in all friendliness—the time has come for my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the issue again. I do not see how we shall get the necessary reduction in our fleet and in our catching capacity, as I do not see how our existing policy will achieve that. I am not saying that a decommissioning scheme must be introduced, but it would be a mistake to close our minds absolutely and firmly to it.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to have studies made of variations of the scheme. If Scottish fishermen can come forward with voluntary proposals, fine. My hon. Friend should look at those, as he promised he would. I think he will find that Conservative Members—there is no collusion on this point, and I am not even expressing the view of the Conservative party Back-Bench fisheries committee, which I happen to chair—feel that we shall have to return to the subject and look at it again, without commitment. I urge that course on my hon. Friend.
7.40 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: We are debating two revisions to regulations from the European Community, one on North sea conservation schemes and the other on small-scale fisheries vessels' support schemes. The Minister might have been right to say that the debate could be described as narrow. We are debating also the motion in the names of the Prime Minister and her colleagues. It is a broad motion that covers the balance between conservation and maintaining a viable fishing industry and, secondly, the principle of strengthening structural measures to reduce fleet size.
We are told that the amending regulations will extend to Ceuta and Melilla on the African coast. Strangely enough, that part of Africa is within the European Communities. The two territories happen to be part of the national territory of Spain.
The Minister and I were colleagues for some years at Strasbourg, and he will know of my continuing interest in Gibraltar. I ask him to confirm that the fishing industry in Gibraltar will have the same support in this measure as that which is to be extended to Ceuta and Melilla.
The debate will have implications for the area which I represent, which in this context is the Irish sea. The proposed measures for the North sea, and especially the increase in mesh size from 90 mm to 120 mm, have a knock-on effect on other fishing areas, and especially in the Irish sea.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) raised an issue which is of continuing concern to us in Northern Ireland, and that is the dramatically increased landings by United Kingdom vessels in Scottish ports. The hon. Gentleman went so far as to allege that there was cheating by Scottish fishermen. I shall not go so far as to make that dreadful allegation against my kith and kin in Scotland, but I was interested that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was quick to allege that it was the fishermen of eastern Scotland who were cheating and not the western fishermen. I shall have to check that in detail.
It is interesting, however, that there is such a large Scottish fishing lobby in the Chamber this evening. I seem to be surrounded by members of it. They represent all the main political parties in Scotland.
Mr. Kennedy: There are no Scottish Tories here.
Mr. Taylor: They are not members of one of the main political parties. As the hon. Gentleman says, they are not even represented in the Chamber this evening.
What is the tremendous interest of the main political parties in Scotland? In anticipation of the debate, I submitted a written question about the damage that is being done to Scottish ports by United Kingdom vessels. I shall give some figures to support the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Ives. The Minister of State, Scottish Office answered my question—this appears in column 130 of Hansard for 13 November—and provided a table of figures. It shows that cod caught in area VIIa in June 1986 was 16 tonnes. In 1987, it was 26 tonnes, in 1988 it was 51 tonnes, in 1989 it was 42 tonnes and in 1990—guess what happened in June—it was 809 tonnes. In areas VII and VIII—this excludes area VIIa—there was no catch of cod from 1987 to 1989. Suddenly, however, in June 1990, there was a catch of 175 tonnes.
I could continue with facts and figures to substantiate the allegation which has been made by the hon. Member for St. Ives. Although one of the measures that we are being asked to amend tonight refers specifically to the North sea, there will be a domino effect on fishing opportunities in other areas.
I represent in this place the fishermen of Northern Ireland in the three fishing towns of Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel. These towns are in rural areas where there is high unemployment. The industry employs 1,600 people, half of whom are involved with the fleet. The other half is engaged in the processing industry. The rural area in which the three towns are situated earns about £20 million a year for Northern Ireland. There have been problems during the present year because of the knock-on effect of what is happening in the North sea.
Incidentally, the fishermen tell me that, although tonnage is being claimed by Scottish ports as having been found in area Vila, they have never seen the Scottish boats in that area. They can see the American nuclear submarines under the water and do all sorts of other things, but they cannot find the Scottish fishing boats that claim that they are in our sea and landing fish in Scottish ports.
The Northern Ireland fishing industry is under threat this year for numerous reasons. There is continued concern about the lack of decommissioning schemes from the Government. The Government have yielded to the demands of the Isle of Man to extend the three-mile limit to 12 miles. Now we have the problem of Scotland, the result of which is that some of the quota is taken from us and given to others.
I want the Minister to defend the rights of Northern Ireland fishermen in the context of what is happening in the North sea and at next week's session in Brussels. The Minister said in an intervention that the cod quota has been increased in the Irish sea—that is presumably in area Vila. The major threat lies in the new negotiations for total allowable catches in 1991.
I have with me the latest recommendations that I can find for the area with which I am concerned. This year, the recommended TAC for cod in the Irish sea was 15,300 tonnes. The recommendation for 1991 is a reduction to only 6,000 tonnes. The TAC for whiting this year was 15,000 tonnes and it is recommended that it be reduced to 6,400 tonnes next year. As for nephrops, the largest source of income for the Northern Ireland fishing industry and one which affects the hon. Member for Western Isles, the
770
recommendation is that the present 26,000 tonnes be reduced next year to 17,680 tonnes. Some of the reductions are dramatic. They amount to a 60 to 70 per cent. reduction on the tonnage that was allowed for this year.
I conclude with a few requests to the Minister. Please stand up once again for the Irish sea fisheries. We recognise the importance of the North sea to the entire British fishing industry, and we understand that it must be a matter of priority, but please accept that there is a domino effect which affects those who earn their living in the Irish sea. Please ensure that the recommendations from the scientists are not accepted unless there is proof that their opinion is correct. There are many doubts about the scientists' opinion of stocks in the Irish sea.
In what way will Northern Ireland be represented this year at the negotiations in Brussels? We know that an English Minister will be there. We know that the Scots will be represented. At what level will Northern Ireland be represented? Will there be a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office or, if not, will there be even a civil servant from the Northern Ireland Office? Or will Northern Ireland once again not have a voice in the room when the negotiations take place?
Mr. Curry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: The Minister can answer my questions when he replies to the debate.
I hope that Northern Ireland will be properly represented and that when we have our major debate on the recommended TACs for 1990 we shall hear from the Minister a report that the allocations for area VIIa will be similar to those for 1990.
7.50 pm
Sir Michael Shaw: I welcome this short, but none the less valuable, debate. The constructive way in which it has been conducted augurs well for future debates of this kind. When we first reached agreement in the European Community on fishing in the North sea, there was far from a community of agreement in the debates. Yet at the time I thought that the agreement reached by my right hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was a good one which provided a secure future for the fishermen of Britain, especially those in my constituency.
Alas, it has not turned out that way. The quotas have perhaps not been adhered to. Industrial fishing has made greater inroads, as the hon. Member for Glanford arid Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, than was expected when the agreement was reached. I am certain that more will have to be done about that. Certainly, inspection and control needed to be improved and, indeed, at long last they have been.
Year after year, the quotas were laid down according to the best scientific evidence. We are now faced with a more difficult situation than ever before. We face difficult times and we must do our best to help fishermen to preserve their way of living, which has often been pursued for generations—for example, in ports such as Scarborough and Whitby.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken up his task and that he has visited various fishing ports, including my own, and met the fishermen there. He got the feeling from them that they regard him as a pretty tough customer. None the less, they appreciate that he

771 understands the problem, is interested in it and is anxious to solve it fairly and squarely both at home and in the Community. The words that he addressed to us this afternoon showed that he fully appreciates the practical problems which face our industry and that in Brussels he backs the industry fully. For that I thank him on behalf of the fishermen.
I wish to make two points. First, I echo the view that the 120 mm mesh size is over the top and cannot be sustained I shall not develop that point further, because my hon. Friend the Minister did so in some detail. It is clear that he is fully apprised of the concerns and feelings of people in the industry. I know that the industry has made firm representations to him, particularly the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, with which I and probably many other hon. Members have corresponded.
My second point has already been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to which he referred. I was entirely in agreement with the conclusions that we reached in the 24th report, Session 1987–88. However, I was not in any way satisfied that we were obtaining "value for money". It is significant that those very words appear on the Order Paper this afternoon. In view of the continuing pressure from the industry and—I shall not disguise it—from my own fishermen, I feel that I should look at the matter again.
I am still doubtful that decommissioning grants are the best way. On reading the evidence again, I need some further reassurances about whether the matter merits reappraisal. On page viii of the report, in paragraph 17, we said:
"We note that member states were given options as to how the EC scheme for decommissioning grants should be applied but MAFF chose to introduce a regulatory approach with provision for the automatic payment of flat rate grants. It is clear that this was exploited by some owners and grants were paid in several instances at a level which exceeded the unlicensed value of the vessel."
The paragraph continues, but I shall not quote it all.
The next paragraph says:
"We consider that in drawing up the decommissioning scheme the agriculture departments could have made much better use of the flexibility allowed by the relevant EC directive; as a result in our view the scheme was grossly expensive for what it achieved."
In other words, we did not get value for money. We went on to note that, after MAFF had become aware of the NAO report, which, of course, was critical, it stopped giving decommissioning grants in 1987.
The scheme was intended to be flexible but the particular scheme adopted in Britain was inflexible. It worked very badly. Surely there were other ways of achieving the same objective by directing the grants to areas which were really in need, rather than spreading them over all types of boat. We wanted to bring certain boats out of service to reduce the sector.
Mr. Salmond: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but the whole point was that the decommissioning money was not spread over many boats. It went to a very few companies. As the geographical aspect has been raised several times in the debate, the hon.
772
Gentleman will remember that the decommissioning money and the companies which exploited it literally went up the Humber.
Sir Michael Shaw: In modern terms the scheme did not reach areas that were in need of decommissioning grants. That is the point that I wished to make. It is felt strongly by my fishermen. I am not yet completely satisfied that a scheme can be devised, but on reading again the strictures that we made in 1987–88 I realised that we disclosed that there were other ways of doing it. All that I ask of my hon. Friend the Minister is that he considers other ways. Is he completely satisfied that there are no other ways of achieving the real objectives which should have been achieved in the first place?
I hope that the Minister will be successful when he goes to Brussels. He knows its ways and how to turn on the charm and the hard act, the good mix which is essential in any negotiations in Brussels. I wish him Godspeed on behalf of us all and in the interests of good results for our constituents.
7.58 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I wish to make some basic points about the crisis that is developing in the North sea. The noises coming from Brussels about a 30 per cent. reduction in effort will mean that deep damage will be inflicted, not only on the British fishing industry as a whole, but specifically on the Grimsby industry which is the case that I want to make. If that prospect materialises, I hope that it will not be compounded by a deal that is unfair to Grimsby, by invoking the Hague preference on cod.
The Minister gave us a bad deal in his unfair and unreasonable decision to invoke the Hague preference on haddock and to distribute it to the north. I wrote to him at the time to oppose it. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation—or was it the Grimsby Fish Producers' Organisation—opposed it in court——
Mr. Curry: It was the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.
Mr. Mitchell: Well, I am at least half right.
When the Hague preference was invoked on haddock, the Minister promised that it would not be regarded as a precedent for cod. I want the Minister to keep to that, because it is ludicrous that——
Mr. Curry: I have made it absolutely clear that if we ever had to invoke the Hague preference again—if the quantities of haddock were greater than in the previous year, and if we were to invoke it for the new species, for example, cod—we would have to reconsider the methods of distribution. I do not give any undertakings about the conclusions that we would reach. The hon. Gentleman has asked whether we would look afresh if a new species were involved. From the answer that I have already given, I hope that I have made it clear that we will.
Mr. Mitchell: I hope that the assurance will be stronger than that. Cod is of crucial and central interest to Grimsby. The Minister can interpret the Hague preference as he wants, but surely he can see that that position is unreasonable as far as Grimsby is concerned. Grimsby is a community which is dependent on fishing and is in north Britain, yet it is regarded on his definition as being outside the boundaries of the Hague preference. In other words,

773
north Britain begins at Bridlington. That is ludicrous, because we are a community which is dependent on fishing. If we are not interpreted as such and if the Hague preference is to be invoked on cod, it will be a crime against the Grimsby fishing industry. The Minister's assurance needs to be stronger than the one that he has just given.
An allocation of North sea plaice to compensate the industry on the west coast would have a serious effect on the Grimsby industry, which needs to diversify effort into plaice to compensate for the rundown in catches in other areas.
There must be more effective control of the over-fishing by the Scottish industry to which, in my view, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has been turning a blind eye. We can argue about whether it is happening on the west coast or the east coast, but there is certainly a problem and it almost caused talks earlier this year to break down. The clipping that I have relating to that is not dated, but it states:
"English west and south west and Northern Irish interests walked out after demanding that fish allegedly caught by Scottish vessels in the North Sea and landed in Peterhead, but logged as being caught in the Irish Sea, be reinstated as area VII fish."
That is the kind of problem that we are having.
I have tabled questions about the number of prosecutions of Scottish vessels because, as far as I recall—this is only a recollection, because I do not have the answers with me—there was nothing in 1988–89 and only something pending in 1990. That is not an appropriate response to the scale of what is admitted to be a problem, and one which has a knock-on effect on Grimsby, but to which DAFS seems to be turning a blind eye. Only proper, uniform and fair enforcement of the rules could lead fishermen to obey the rules. If, as seems to be the case, they are convinced that some are getting away with infringing or fiddling the rules, there will be a general breakdown of respect for those rules. We must be assured that the rules are being enforced as vigorously in Scotland as is the case for the English industry.
That brings me to my next point, which other hon. Members have already raised, which is that we need to get proper respect for conservation by a reduction in the fishing effort. I am unhappy to say that, but it is widely accepted that there must be some reduction. The only way to achieve that is by a proper decommissioning scheme. It is the Minister's responsibility to establish a proper decommissioning scheme.
As has been said, we are in the ludicrous position of contributing to the grants that are being made available by Europe for decommissioning schemes in other countries. The result is that other industries are being modernised, partly at our expense, and can then fish energetically in the North sea, and that we are competing with them, but are unable to get the same grants. That is ludicrous. We are not getting any benefits from the scheme.
If we were to have a decommissioning scheme, 70 per cent. of it would effectively be paid by Europe and only 30 per cent. by us, so why not develop such a scheme? As the Minister said, four other countries have already done so. The fact that the Department bungled a scheme about half a dozen years ago is no argument against a new scheme. That was simply a case of maladministration. If the Department cannot administer a scheme properly, there will clearly be fiddles and a loss of money to other
774
purposes. It is the Department's responsibility to devise a scheme that will work and which can be enforced. It is riot the Department's responsibility simply to say, "This is impossible." If it is impossible here, it is impossible in other countries, but other countries are actually doing it. We need such a scheme urgently.
If the British Government contributed 30 per cent. of the cost of such a scheme, a good proportion of that would come back in tax. I do not know what the Minister was saying when he denied that any tax is involved. There is a return to the revenue from taxation involved on the scheme, so something must come back that way.
The industry is arguing that it would accept some kind of levy to help to provide some form of finance for the scheme so that it does not all have to come from the Government. A letter from the operations manager of Tom Sleight of Grimsby reveals the attitude and concern of the industry. It states:
"The lack of such a scheme places the UK Industry at a severe disadvantage with our European colleagues in that we are unable to dispose of surplus tonnage thus creating a better commercial platform for those left in the Industry. Decommissioning also creates a climate in which remaining vessels could be replaced with more efficient and safer vessels.
We wonder if there would be any mileage in Industry contributing to a decommissioning scheme say for example on a basis of a levy of one per cent. of first hand sales value. This added to the tax (balancing charges etc) that many would have to pay on decommissioning would in our view go some considerable way to meeting Government expenses".
That is the cost of the scheme. Why does the Minister not consider that proposal and open his mind to the possibility? We need a decommissioning scheme.
It is clear that if we do not reduce effort and if we do riot achieve proper conservation by a decommissioning scheme, the Commission itself will act. The 16 August edition of Eurofish Report, talking about a document provided by Mr. Marin for the European Parliament, argues that the current situation is highly unsatisfactory, and
"hints that central Community control of all the EC's fisheries activities may yet prove to be the only way to prevent Europe's marine resources from collapsing."
In other words, if we do not act, the Commission will act and matters will then be out of our hands.
It is the Minister's responsibility to strengthen the British position and to strengthen conservation measures by providing a decommissioning scheme, which is the only effective way to provide for conservation by reducing effort. It is the Minister's responsibility to help the industry to do that. It is imperative that he provides such a scheme for the industry.
A letter from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations argues that, if the Minister does not provide a scheme of his own, he should
"request that the Commission put increased priority on decommissioning aid. If the Commission are intent on reducing effort they presently have the available budget and could indeed contribute the full assistance to vessels (as opposed to retaining the requirement that the Member State provides 30 per cent of the fund)."
The NFFO notes also that the proposed budget will give 67 million ecu in contruction grants—which is certainly overgenerous given the present state of the fishing industry, which already has an overcapacity problem—but only 40 million ecu for the decommissioning scheme. That is an inappropriate portion of the funds available and needs to be substantially increased, regardless of whether it comes from the Commission or from the British

775
Government—though, I hope that it will be from the Government. Why should the industry's reshaping be left to market forces when other countries are able to develop with their fishing industries schemes that will reduce effort in a managed way and provide for proper conservation?
A number of hon. Members have mentioned mesh sizes, and the Commission is proposing a standard of 120 mm. There has been a chorus of complaints from other interests, particularly Scotland, but I have little sympathy with them. Grimsby has always been conservation conscious, having used the 120 mm mesh, it has prospered. It seems sensible to provide for conservation in that way.
Mr. Salmond: Grimsby fishes for cod. There is a big difference.
Mr. Mitchell: Of course, and that is why the Grimsby industry uses a 120 mm mesh. It is ludicrous for the Scottish industry to urge the adoption of a 90 mm standard. I quote from Fishing News for 5 October—
Mr. Salmond: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, if one is fishing for different species, particularly whiting and haddock, different mesh sizes are needed?
Mr. Mitchell: I will deal with that point. I am quoting now an argument against the case advanced by the Scottish industry for adopting a 90 mm mesh. Research by the Scottish Office showed that 90 mm diamond mesh gear caught 693 haddock above the legal minimum size, but a lot of small whiting and haddock was also caught. It quotes 864 haddock and 525 whiting. It is clear that 90 mm is not the right size to use.
There is an argument as to whether we should opt for 80 mm square mesh, on the ground that the diamond mesh pulls out of shape and therefore catches smaller fish, or for 120 mm. Grimsby is happy with that size, but there is a case for changing to 80 mm square mesh, if not to 90 mm diamond mesh.
John Ashworth's work proves the validity of that argument, and its acceptance has only been delayed by what I can only regard as official obscurantism. We must make up our minds and not leave it to vested interests in the industry. It is no use just being negative and opposing the demands of the Commission. Instead, we must present effective, researched alternatives. In that way, we can make an even bigger contribution to conservation.
The question of Spanish vessels entering the British register is not really part of tonight's debate, but the Minister's remarks on that topic were anyway inadequate. It appears that we are caught between two EEC principles—the right to establish a business in any country and the right under the common fisheries policy for coastal states to superintend their own fishing and have preferential access to their own stocks. It is ludicrous that those rights should be brought into conflict by allowing Spanish vessels to register in this country as British, and then to catch our quotas. There must be more effective ways than the Minister has provided of restricting the access and right of Spanish vessels to register, at least until the matter has been resolved by the European Court. The risk of a Spanish incursion will create problems and trouble.
Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman said, that aspect is not really for this debate, so rather than reply when I wind
776
up, I shall make a response at this point. We did not start from a zero situation in respect of quota hopping. There have been a series of court cases, and some of them have consequences for the way in which we run our management policy. With a court ruling, one cannot escape that. Therefore, when we received an approach which suggested that we might be able to arrive at an agreement, I immediately asked myself whether I could secure sensible and effective licensing conditions or whether we should proceed with the court action. After careful consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and others, I reached the conclusion that we could devise licensing conditions, which the Spanish indicated they could accept.
However, that does not affect the Factortame case in the European Court, where the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 has come under some scrutiny. Neither does it affect the requirement for those vessels to register—and to do that, they must fulfil the existing conditions of direction, management and control in the United Kingdom. I understand the hon. Gentleman's disquiet, but I would not have reached the arrangement had I not been convinced that it offered British fishermen a satisfactory outcome and an advance on what we might otherwise have achieved.
Mr. Mitchell: I am glad to hear that the European Court case is still being pursued, and it would be wrong to abandon it. However, I am concerned that the Minister has reached agreement with the Spanish, because, if it is an arrangement that they find acceptable, I doubt its value to British fishermen. Why is it that our law can be overruled by the Community when no other country seems to have that problem? Are the other member states' rules so shaped, rigged or managed that they do not have the problem of quota hoppers from other countries registering as domestic vessels and then fishing the domestic quotas?
Mr. Curry: Other countries are affected. Several have made submissions to the European Court in support of the British case, and they are clearly concerned that they might find themselves in similar difficulties. Neither Spain nor Portugal has an allocation in the common fisheries policy because they entered after the present scheme had been devised, and with very large fleets. The United Kingdom does not have the vast majority of the waters that are divided among the Community, so, since we have a large number of the species for which others want to fish—although there is less of an argument about hake, for example, because of different tastes—it is with the United Kingdom that other fishing interests want to establish a link. If we see the new arrangement through, we shall be able to establish, subject to the final ruling of the European Court, the essential principle of direction, management and control.
Mr. Mitchell: I will leave it there. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance, and I follow some of his arguments. We remain concerned about predatory Spanish efforts, which other countries seem able to exclude.
There is an emerging crisis in the North sea that threatens fishing and particularly the Grimsby industry, about which I am passionately concerned. Action needs to be taken more urgently than has been the case. I cannot see how the gradual development of political compromises and concessions will resolve that crisis. Firmer action is required. I do not accept either that quotas are a way of

777
resolving the problem, because they are not an effective way of policing catches. If fish are caught and cannot be landed, they are simply chucked back. As the quotas go down, the number of discards goes up. That is no way to provide for proper conservation. We need a more substantial and a devoted effort.
The Minister's efforts are welcomed by the industry. He has shown genuine concern and interest, and the industry has developed a respect for him. We are grateful that the Minister has taken an active part, and has considered the proposals, complaints and problems put to him by the industry. However, I warn him that the crisis is gathering pace and it requires action. It is no use our lagging behind. We have to develop certain basic and clear principles about conservation which will put us ahead of the game.
8.20 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: There can be no doubt about the seriousness of the situation. Hon. Members are conscious of the way in which Community policy has clearly failed. Regulation and control of the fishing industry is very complex but it has not achieved its aim of conservation, which is essential for the stability and long-term future of the industry.
The entire industry—whichever part of the country it is based in—is seriously worried about what has proved to be one bad year after another. In recent times there have been no good years. The fundamental issue of conservation requires a new approach. Stocks in the North sea are clearly inadequate, and steps must be taken to correct that. At present it is a vicious circle—poor recruitment of young fish, high catches of juveniles, increased discards and low level of young stock.
Cod and haddock spawn at between three and four years old. Ideally, in a well run fishery, we should be catching five or six-year-old fish. However, the vast majority of fish are being caught before they achieve spawning age. The result is self-evident, and there is a serious problem ahead. We hope that breeding habits may change but that is a complex business, and there are larger differences from year to year. For a while we could say that things would get better, but clearly they will not get better unless action is taken.
I cannot help reflecting that money seems to have gone in the wrong direction. Hon. Members have made a number of comments about the money spent on construction grants. Money has been used to encourage fishermen to build large and powerful boats—very productive boats, which have served only to add to the problem that the industry faces. One cannot blame fishermen for taking the money that was offered to them, but now they face serious consequences because of large borrowings, at high interest rates; and the high productivity affects other members of the industry who are in competition with them.
The multi-annual guidance programme calls for reductions in the fleet, whereas there has been an increase in all productive capacity. We have to face up to that. There are a number of ways to reduce catches and a combination of them is the answer. First, there can be fewer fishermen, which brings us to the question of structural changes. Hon. Members on both sides of the House support a decommissioning scheme. Secondly,
778
fishermen can fish less. That can be achieved in two ways—by spending less time at sea, and by using less productive gear.
There is genuine alarm at the suggestion that the Community might in its future proposals be considering a reduction in the time allowed at sea. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that.
Most of our debate will be about the type of gear that fishermen will be allowed to use, but we must also seriously consider decommissioning. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) contributed helpfully to the debate by drawing attention to changed circumstances and to the mistakes made with the previous decommissioning scheme. He also rightly said that, because mistakes were made in the past, there is no reason why they should be made in any new scheme devised to deal with present circumstances.
As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, it is important that the industry is interested in contributing to any scheme which is introduced. I, too, have read the latest edition of Fishing News, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred in his introductory speech and in which Mr. Kent Kirk, the Danish Fishing Minister, was understandably cordial about my hon. Friend and referred to the good relationship between them as Ministers. Mr. Kirk said:
"Along with a conservation policy we must reduce our catching capacity … We don't want to subsidise the fishing sector, but if we really want to achieve a fleet that can survive on its own in the future, then of course we have to help them take vessels out."
I believe that that is the correct conclusion. It is not the sole answer to the problem, but it should be part of a package of measures. Whatever the package, it is important that it is acceptable to the industry, and it is more likely to be acceptable if part of the package includes some form of decommissioning scheme, to which the industry would probably be prepared to contribute.
I am not sure that we spend all the money on the industry in the right way. I have already referred to the money used to encourage people to build larger, more productive boats when we were running into a serious stock shortage. The figure of £40 million per year has been bandied about as total Government spending on the industry. I understand that about £15 million of this is spent on research. If one divides that sum by the number of working days, one arrives at a figure of about £60,000 per working day for fisheries research. A great deal of money is being spent on the industry, and we should see that it includes some support for decommissioning.
The mesh size of 120 mm suggested by Commissioner Marin in Brussels is not acceptable in the North sea. It has been suggested that the Spanish, Portuguese and Greeks support such a mesh size, but they do not fish in the North sea and they are not concerned about the multi-species relationship which exists there. In our industry, there is concern that, when the time comes to renegotiate the common fisheries policy, we should ensure that our traditional rights in the North sea are maintained and that there should be no increase in fishing activity there as a result of new members of the Community seeking to intrude on our traditional markets.
The case against 120 mm nets was put very well in a recent programme on BBC Radio 4 which many hon. Members may have heard. Mr. Bernie Vaske, the outgoing

779
chairman of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas committee on fish management, which gives scientific advice to the European Commission, said that he could not support the argument for a 120 mm mesh. The arguments against it are well known to hon. Members who are taking part in the debate. Young cod and haddock are eaten by predators of the whiting family. If the whiting are not controlled by fishing, breeding stocks of cod and haddock will be affected. It is thus very important that the mesh size takes into account the complex habits of the multi-species environment which exists in the North sea.
The hon. Member for Grimsby referred to some of the trials which have taken place. I am sure that his figures were accurate, but various conclusions can be drawn from them. It is perfectly true that 846 small haddock below marketable size were caught when the existing nets were used. That is evidence of the problems with the gear which is in use at present. The trial also showed, however, that using the mesh size proposed by the Commission, only eight haddock of marketable size would be caught compared with 693 with the existing gear. That supports my hon. Friend's contention that we must not make changes which conserve some fish but end up taking away the fishermen's livelihood in the process. There must be a sensible compromise.
Another statistic which came out of the same trial was that, with the present gear, 900 whiting—the predators which feed on the young cod and haddock stocks of the future—were caught. With the Commission's proposed gear, no whiting at all were caught. All those predators would therefore continue to feed on the breeding stocks on which we depend for the future of our cod and haddock. There appears to be a good argument for the square mesh to which the hon. Member for Grimsby referred. According to the trials of which I have knowledge, there would be a considerable advantage in using a form of square mesh. It would lead to a big reduction in the number of discards. Discards at present amounting to about 50 per cent. would come down to between 10 and 15 per cent. Technical changes of that kind could lead to big improvements in conservation.
Our prawn stocks off the north-east coast of England have been threatened by the use of twin trawls. Our local fishermen believe that such intensive fishing would lead to the whole stock of prawns, so important to us in the north-east, being endangered. Fishermen in North Shields and elsewhere in the north-east have, to their credit, imposed a voluntary ban on such twin trawling. It has proved to be effective, but there is great concern that because of the pressure on stocks elsewhere fishermen from outside our area will in increasing numbers seek to fish in these waters. The voluntary banning of twin trawling could not then be enforced. Consideration ought to be given to imposing a statutory ban so as to protect these stocks which are so important to local fishermen.
North Shields depends on its smaller vessels. About 60 of them are based there. The well-being of local inshore fishermen is of particular concern to us. Far more families are supported by smaller boats for the same amount of fishing effort than by the large vessels that have been built in recent years. Far more sons follow their fathers into the fishing industry in the traditional family way in the case of the inshore fleet. Inshore fishermen feel particularly
780
threatened by the pressures caused by diminishing stocks and by the movement of vessels into their traditional fishing grounds.
It is ridiculous that such a high proportion of small young fish should be caught unintentionally and tossed over the side as discards. Inevitably they die, with the result that they do not mature and breed. I understand that £15 million is spent each year on research. Far more information is needed about discards. They may be unintentional, but industrial fishing, which has been justifiably criticised in the debate, results in the deliberate catching of young fish. That is a scandal. The Community surely must face up to the problem and ban industrial fishing.
With regard to enforcement, more needs to be done to ensure that the gear regulations are complied with and that any black landings, or others of a suspicious nature that were referred to by a number of speakers, are exposed. The regulations must be properly enforced, but that does not now happen in some parts of the country.
A great deal more can be done to protect fish stocks by means of closed seasons and the closure of breeding areas. It would be relatively simple for the Community to agree to such proposals and I hope that these important measures will soon be agreed by the Community. The need for action is self-evident. The failure to take action in the past has led to the present dismal situation. My hon. Friend the Minister will go to Brussels knowing that the industry is united in its acceptance of the need for determined and urgent action now. We wish him well in the negotiations.
8.34 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall deal briefly with three points that have been made in the debate. A number of other points have been made more than once, so I shall not refer to them. The Minister is well known for his open-door policy. We are grateful to him. He demonstrated that he is very much on top of his job. I have some sympathy for him. A number of hon. Members with fishing constituencies in various parts of England have spoken in the debate. It seems that the geographical wisdom of Solomon will be needed to keep these warring tribes together.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) lives in splendid isolation and is far away from those battles—as, I suspect, is my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He tells me that any suggestion that fishermen in the northern isles lie is not true. That word can never be used about them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will have much the same to say when he speaks.
My hon. Friends and I also oppose the proposed increase in minimum mesh size from 90 mm to 120 mm. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) speaks for Grimsby, as he made clear. However, some of us speak for a much wider area of the country, known as Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must accept that what is good for Grimsby may not necessarily be good for the rest of Great Britain. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he argues his case at European Community level.
The Minister referred to the fact that he had met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Aberdeen earlier today. Therefore, he will have listened

781
directly to the case made by Bob Allan, the chief executive, Willie Hay and others. The important point that they have stressed in their briefings and at their meetings with Scottish Members of Parliament who represent constituencies with fishing interests is that the scientific information available on the selectivity of a 120 mm diamond mesh net
"indicates clearly that there would be very large immediate losses in catch of marketable fish, which, in the case of haddock, would be likely to amount to not less than 50 per cent. in the average catch per haul. The decrease in the whiting catch with a 120 mm net would be very much greater, to the point of near elimination, and there is no guarantee that catches of either of these species would return in time to their previous levels, far less exceed them."
That is a cogently made case. I hope that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who has necessarily to express the views of fishermen in his area, will nevertheless realise the genuine anxieties about the proposal of those who represent the Scottish fleet.
Every speaker in the debate has said, with varying degrees of strength and forcefulness, that the Minister should think again about decommissioning. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who served on Public Accounts Committee at the time that the critical report was published, made a pertinent point when he reminded us—this point is all too often forgotten when the PAC report is cited—that the principle of decommissioning was not criticised. It was the practical application of decommissioning in these circumstances that was criticised. The Minister reiterated that he has not yet been persuaded—I put the emphasis optimistically on the word "yet" when I paraphrase him—but it was his predecessor who was in office when the PAC presented its report. One suspects that perhaps a sense of guilt is influencing the man at the top of the Ministry.
Mr. Salmond: Embarrassment.
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, that is an appropriate reminder.
Although the Minister has stressed that he is not yet persuaded, I was interested that he did not deploy the argument that rests on the criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee. The last time I contributed to a debate on this issue, the then Minister used that argument. In fact, it was the mainstay of his opposition to decommissioning. The Minister tonight did not dwell on that and I wonder whether it is because within the internal machinations of the Department there is just a flicker of recognition that there might be some merit in what is being argued.
The way things are going, those of us who hope to be back in this place after the next election will have to get used to the total absence of Scottish Conservative Members. I do not think that even the stirring words of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will save the Tories in Paisley next week. In fact, one may ask whether the right hon. Member for Henley will get more votes in the leadership ballot next week than the Conservative candidates will get in the two by-elections next week.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is not present. Had he been here, he would have argued strongly for decommissioning. He has taken every opportunity in the local media and at Scottish questions to recommend that course to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for
782
Scotland. I am sure that he would have put the same argument to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had he been here tonight.
It may be an excessive fondness for crossword puzzles, but I thought that there was something cryptic about the phraseology of the Government's motion. It talks of
"the principle of strengthening the structural measures to reduce fleet size, provided that such measures can offer value for money."
That suggests a hint of a shuffle in the direction of the principle of decommissioning. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some indication about the extent to which the internal representations he has been receiving from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has helped to influence opinion at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Scottish Members try to read the smoke signals from the Scottish Office. However, the way things are going between the Minister of State and the Secretary of State, "smoke signals" is probably an understatement. The word "arson" may be more appropriate. There is a feeling that there is a fair degree of willingness in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to go down this line but that it is being held back because of intransigence at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Minister said that, when he spoke in Aberdeen today, his noble Friend Lord Strathclyde—nobody in the fishing industry in Scotland had heard of him at the time of his appointment—did not demur. I do not think that that necessarily represents all Conservative political opinion in Scotland, particularly not the constituents of serving, or soon to be former, Conservative Members. Therefore, will the Minister do everything possible to listen to his Scottish counterparts and try to overcome what appears to be the rather blind and blinkered obduracy of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in setting its face so firmly against decommissioning? It has to come, and the sooner the better.
Within aquaculture, emphasis is laid on the need for further research in terms of new markets. I want to express the anxiety felt by many of those whose constituencies have become increasingly dependent upon fish farming. That makes a tremendous contribution, not least in my area, to employment and income. There are legitimate anxieties about environmental aspects which are debated vigorously locally and nationally. Equally, there is anxiety over an issue for which the Minister is not—responsible the question of how accountable the Crown Estate Commissioners might be. I appreciate that they are appointed by the Treasury, so that is not an argument for the Minister.
There is no doubt that there has been great pressure on the domestic fish farming sector, not least because of the extent of Norwegian dumping that has taken place. The industry in the highlands and islands has developed through support from the Highlands and Islands development board. Initially, to get the industry up and running—I shall not go into the pros and cons of this vexed argument—many of the multinationals were given the prime sites and the biggest holdings.
Those such as, for example, a crofter in Lewis who diversifies as an adjunct to his croft and has one cage just off the shore have suffered. As the economics of the industry have turned sour in the past year, people such as that have suffered the most. To a certain extent, the multinationals can survive the lean periods on economics of scale. Given the influence that Norwegian dumping has

783
had on the European market and the prices generally, I wonder what progress the Government are making at European level on the question of a levy being applied. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the anxiety that that causes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—my hon. Friends can be distinguished by the names of their constituencies, as we never have one name when at least three will do—mentioned the difficulties his fishermen are experiencing. He wanted me to ask the Minister to develop at some length the Government's attitude towards individual tradable quotas. Many of us feel strongly that is not the right route to go down. It is like taking a public asset and using it against public interest. I share that view, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that.
Generally, problems abound. Although the stance that the Government are taking on some of the specifics of the draft directives has found support on both sides of the House, there is also dissatisfaction about action that the Government could be taking but, for whatever reason, have so far chosen not to. That is the case, not least, on decommissioning. That must remain vital to the restructuring of the industry which, sadly, is long overdue. I hope that the Minister can be more forthcoming. Clearly, votes in the country are swinging on this issue, particularly in fishing communities.
I suspect that decommissioning might yet emerge as an issue that will swing votes on the Back Benches of the Tory party. After all, Henley is noted for its regatta and there is no reason why the right hon. Member for Henley should not take decommissioning to its logical political conclusion next week and apply that principle to the Prime Minister. It is a restructuring which we would welcome.
8.49 pm
Mr. David Porter: Following the self-styled spokesman for Scotland, I shall unashamedly speak for East Anglia, and for Waveney in particular.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House informed me last week, this is likely to be our only opportunity this year to discuss fishing, so I shall crave your famous indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on some of the related matters.
It is fitting and rather sad that we are debating this matter in the week of the 15th anniversary of the ending of the Icelandic cod war. As ever, we are debating fishing under a cloud of gloom and worry. It is true that we are not facing Iceland gunboat with gunboat—we solved that war in exchange for a NATO base—but a charge of Icelandic dumping on United Kingdom markets still stands, pending further inquiry.
It is often argued that the fishing industry is divided, that it is its own worst enemy and that it is small fry compared with even the pet food industry, but is there an industry more regulated, more vulnerable to external forces beyond its control or more psychologically important to a constituency such as mine, which includes Lowestoft, than fishing? I answer those three questions no, no, no.
Like other hon. Members, I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Minister, who faces an impossible task. As the
784
hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said, in England we are divided and there are differing views in the United Kingdom. We send our Ministers to Europe to do their best for our fishing waters. If ever there were a case for us to be resolute, fishing is it.
In fishing debates, hon. Members tend to make the same remarks, because in general we have the same problems, albeit with strong local differences and regional peculiarities. Although we repeat them every year, some questions remain unanswered. I hope that perhaps this year my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer one or two rather than leaving them hanging in the air to be answered next year.
An annual debate is inevitably a chance to air one or two grumbles. A minor grumble, but one which is important in my area, concerns the Sea Fish Industry Authority—an august body which possibly has ambitions to be even more important than it is. Its members are appointed for their expertise, but should there not be a built-in mechanism to ensure better regional representation? East Anglia is still not represented on it, but I refuse to believe that its individuals do not have the required expertise.
The explanatory memorandum comments on net selectivity to improve conservation and on banning blinders to make modest improvements in the spawning stocks. My hon. Friend the Minister says that this policy has been broadly accepted by the United Kingdom industry. Has it been broadly accepted our EC partners, especially by the Dutch, who in the past few years have built up an expertise in blinders?
We have already expressed doubts about the 120 mm mesh size, and no one who is connected with fishing is unable to recognise that the fishing effort should be reduced, but that is proposed at a time when, economically, the industry should be expanding. Plaice quotas affect my port, but all quotas must be caught in full or we shall be in danger of losing ground after 1993. As the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has pointed out, will increasing mesh size or changing our licensing system achieve the required reductions? It doubts it, and many fishermen in my area doubt it.
I must deal with decommissioning. I must disappoint my hon. Friend the Minister by being in the same camp as other hon. Members. He has not answered this question, but I hope that he will: why should we contribute to other countries' decommissioning schemes through our EEC payments but not to our own? My hon. Friend said that decommissioning is no Holy Grail. Perhaps it is not, but it is a way of reaching that mythical Holy Grail.
The world's best scientific evidence is available. Undoubtedly the biggest worry facing us is fish stocks. I pay tribute to the contribution of the scientists at the MAFF laboratory in Lowestoft, who deservedly have an international reputation. If their work is to be treated seriously, should there not be a serious grasping of the nettle rather than a pruning of the twigs? That is an inappropriate analogy, but I hope that my hon. Friend takes the point. Decommissioning could be that serious grasping of the nettle.
All our fish markets will soon face the rigours of the new EC fish market hygiene regulations. Some will need modest adaptation and others will need major surgery that will fall not far short of total demolition. Grants can be applied for and extra taxpayers' money has been made available, but the fear is that markets in, for example,

785
Spain need such drastic rebuilding to bring them up to standard that they will absorb most of the money. That will leave areas such as Lowestoft, which was part-modernised to the best standards available only two or three years ago, in the cold. The cold wind of economic reality would be fair enough because Lowestoft is used to that, but that would place it at a disadvantage compared with its competitors.
One of the documents that we are debating says that the enlargement of the EC in 1986 has had particularly important consequences for the common fisheries policy, especially for its structural component, as a result of the size of the sector in Spain and Portugal. Will my hon. Friend spell out clearly the nature and scale of the distortion to the CFP and to fair competition that the probation of Spain and Portugal in the EEC means to the rest of us?
The fishing industry, when prospering, gives a hard-fought and decent living who those to risk life, limb and money to bring wholesome, cheap food to our tables. There are the deep sea men and owners, the inshore fisheries, the merchants, the port owners, the people who work directly and indirectly in the industry, the organisations, the factions, the groupings, the special interests and the individuals—and that is just at Lowestoft. It is vital to take account of as many of those different views as possible. They cannot all attend meetings in Lowestoft when a new issue must be debated, much less meetings in London or in Scotland. It is a big outlay in time and money beyond the means of many whose views on fishing MAFF needs to absorb.
Is it beyond the wit of modern technology, and would it not be cheaper in the long run for all concerned, to install a system of electronic instant two-way communication in the office or home of every interested party or person so that he or she can feel a part of the informed decisions that are taken on behalf of the United Kingdom industry?
Restructuring the regulations should help, but in his visits to the many ports of the United Kingdom, for which I thank him, did not my hon. Friend the Minister learn that fishermen feel that they are so subject to external dangers that other industries do not face that they face a catalogue of problems which I will not risk your anger, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by mentioning? If I were 'to talk about fuel prices that are higher than many can stand, you would rule me out of order. If I were to mention the closeness of industry and Government in other EC countries, which leads to doubt about even-handedness in the enforcement of regulations, you would again rule me out of order. There is an uneasy feeling of resentment about how farmers fare compared with fishermen.
Does my hon. Friend understand that sometimes fishermen of many years' experience say, "Hang it, why not dump all regulations except free fishing for a month, then close the sea and give us a tax break to do something else for the rest of the year?" That feeling is not conducive to a healthy industry.
Will my hon. Friend spell out now, and unequivocally, that the Government want an independent United Kingdom fishing industry, supported and encouraged fairly, regionally and strategically balanced and on a sound economic basis—yes, fair enough—but with both hands free to meet its challenges?
8.58 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Before I make my main point, let me pick up three of the points made by other hon. Members.
I was delighted to hear the Minister speak so strongly about the Commission's proposal for 120 mm nets, and I applaud his determination to resist it. The fishing industry's resistance has come not from any spirit of evasion or irresponsibility, but from a recognition of the practical problems that will result.
The Minister mentioned the nephrops fisheries, but not the trials of separator trawls that have been undertaken to solve the problem of the by-catch. I hear that the trials have gone very well. I hope that, if they prove as good as seems likely, the Government will encourage small fishermen to adopt separator trawls, which will bring conservation benefits.
There has been support from both sides of the House for a renewal of the decommissioning scheme. The Minister said that there were practical problems; however, he was probably thinking mostly of financial problems, and the need to ensure that the money was spent in the best possible way and went to the right people. There are other practical problems. If the Government intend to move towards a decommissioning scheme, they should take care that any such scheme tackles the core of the problem—that of the larger trawlers, which are causing the overfishing. We do not want a scheme that ends up sucking the smaller boats out of the industry and leaving the larger ones in place. In the long run, that would not solve the problem of overfishing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that the Government should seriously consider a system of "coastal zoning" as a means of managing both fisheries and other activities that are now impinging on the coast, such as aquaculture, dredging and mineral and oil extraction. All these things—which conflict with fishing—could be better managed and regulated if a coastal zone system was adopted.
I commend to the Minister and his officials the recent report of the Marine Conservation Society, which proposes a United Kingdom coastal zone management plan and has been endorsed by the World Wide Fund for Nature. We need to explore such possibilities in the future.
Let me now refer more specifically to my own area—although I hope that what I say will be relevant not only to the north-west and the Hebridean fisheries, but to some of the other fisheries in the United Kingdom for instance, in Northern Ireland and the north-east of England—that were mentioned earlier. A proposal submitted to the Government earlier this year suggested that a simple, cheap, effective and easy-to-regulate first step to ensure proper conservation and management in the inshore waters of the north-west of Scotland was the introduction of a weekend ban on fisheries—a total ban from midnight on Friday until midday, or early morning, on Monday. It would ban fisheries of any kind in the inshore waters off the Minches and the west coast of the Hebrides. It would be simple to introduce and police, and is supported by the fishermen of the west coast. However, so far the Government have refused to take note of the proposal, let alone introduce it. That is sad: if the Government are seriously interested in conservation, they should consider it seriously.

787
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) talked about the conflicts between the various geographical elements of the British fishing industry. His fishermen in Northern Ireland now face much the same difficulties as mine in the Hebrides—and, I believe, all fishermen on the west coast of Scotland. A state of anarchy is emerging on the west coast, because there is no incentive for the traditional fishing industries to fish in a responsible and sustainable way while there are incursions from the east coast of Scotland. Boats have hit their quota ceilings and are moving to the west coast. As long as that continues, there will be no incentive for fishermen on the west coast to fish in a responsible and sustainable way, as they are capable of doing because of their smaller boats.
A specific example of this process is the newly developed style of long-lining for dogfish and skate in the Hebridean Minches. This example shows that being traditional does not mean that the fishermen do not go into new types of fisheries or use new techniques—they do. Long-lining is an exciting development. There is good demand for those fish, both domestically and on the continent. The fishery can be sustained during the summer and winter months. It can exploit grounds that cannot be exploited by normal means. The fishery has been developed experimentally over the past 24 months by boats from my constituency, from the Hebrides. Because of its great success, it has been taken up by 16 boats in the Western Isles. They have rigged themselves out for long-lining for dogfish and skate.
Now that this fishery has been developed in a bold way by these fishermen, and the Western Isles boats are poised to take advantage of it, what has happened? This year already, four boats which used to fish for white fish, cod and haddock along the east coast have come into these waters. Perhaps I shall make the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) happier by pointing out that those four boats are not from the east coast of Scotland but come from Grimsby. The key issue is not the point of origin but the size of the boats.
These boats have run up against quota problems fishing for white fish in the North sea. They have seen the dogfish and skate long-lining fishery open up on the west coast and have begun to transfer their attentions to it. Their boat size means that, when they transfer their attentions to that area, the whole fishery, which has been carefully and experimentally built up, will come under increasing threat. Each Western Isles boat has between 4,000 and 5,000 hooks. Each east coast boat has 20,000 hooks, which is a four to fivefold increase in fishing power. Next year, we can expect 10 to 20 such boats to come from the east coast.
That fishery will be exploited and plundered completely. Any incentive for the traditional fishermen to develop, sustain and manage a new fishery in a way dictated to by their own interests—because they want the fishery to last a long time—is removed by the way in which other fishing fleets can all too easily transfer their attentions from one region to another under the present regime.
The only thing to save the west coast after this past catastrophic year has been the abysmal failure of the Government's 92-day rule. It is widely accepted that that rule has been flouted everywhere. If it were not flouted, there would be many more boats coming to the west coast from the east coast.
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Member and I share many representative organisations, just as we share the Minch, the passage of sea between our respective constituencies. It is useful to put on record the seriousness of the difficulty on the west coast, around the Western Isles and the northern isles, this year. Like other hon. Members, the hon. Member and I went to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to see the then Minister of State, Lord Sanderson. The difficulty led to the formation of a unique umbrella organisation, drawing on all the representative fishing groups, from the Orkneys down to the Firth of Clyde and all points in between. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the fishermen's efforts to try to resolve some of the issues show, if nothing else, the seriousness of the crisis that the industry faces?
Mr. Macdonald: When the industry on the west coast gets together, thrashes out some of its differences and comes forward with proposals such as the weekend ban, it is disappointing that the Government, who were handed on a plate a conservation measure that was cheaply and easily enforced, looked the other way. However, I took encouragement from the Minister's recent meeting with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I hope that he will also be willing to meet representatives of the West Coast Action Group if a meeting can be set up in the near future.
I want to point out an oddity of the fishing industry, which is not an oddity of any other industry. In almost every other industry, increased efficiency means an increase in the supply of the product, whether it is cars or, in agriculture, sheep or grain. One increases the supply and reduces the cost to the consumer through increased efficiency. The fishing industry, uniquely, is not like that. Efficiency of catching power, if anything, works in reverse. The more efficient the industry is, the more the supply will begin to diminish in the long term as one begins to fish out the stocks. As a result, the price to the consumer shoots up.
I warn the Government against what may lie behind some of the present approaches to the industry, such as licence aggregation and quota aggregation. I have the feeling that the Government hope to achieve an industry with many fewer, but far larger and more efficient, boats. That is not the solution to the problem. Going for efficiency in the fishing industry is not like going for efficiency in agriculture or in any other industry. Efficiency in the fishing industry does not have the beneficial consequences that it has in every other industry. On the contrary, being over-efficient has led us to our present pass.
The supply of fish to be caught is set by nature. No matter how efficient a fishing boat is, it cannot create fish. The real question is whether the finite supply of fish is to be caught by many fewer boats, which are more efficient, but more highly leveraged and which need to earn huge profits to keep themselves and their bankers going, or whether that finite supply should be spread out among many small, less-leveraged boats, which would earn less profit per boat, but would need less profit per boat because there would be fewer loans to pay off. They could earn sufficient to keep not only the fishermen and their families, but whole communities alive, especially on the west coast of Scotland.
It makes no sense to have a system of regulation—or non-regulation—of fisheries that would lead to the destruction of the small fishing communities of the west coast—and especially of the north-west coast—of

789
Scotland, that would benefit only a small number of eventually profiteering boat owners and their bankers and would not benefit the consumers. Such a system would also place a burden on the taxpayer, because the public purse would eventually have to be used to resurrect the destroyed fishing communities.
9.13 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I hope that the rather tame motion does not imply any complacency about the crisis that is enveloping the fishing industry. The noble Lord Strathclyde, whose name the Minister was able to remember so well, said of the fishing industry in a newspaper article in Scotland on Sunday on 4 November:
"I wouldn't have said it's in one of its most critical periods."
I hope that, given what the Minister has heard tonight from both sides of the House, and given the prospects not only of immediate negotiations in the European Community but of even lower quotas and total allowable catches for next year, he will in no way share the complacent "Crisis—what crisis?" view of the Scottish Minister responsible for fisheries. I know that the Scottish Minister has been in the job for only a few weeks, but his early findings and soundings in the industry should have removed from him any sense that the industry is making do or that anything less than major changes of policy will be enough to meet the crisis that is enveloping the industry.
The sense of complacency probably stems from the fact that, although the quantity of landings this year has substantially decreased, prices have increased. The Government may therefore feel that things are not as bad as all that. I do not think that the Scottish Minister would take that view if he were a fish processing worker in my constituency earning about £100 a week and with no wage increase at all last year because the problems have been passed on to the processing sector through high prices.
We should not underrate the problem of increased costs in the fishing fleet. Penal interest rates have cost the Scottish fishing industry alone perhaps £10 million. Imagine the sense of fury that fishermen must have felt as they sailed past oil platforms in the past few weeks, given that they face a doubling of their fuel costs. In some cases, half the revenue from a fishing trip now goes in increased fuel costs, yet the fishermen have to steam past platforms run by companies that are exploiting the wealth of the North sea, where development costs have not increased during the past few months. The industry is facing increased costs to which it is exceptionally vulnerable. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the somewhat complacent views of his counterpart at the Scottish Office in no way reflect the overall policy of the Government.
I want to speak both about technical conservation and about the structural support measures proposed for the industry. I have a reasonably substantial record of advocating technical conservation. In the Scottish Grand Committee last July, I made a long speech—perhaps too long—in which I dwelt for some time on the technical conservation measures that would be necessary and explained why I thought that they represented a far better bet for the future stability of the industry than a total reliance on ever-lower quota allocations. But the technical measures must be the correct measures.
I have four specific questions for the Minister and I hope that I shall get favourable answers to all of them. First, does he accept—from his opening speech, it would
790
appear that he does—that the 120 mm mesh would virtually wipe out the prospect of a mixed fishery in the North sea? Does he accept the view of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that there would be a 50 per cent. decline in the haddock catch and that the whiting catch would all but disappear?
Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the shape and design of fishing gear are at least as important as mesh size—if not more so? On that, I should correct the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who seems to be suffering from the delusion that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is arguing for the status quo. The Minister will be well aware that that is not correct. For the past two years, the federation has argued consistently for a series of technical changes to fishing gear, which should have the effect of increasing the number of small fish that escape into the sea not just alive but in good condition.
There is now substantial scientific evidence to support the technical changes that the federation has been advocating for some time. I refer to the proposals for square mesh panels, not ballooning at the codend, and the one-net rule. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Scottish Fisherman's Federation has been arguing for those things for some time and that the scientific evidence shows that, at least for whiting and haddock, innovations like the square mesh panel above the codend will have a substantial effect in increasing the escape of immature fish.
Thirdly, I want confirmation that the Minister accepts that an official 90 mm directed fishery for whiting would substantially increase discards of cod and haddock.
Finally, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that there was at least a suspicion that the basis of that argument is coming from interests that favour the expansion of the industrial fishery in the North sea.
The Minister has heard from both sides of the House today that the general feeling is that the industrial fishery should be an immediate target, if not for closure, then for severe restriction. When fish for human consumption are so scarce, it is untenable to continue to extract 1 million tonnes of pout and sand eels—the feed stock and the food source—from the North sea annually, when the haddock fishery for human consumption is down to less than 40,000 tonnes. It is obscene to have the industrial fishery running at current levels. I repeat the earlier call for the Minister to show determination and ensure that that aspect will be put firmly on the agenda of the Council meeting and that there will be a specific debate on how the industrial fishery can be controlled.
I want now to consider structural support. I hope that hon. Members from various parties will support the call by Winnie Ewing, the MEP for the Highlands and Islands, when she moves in the European Parliament next week to have the north-east of Scotland added to the list of areas entitled to special structural support from the European Community. No area in the country is more dependent on fishing than the north-east of Scotland.
I compiled some figures today to give the Minister an idea of the disadvantage from which the fishing industry in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom is suffering as a result of the Government's intransigence in terms of the take-up of decommissioning and lay-up schemes. The figures come from the joint seminar on fisheries held by the Commission and the European Parliament in France last week. Knowing the Conservative party's current interest

791
in the hard ecu, I will express the figures in ecu. Over the past three years, the figures for lay-up subsidies to other European fleets are as follows: 50 million ecu in 1987; 30 million ecu in 1988; and 6 million ecu in 1989. The vast bulk of the funds for lay-up premiums have gone to the Spanish fishing industry.
The figures for decommissioning are as follows: 37 million ecu in 1987; 49 million ecu in 1988; and 45 million ecu in 1989. The vast bulk of those funds went to the Danish fishing industry. In sterling, the total over those three years is £115 million. The Scottish and United Kingdom share of those fisheries funds is zero as a result of the Government's hard-line determination not even to spend other people's money on fisheries, because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made such a cod of attempting to introduce a decommissioning scheme eight years ago.
When decommissioning schemes are being pursued successfully elsewhere in Europe, it is not sustainable to pursue the argument that such schemes could not be carried out efficiently, productively and cost-effectively in the Community. The United Kingdom's share of the total sum for all structural support for fisheries, including modernisation and new build, over the past four years was 7 per cent. in 1987; 3 per cent. in 1988; 3·6 per cent. in 1989; and only 1 per cent. so far this year. How on earth can the fishing industry, in the tough competitive environment of the European Community, hope to compete with fleets as powerful as the Spanish and Danish fleets if vast sums of money are going to support the structural improvement of fishing in those countries and no funds are supporting the same structural improvements for the fishing industry in this country?
Earlier in the debate, the Minister was speculating on what Luxembourg's policy on fishing might be. We shall have to leave that as an open question, but there should be no doubt that there is a Luxembourg veto over fishery matters. The Prime Minister is in no doubt on these matters, although I do not know the views of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). No doubt we shall hear them expounded over the next few days. Perhaps even as I speak the right hon. Member is, in Paisley, speculating on the use of the Luxembourg veto.
The Minister has made it clear that he is opposed to the 120 mm mesh size, and that his agenda on technical conservation changes is different from that being put forward by Mr. Marin. Does he believe that the Luxembourg national interest veto is available on fisheries matters? If the bit comes to the bit, is the Department prepared to use such a veto to defend what is seen in Scotland, however it is seen elsewhere, as of vital national interest?
9.26 pm
Mr. Curry: With the leave of the House. For the most part, the debate has been conducted with a great deal of understanding and many points have been sensitively put. I hope that I can sum up in the same spirit. As the hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said, I try to keep my door open. That policy will continue. Whenever someone has a sensible argument to put to me, I shall listen to it. I have done that in the past and I shall continue to
792
do so. I was generous in giving way to interventions when I opened the debate, but I shall try to be quicker in winding up. I hope that the House understands that.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) supported the general thrust of what we are saying about technical conservation. I am grateful to him and to all those hon. Members who repeated those points. My introductory remarks were clear about that and included the famous four points mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). There is no equivocation. Our position on these matters is clear.
Every hon. Member who has spoken has mentioned decommissioning. I should make it clear beyond all doubt that, as I have said before, the problem with decommissioning is not that we could not devise a scheme for it if we wished to go down that road. The criticisms levelled against the previous scheme were, as hon. Members have said, about the mechanics of it. The problem is that we still remain to be convinced that that would be a proper and good use of money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) spoke about a targeted scheme. It is true that we could have met many of the points made by the Public Accounts Committee, but if we want to target inefficient vessels and catch few fish, how do we get value for money? If we target efficient vessels which catch lots of fish, would we be aiming for a less efficient fleet? That dilemma must be faced and sorted out. There is no easy answer to decommissioning. We have put forward various proposals. There has been movement in capacity aggregations and we are still looking at other proposals. As I have said, when people make sensible arguments, I will listen to them.
Like several other hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) mentioned allegations of Scottish fishing activities in other waters. I said then that we have proposals on producer organisation management which we hope will address that problem. We are inviting comments on whether the track records for next year should omit those catches which appear to be abnormal, for whatever reason. We have had mixed reactions from the fishing industry, but we are exploring that possibility.
We have managed to do something about cod in the Irish sea. As for prosecutions, there is the general problem of rules of evidence. I am talking about Scotland. With the best will in the world, difficulties have to be overcome. When I was in Aberdeen this morning, Scottish fishermen said that they felt that they were the subject of intense scrutiny and a surveillance operation. They felt that they were not getting away with murder or even with slight scratches.
Mr. Morley: The Minister has referred directly to the problem of enforcement. Does he agree that there is no point in having good conservation measures if there is not adequate enforcement? We are all aware of the pressures which are driving fishermen, but there must be proper enforement.
I accept much of what the Minister has said about decommissioning, but will he agree that we are still not progressing in reducing our fleet? That is the key factor. The problem can be resolved only by a decommissioning scheme.
Mr. Curry: I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on whether only a decommissioning scheme can do that.

793
There are other measures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about surveillance but add the rider that it is the nature of the industry that, if individuals want to cheat, it is not in the power of man to stop them, short of having an inspector on every boat 24 hours a day and inspectors at every port. We do not want that sort of regulation. That is why I want the techical measures that we are discussing to be acceptable to the industry so that those who work within it feel that the measures are in their interests and that we are not working against them
Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Curry: I shall, but I will not make a habit of doing so.
Mr. Mans: I am pleased by what my hon. Friend has said about not using the track record of the last year. He will know that Fleetwood has suffered heavily in area VIIa as a result off the exploits of Scottish fishermen. Is it not possible to increase surveillance and move a little further towards the possibility of having more inspectors on boats, especially in areas where there has been misreporting in the past?
Mr. Curry: We shall do our best to ensure that there is an efficient enforcement effort. We shall explore the possibility of bringing certain technology to bear to help us with the tracking of boats. We shall do all we can.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Curry: This is the last time I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Salmond: When the Minister is considering track records, will he consider also the substantial payments of the Scottish industry? Will he accept that the track records extend too far back historically and do not permit a reasonable interpretation of current fishing perfomance and current catching power?
Mr. Curry: All matters that are urged upon us by the industry are bound to be taken into consideration when we are examining track records; otherwise, we would riot have a consultation process in the first place.
Mr. Salmond: What does that mean?
Mr. Curry: Whatever the hon. Gentleman makes of it. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) asked me about Gibraltar. He will know that Gibraltar is not in the Community, nor is it within the United Kingdom. Therefore, it does not apply. As we understand it, commercial fishery from Gibraltar is extremely small. The two Spanish territories to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have special status under the Spanish accession treaty and therefore fall——
Mr. John D. Taylor: Gibraltar is within the European Community. It was in it long before Spain.
Mr. Curry: Not in the terms in which we have been conducting the debate.
The right hon. Member for Strangford said that we yielded to the Isle of Man. I take issue with him on that score. We yielded nothing to the Isle of Man. We have clear safeguards about the rights of our fishermen in Isle of Man waters. We discuss them on many occasions.
Perhaps I might point out to the right hon. Member for Strangford that there is not an English Fisheries Minister.
794
I am the Minister responsible for United Kingdom fisheries. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in overall charge of United Kingdom fisheries policy. I do not see it as my responsibility to protect the English fleet. I see it as my job to be responsible for the needs of the United Kingdom fleet. There is always a Northern Ireland member of the United Kingdom delegation. That applies to agriculture as well as fisheries. The support of the Northern Ireland representative is always extremely valuable to us.
I was grateful for the constructive remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough. I recently had the pleasure of opening a new fish dock with him in Scarborough. I am only happy that it did not happen when all the lights went off.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) asked me about the Hague preference. I understand that people in Grimsby and ports south of it feel anxiety about it, but how does one define northern Britain? At some stage one must define it. The quantities of fish are small. If we dilute the arrangements right through the coast, we shall end up not giving a quantity that is worth while.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Curry: No. I have not completed my remarks. When I intervened in the hon. Member's speech I told him that I had made it clear that, should the Hague preference extend to species other than haddock and to greater quantities of haddock than in the past, we should have to reconsider the mechanism for redistribution. I reaffirm that.
As other hon. Members have said, compared with other ports Grimsby is a distant-water cod fishery and cod can take a 120 mm net. It is a different fishery, and that accounts for the difference. I intervened to mention the quota-hopping case. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that.
I note the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) made. He mentioned the twin-trawl ban on the prawn stocks. Again, we are faced with the dilemma of whether we want to take a measure which would effectively ban any method of fishing. It is not simple. We constantly keep the matter under review. I am aware that, in other areas, it has been decided to go for a ban on twin trawls. However, at the heart of fisheries policy, we must decide whether our objective is to make the fishing industry less efficient by making people fish less efficiently, so that more people can participate and remain, in the industry, or to move towards a more efficient industry, however that is defined and whatever limits we place on that evolution. Clearly, limits might have to be placed on that evolution.
Mr. Trotter: Is not the local fishing community the best judge of how to preserve its livelihood for the future by preserving stocks?
Mr. Curry: A balance must be struck between the judgment of the local fishing community and the implications for other fishing communities and overall fisheries management. Nothing can be decided purely on a local basis. Of course, we pay particular attention to the needs of communities, especially where the industry is highly localised.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) had a great deal of fun. There is no difference of

795
policy between DAFS and MAFF. We co-operate closely and our officials co-operate closely. When we send delegations to Brussels, we are represented at an official level by teams from both Departments. The officials interchange their work and contribute to each other's work. The hon. Gentleman may suggest otherwise as much as he wants, but we are indivisible in our policy and we intend to keep it that way.
On Norwegian dumping, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if he will allow me. That is not because I do not wish to reply now, but because the procedures are complicated. It is somewhat like the Schleswig-Holstein question, and I have forgotten some of the details. Therefore, I should like to give the hon. Gentleman a full account of what must be followed and the stage that we have reached in the proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), whose constituency includes the principal port of Lowestoft, which I shall visit on Monday, asked about the role of Spain and Portugal. Our commitment to the notion of relative stability remains. We have not compromised that commitment. He also mentioned representation on the Sea Fish Industry Authority. The problem is that, by statute, it consists of 12 people. Also by statute, four must be independent. That leaves eight people to represent catchers, merchants, processors and the whole of the diverse industry. With the best will in the world, we cannot represent every geographical interest. I note what my hon. Friend said about East Anglia. If we find an occasion on which I can give satisfaction, of course, I shall seek to do so.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) made a thoughtful and sensible speech.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes thoughtful and sensible speeches. I hope that my saying that will not do him too much damage in his constituency. I note what he said about coastal zoning. If he wishes to discuss it with me I shall be happy to do so. He said that his west coast small fishermen would like to talk to me. Clearly, the prime responsibility lies with my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde. However, if those fishermen think that it would be useful to see me also, I shall of course make myself available for such a meeting.
I have always understood the hon. Gentleman's concern about small communities, which he has expressed in all these debates in which he has participated. It is not my intention that we end up with only three large boats coming from a single port. The thrust of the provisions is not that; it is to enable the fishing communities to make a living.
I shall not respond to the attacks made upon my noble Friend by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Those comments were the only point at which a note of sourness was introduced into the debate. Those comments were unnecessary—all the more so because they are wholly untrue. However, the hon. Gentleman asked me four specific questions, to which the answers are yes, yes, yes and, "It depends what you mean."
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What does that mean?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady has only just appeared in the Chamber. I gave a detailed response in my introductory remarks, before the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan had asked the question.
Mr. Andrew Welsh rose——
Mr. Curry: No, the hon. Gentleman has been peripatetic in the Chamber and I shall not give way to him. If Opposition Members read my introductory remarks in Hansard, they will find that they are perfectly clear——
Mr. Welsh: I appreciate the Minister giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked a straightforward question: does the Minister have the power of veto at that meeting? If the Scottish fishing industry is threatened, as is obviously the case, will he be prepared to use that veto?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions. He asked me about the 120 mm net, and I said that that was not on. He asked me about the shape and design of the nets, and I said that I agreed with him. He asked me about the role of whiting, and I said that I agreed with him. He asked me about the industrial fisheries, and I said that I did not necessarily associate myself with the motive behind the proposals, but that I agreed with the burden of his remarks and that we are not in the business of encouraging industrial fisheries.
The fisheries sector has never found it necessary to employ a veto. We settle these things in the Council by means of majority voting and we work towards building those majorities. Invoking the Luxembourg compromise should be reserved for issues of grave national importance. If any such matter arose, we should have to consider whether we thought that it was a matter of national importance of an order that would justify the use of a veto. I suspect that such a decision would be taken at a level other than that of the Ministers representing the United Kingdom in that Council. We go to the Councils equipped to negotiate. We do not intend to turn the Council into a telephone exchange, because that is not a very good way of going forward.
I have attempted to summarise the debate. There has been a wide consensus. The way forward for our fisheries is to introduce sensible and practical measures for conservation, which will command the consent of our fishermen so that we can start the ball rolling and move towards measures which produce an ever-increasing conservation yield, if I may use that expression. These proposals form a starting point. They go to extremes, but we can build down from them to achieve a sensible beginning.
Our fishing debates tend to invoke a large measure of consensus about our concern for the industry—a concern that is reflected in this Minister. Several hon. Members have been kind enough to acknowledge that I have the industry's concerns at heart. I am anxious that that is seen to be the case, and I invite the House to support the proposals.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 10.

Division No. 4]

[9.43 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Atkinson, David

Arbuthnot, James

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Boswell, Tim

797

Bowis, John

Knowles, Michael

Brazier, Julian

Lawrence, Ivan

Burt, Alistair

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Cash, William

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Mans, Keith

Conway, Derek

Miller, Sir Hal

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Curry, David

Mudd, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Neale, Gerrard

Dykes, Hugh

Neubert, Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Fookes, Dame Janet

Paice, James

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Patnick, Irvine

Fox, Sir Marcus

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gale, Roger

Raffan, Keith

Gill, Christopher

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Goodlad, Alastair

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Hague, William

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Trotter, Neville

Harris, David

Waller, Gary

Holt, Richard

Wheeler, Sir John

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Widdecombe, Ann

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wilshire, David

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Hunter, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas

Jack, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Janman, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kirkhope, Timothy

Mr. Nicholas Baker and

Knapman, Roger

Mr. Timothy Wood.

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

NOES

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Spearing, Nigel

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Kennedy, Charles

Wallace, James

Maclennan, Robert

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Tellers for the Noes:

Salmond, Alex

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Andrew Welsh.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8317/90 on technical measures for the conservation of fishing resources and 8240/90 on measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector; and supports the Government's view that changes in existing technical conservation measures are needed to improve the conservation of fish stocks and that these should achieve a balance between conservation and maintaining a viable fishing industry, the Government's recognition of the need to match Community fishing capacity with available fisheries resources, and the principle of strengthening the structural measures to reduce fleet size, provided that such measures can offer value for money.

Romania (Mentally Handicapped Children)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
9.54 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate which I am glad and honoured to share with the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) because this is an all-party debate and it is proper that he should share it with me.
I draw the attention of the House to the tragic plight of mentally handicapped children in Romania. In so doing, I believe that I shall paint a harrowing picture. The picture that I intend to paint is not the whole of the picture in Romania, but it is a symbol. It is perhaps the starkest and most extreme case of the immorality of communist policies and the evils that they created, even in the treatment of innocent children.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked for the Save the Children Fund. The efforts of the Austrian Save the Children Fund led to the creation of a children's home in Romania called, most barely, home No. 6. I visited Romania as a member of an all-party delegation. We examined the plight of religious minorities, in particular the plight of the Jewish minority. While I was there I visited some of the hospitals and homes in which children were living. Pictures of the conditions in which they were living had been shown to devastating effect on Western television. I visited Romania, and other eastern European countries, last August, during the recess.
The conditions in home number six were so appalling that I feel that it is right and proper to draw the attention of the House to them. I understand that under the previous regime it was wrong to be mentally handicapped and that it was wrong also to have children who were mentally handicapped. It is not so long since this country regarded mental handicap almost as a disease. It is not surprising, therefore, that mental handicap was frowned on in a dictatorship where only the fit could flourish and where so much bribery and corruption was built into the system. It is for that reason that those children can truly be called forgotten children.
I do not speak now of the AIDS babies, of whose plight we know so well from the pictures on our television screens, or of the large orphanages that have recently featured in the press. These institutions are for delightful children, aged between seven and 14. Those children are there because they are mentally handicapped. Nevertheless, their handicap is only mild; it is of the order of an IQ of about 75, or a little lower. There is a boy in my constituency with an IQ of 70 who, in the wake of the Warnock report, is in mainstream education. Conditions in Romania bear no similarity whatsoever to the happy village school in Winkleigh where that boy is being educated. Conditions are far closer to those in Dartmoor prison, except that Dartmoor prison would be preferable.
I saw children whose heads had been shaved because of lice. There were open sores on their arms. There were six or seven staff for about 400 boys. The staff were worn out and they were pessimistic about what they could do for the children. The dormitories were filled with stench on account of filthy, squalid mattresses. There was no running

799
water. For about 40 boys there were a couple of taps. There were no main sewers and there was little electricity. The ceilings were black with swarms of mosquitoes. Most of the windows, covered with mesh, were broken because the boys played outside on the only playing field that they had, which was covered with concrete.
It was an extraordinarily miserable sight. In all my years with the Save the Children Fund I cannot recall seeing anything in the west to compare with it. I have seen plenty of comparable sites in the poorest parts of the world such as Africa, India or even South America. The shock of finding such sites in the wider world of Europe is what determined myself and other members of our delegation, particularly the hon. Member for Dumbarton, to do something.
Of course, we wondered what to do. Our next visit happened to be to the President. We asked his advice and I asked him whether he would be patron if we were to run an appeal. He readily agreed. We went on to see the Prime Minister and put the same point to him. He showed us the new committee that he had already set up. It was excellent. He also showed us the potential child care legislation which, in our eyes, was not so good. However, he has a soft spot for children and he said that he would be our vice-patron.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Miss Nicholson: We went on to seek the guidance and support of leading members of the religious organisations in Romania. We asked the patriarch, the cardinal archbishop, the leader of the free churches, the chief rabbi, business men and other good people. We have formed an embryo committee in Romania which is willing to help in any way it can. We still have the help of the Austrian Save the Children Fund and, since we returned, we have been offered help by many of the small British organisations that have links with the Romanian community and are anxious to do all that they can. In addition, we must not forget the strong, although small, Romanian community in the United Kingdom. The Romanian community in Reading has been broadcasting in Romanian to Romania on the BBC world service for the past 20 years. That may well have been instrumental in the crucial revolution.
The purpose of our work is to effect change, to introduce good child care laws and practice and to start the ball rolling on training. There has been no training of special experts such as teachers since 1978. I understand that the last psychiatrist in Romania was trained in 1972. Under the old regime everybody was supposed to be entirely mentally healthy. We will pursue longer-term plans with organisations such as CARITAS—the Catholic agency for international relief. It is an agency of great size and integrity. It has a plan to break up the institutions. As I have said, there are 200 of them and the largest houses 700 boys.
I shall now deal with what I hope will be a short-term effort because I hope that the CARITAS plan, the Prime Minister's plan or others like it will take effect quickly. I want to define it as short-term aid from Westminster. We are forming an all-party group for mentally handicapped children in Romania. That group will run the first ever
800
all-party appeal—the parliamentary all-party appeal for Romanian children. We plan to launch our appeal on 3 December.
I offer my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for generously lending us your patronage and to the Lord Chancellor who has followed your lead. We have a long list of eminent Back-Bench names from both sides of the House who are flocking to join us. I believe that our eminent supporters in the outer world will include Bishop Carey and the other religious leaders. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton has written to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and I am sure that the other religious leaders will come forward, too.
This is the simplest of appeals—a Christmas appeal. Our aim is to obtain money for presents for the children which will be delivered on our behalf by the Austrian Save the Children Fund, which visits them regularly. Longer term in Romania, the charitable efforts could be devoted to creating local leagues of friends or perhaps sending United Kingdom volunteer experts overseas. I pay warm tribute to the many people in the United Kingdom who have already given generously of their money, time and skills.
Our parliamentary group will concentrate on building up good relationships with our colleagues in the Romanian Government and on their Back Benches to bring about the best possible legislation for children and to see that it is put into practice nationally.
What are we asking our Government to do? I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is an overwhelming case for continuing humanitarian aid, for considering use of a know-how fund, for medical and teaching experts from the United Kingdom and for easement of visa payments and time delays for similar Romanian experts. After all, we seek the backing of the Government for our own initiative to put these children high on the political agenda, so that the rights of the Romanian child are never violated again.
I spoke earlier of the evils of communism, as displayed by the horror and tragedy of these lovely children. As parliamentarians, we pride ourselves on being omnipotent and omnicompetent, yet we cannot expect to solve all Romania's problems. We can and should, as the mother of Parliaments, be firmly associated with the relief of suffering. We shall be in touch with all our colleagues and we seek the sympathy, forbearance and understanding of this place.
10.5 pm
Mr. John McFall: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate. As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said, this appeal stems directly from a visit of the all-party group on eastern European Jewry to Romania. My hon. and learned Friend the member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) participated in our visit to children's home No. 6, which is a home for seven to 16-year-old boys. There are 400 boys in the home, 370 of whom are termed socially abandoned.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West has more international experience than me, but as a former schoolteacher I was horrified by the sight that greeted us

801
in home No. 6. It was almost a three-dimensional step into a world that I did not believe existed, except in a celluloid representation of Auschwitz and Belsen.
The children whom we met were dressed in dark blue uniforms. Some of them had their heads shaved and others had full heads of hair. Those who had their heads shaved were more energetic, more kinetic, in their appearance. The only conclusion that I could draw was that those children had had their heads shaved for one reason—that if they escaped from the home, if they penetrated its barriers, they would be easily identifiable by the community at large and could be returned to the home. It was as barbaric as that.
In one dormitory, there were more than 40 beds for enuretic children. They were huddled together and had no blankets. The stench of urine that met us was overpowering. The care workers—I would call them warders—were graduates of the school. They were two or three years older than the children and had keys on their belts. The doors were locked at night and the children were left to care for themselves. Given the corporate denial of human rights, it was not surprising that there were marks on their heads.
As a result of that experience, we put our points to the President and to the Prime Minister. I know that the political situation in Romania is unstable, but they are taking the children out of the wilderness, out of the darkness, and into the 1990s. Children have been part of the darkness in Romania because Ceausescu decreed a healthy society. Therefore, there was no need for child care specialists or for child care policy; everyone was healthy. Therefore, the children were completely abandoned.
There is a high degree of mental handicap in Romania, but, from the contacts that I have had with the medical and social experts who have been there, I understand that that is because the children have been given no environmental stimuli. One group of psychologists from Ireland who visited Romania said before they went that they thought that it would be hard to make proper assessments of the children's intellectual potential. However, after their visit they said that they could not make any assessment of the general level of retardation by western standards, simply because of the lack of environmental stimulation. There were no children in Britain with whom to compare them.
It has been said that a society can be judged by the way in which it treats its children. If we judged Romania on that basis, it would have no future. However, it does have a future: it is in a changing political position with an embryonic political democracy, and it needs western assistance, both material and professional. It was that realisation on our part that set us to work on the idea of a parliamentary appeal for Romanian children. By establishing the group, and by obtaining your support, Mr. Speaker—we are all very grateful to you for giving your time—we will send a message to Romania saying, "No, you are not forgotten: there is a future for you, and we are ready to help."
Just as the political position in Romania is embryonic, so are hopes. We have no master plan for action in Romania, but it is worth setting up a group at the highest level to say that we—at the highest level—will do something. We are not acting merely on the one-off basis of a Christmas appeal for home No. 6; we intend to act on a continuing basis to help to establish political democracy in Romania.
802
In Bucharest, I was fortunate enough to speak to Church leaders. I spoke to Rabbi Rosen, the Chief Rabbi of Bucharest; I also had an audience with the patriarch of Romania and Archbishop Ion Robu, the Catholic Archbishop of Romania. From all three came the message that they could not do it on their own; they needed outside help and assistance.
As Archbishop Ion Robu So graphically said, those Romanian children are deprived because they have no love. No one has ever put their arms around them; no one has fondled them; they have never been told that they are loved. That is what is missing. We must put some light into that society with our deeds in this country, and we can do that only by having a link with Romania involving church leaders, community leaders and politicians. The politicians must be subject to scrutiny from the church leaders, and from British volunteers.
I hope that we can prosper in our work at parliamentary level; my experience so far suggests that people have greeted the intiative with a good deal of enthusiasm. I am sure that, with your assistance, Mr. Speaker—and that of the Government—we shall be able to do something for the children, and for Romania as a whole.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), I hope to become involved with church leaders in Scotland, and to highlight the plight of children's home No. 6. My hon. Friend has also been working with the Comber Romanian orphanage appeal of Ireland. That appeal has already exceeded 50 per cent. of its target of £500,000. It is working in conjunction with the Jubilee campaign in England. That group has been in Romania for a number of years, and since the December revolution has refurbished four orphanages. It has sent specialist volunteer forces, using material bought in Britain.
It has not given the Romanian Government money. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South agrees that we do not want money to be given to the Romanian Government because one cannot guarantee how it will be spent. We need to have monitoring in Romania by people from Britain. I stress that money raised here will not be handed over to the Romanian Government but will be used, where we can, as approved by Church leaders in Bucharest and the president, to obviate suffering in a direct way in accordance with our priorities.
This Adjournment debate is but the first step. I am delighted that you, Mr. Speaker, have given us the opportunity to raise this subject. Let us hope that it is the first of many steps whereby we can do something with the many good people of Romania.
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): This debate has been filled with tragedy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for bringing this important subject before the House.
I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in the welfare of children, and she knows that I am aware of her work in the Save the Children Fund. All the activities reported to me have shown that anything to

803
which she sets her mind is carried out with the greatest possible zeal. I am sure that the same can be said of the hon. Member for Dumbarton. I wish them both the very best of success in the appeal which they have set up for this worthy cause. I hope that the appeal will thrive and grow. I hope that my hon. Friend's contribution to the welfare of these children will be recognised in years to come.
Hon. Members described the appalling conditions in some schools in Romania. I, too, saw some of those reports on television. No one who observed them can fail to be moved by those pictures. The plight of so many abandoned children is certainly one of the most dreadful and unforeseen legacies of the Ceausescu dictatorship.
After the revolution in Romania, Her Majesty's Government moved immediately to provide substantial amounts of humanitarian aid, much of it to improve standards of care for mentally handicapped children. We provided £500,000 for the World Health Organisation's programme of aid to the Romanian health service. Following the shocking revelations about the large numbers of Romanian children diagnosed as HIV positive, we donated I million disposable syringes and we have since supplied £75,000-worth of AIDS diagnostic equipment. We have also encouraged longer-term projects, such as a family planning programme organised by Marie Stopes International. The total value of the humanitarian assistance which we have given, both directly through the European Community and through other international organisations such as the World Health Organisation, now stands at over £6·6 million. That must be a sign of the Government's commitment and concern.
None of us should forget the immense generosity of the British people in response to the situation and especially the efforts of all those who are involved in private initiatives to help Romanian children. We have, of course, taken care to ensure that our aid reaches those who need it most. For that reason, we have made contributions to British charities working in Romania. Some have many years' experience of caring for the mentally handicapped. I cannot mention them all tonight, but prominent among them is Mencap, which has been working to improve conditions in the Brincanovesti castle institution and is deeply concerned with education of mentally handicapped children. Our contributions to charities have enabled British doctors and nurses to work in Romania and have provided training in this country for Romanians responsible for the care of mentally handicapped children. We welcome this exchange of expertise and support any initiatives designed to broaden and consolidate contacts between British specialists and their Romanian counterparts.
I agree that the valuable work which is under way to provide assistance to the children of Romania should not be hindered unnecessarily by bureaucracy. However, hon. Members will understand that we are not yet ready to abolish visas for Romanian citizens, although we are, of course, willing to do all that we can to ease the way for Romanian experts to visit the United Kingdom.
I hope, too, that the Romanian authorities concerned will help facilitate the work of British specialists in their country. In that connection, the Government warmly welcome the Romanian ambassador's interest in the
804
question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West. The Romanian embassy in London has been immensely helpful already in arranging visas for a group of Department of Health and Home Office officials who will be visiting Romania later this month to discuss with their counterparts our countries' positions on inter-country adoption. We shall pursue further with the appropriate Romanian authorities ways of cutting through red tape.
Turning now to international efforts to help Romania, I should like to draw the House's attention to the imaginative programme of Community aid drawn up in July by the EC Commission. The programme has been drawn up with the active involvement of European non-governmental organisations, including the Save the Children Fund, and aims to provide help directly to children's homes in Romania—in answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton. We are contributing generously to this programme.
In July, the Commission immediately provided £100,000-worth of aid supplies and sponsored a study to assess the medical and sanitary needs of physically and mentally handicapped children. This made a number of specific recommendations on which the Commission is acting. A special representative has been appointed to work with the Romanian Ministry of Health and to help co-ordinate the efforts of non-governmental organisations and European Community member states. Some £140,000 has been set aside to provide experts and to assist in the management of institutions for mentally and physically handicapped children, and a further £1·9 million has been donated to non-governmental organisations working in Romania. In addition, the Community is setting aside £2·7 million for improved heating and sanitation for 17 orphanages. Aid worth a further £5·25 million has been earmarked for early 1991, and a Romanian request for an additional £4·6 million for the purchase of foodstuffs is currently under consideration.
We wholeheartedly welcome that initiative, which will build on the good work that has already been done by the organisations that have provided emergency relief. We shall continue to work closely with our partners in the EC, as that has proved the most efficient means of co-ordinating humanitarian aid to Romania. Furthermore, I shall ensure that the problem of children in state educational institutions is brought to the attention of the Commission and I hope that that will provide a further basis for future co-operation.
The only solution to Romania's long-term problems, including proper provision for its children, is through good government and a sound economy. As my hon. Friend is aware, this Government have made it clear that we will consider extending the know-how fund to Romania once democratic and free market reforms have been introduced in that country.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Emese Gabor is the one mentally handicapped child I know of who has been adopted in this country, and a parliamentary answer on 22 October confirmed that. The Minister mentioned Mencap, which has been assisting in connection with that adoption. The director of Brincanovesti, Dr. Delast, was in this country with the support of Bristol Mencap and visited Bev and Ruth Smith in Killamarsh in my constituency. Bev Smith had to go

805
four times to Romania to arrange Emese's adoption. Tomorrow I shall send a copy of Hansard to my constituents, who have great expertise in these matters.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I invite him also to send his constituents a copy of our earlier Adjournment debate on the subject, to which my hon. Friend the Minister of Health replied.
As I was saying, we shall consider extending the know-how fund. Similarly, in the interests of encouraging good government, we have pressed for strict conditionality in the granting of technical co-operation and other developmental assistance and aid by the G24 nations. The strict conditionality does not apply to humanitarian aid, but the policy that we have enunciated for the other forms of aid is shared by many other western countries. It is intended to encourage the Romanian leadership to follow the path of political and economic liberalisation, and there are already some encouraging signs that it it beginning to have some effect.
806
The effects of the Ceausescu regime's appalling policies will take many years to erase from Romania. In the shorter term, the humanitarian aid supplied by this and other western countries, and the tremendous effort of so many groups and individuals, will help to relieve the sufferings of the most vulnerable of the dictatorship's victims. My hon. Friend's initiative is particularly welcome as it envisages not only immediate assistance but a programme of education and training which will be of lasting benefit and will enable the children concerned to live fuller lives and perhaps even to contribute to the rebuilding of their country. Most of all, it is to be hoped that the political will exists in Romania to enable the necessary reforms to establish democracy and economic freedom which are the best guarantees for the country's future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the Devon and Cornwall police to complete their investigations into the Birmingham pub bombings case; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand that police inquiries are far advanced and continue to be conducted with maximum speed consistent with thoroughness.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Jonathan Moyle
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further informal ion he has about the death of Mr. Jonathan Moyle in Chile; and if he will make a statement as to the cause and nature of his death.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no further information. The investigation by the Chilean authorities into the tragic death of Mr. Jonathan Moyle is still in progress. The inquest opened by Her Majesty's coroner for Exeter and East Devon has been adjourned until 31 January 1991. We cannot anticipate the outcome of either inquiry.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now reopen the British embassy in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no plans at present to reopen our embassy in Kabul.

  Professor Kazem Rajavi
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Swiss Government concerning the circumstances of, and investigation into, the assassination of Professor Kazem Rajavi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This is a matter for the Swiss authorities which are continuing their investigations.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to London Underground stations during the rush hour.
  182
  Mr. Freeman
  Both my right hon. Friend and I visit the underground regularly, during the rush hour and at other times.

  M62
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations he has initiated(a) into the possibility of reducing freight traffic on the M62 by transferring a proportion of such to the railways and (b) into improving the rail network to facilitate the carriage of more goods.

  Mr. Freeman
  The practical opportunities for transferring goods to rail from the M62, as with all roads, are likely to be very limited. We are encouraging BR to build on its strengths in the freight market which are primarily for trainload movements. Where there are sound commercial prospects we are backing new investment.

  Trans-Pennine Study
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to have the results of the trans-Pennine study currently being undertaken by consultants on his behalf, and when he expects to publish the findings.

  Mr. Chope
  The consultants' report is due next spring. We shall make an announcement after assessing its findings and recommendations.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the policies set out in the Government's White Paper "This Common Inheritance" will affect his Department's national road traffic forecasts and the appraisal of trunk road schemes.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The national road traffic forecasts published in 1989 provide a broad range of future levels of road traffic demand, which remains the best available view. The forecasts clearly might be affected by future changes in, for example, regulations or taxation; but there is no reason to change them at this stage, since they are broad enough to cover the general effect of the policies in "This Common Inheritance". The forecasts do not represent a target. The Government's policy is not to meet all demand in all circumstances, but only where to do so is justified, taking into account economic and environmental considerations.

  The recent meeting of the second world climate conference discussed the need for countries to control their emissions of greenhouse gases. "This Common Inheritance" refers to the Government's willingness, if other countries take similar action, to set themselves the target of returning CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2005. A number of changes are identified which could contribute to slowing the growth of CO2 emissions in the transport sector. Many of these options would have no direct effect on the demand for travel, particularly changes in vehicle technology, individual choice of vehicles, and driving behaviour. The uncertainties surrounding the target, and the way in which any target might be achieved, are therefore so great that there is no sound basis for changing forecasts of travel demand.

  The Department will therefore continue to use the 1989 NRTF as the basis for the local forecasts used in appraising trunk road improvements. Where a local

  183
  authority has firm plans for actions to influence travel needs and choice, these plans will be taken into account directly in the preparation of the local traffic forecasts for the appraisal of a particular road improvement. (The local forecasts are based on NRTF, but also take account of local factors, such as car ownership, population and employment, and local authority plans.) The NRTF will be kept under review, in the light of actual experience of traffic growth and other changes.

  M1 (Chemicals Spillage)
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the chemicals involved in the accident that resulted in the closure of the M1 on Tuesday 23 October.

  Mr. Chope
  The only chemical involved was hydrobromic acid solution.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any signs were placed at motorway junctions to advise motorists joining the southbound carriageway that the M1 was closed at junction 11 during the aftermath of the accident on 23 October referred to in his answer of 30 October,Official Report, column 466, whether any signs were placed on the hard shoulder or central reservations advising motorists to expect long delays; and whether any signs were placed at junctions, on the hard shoulder or central reservation advising motorists to leave the motorway before junction 11.

  Name of company

  Date of publication of report

  Name of firm

  Larkfold Holdings Limited

  7 June 1979

  Wright, Sons and Pepper

  Darjeeling Holdings Limited

  30 April 1980

  Callingham Tucker

  Scotia Investments Limited

  22 January 1981

  Richards Butler

  Gilgate Holdings Limited

  8 Septmeber 1981

  Kidd, Rapinet, Badge & Co.

  Milbury plc

  27 October 1988

  Hancock & Wills

  County NatWest Limited

  20 July 1989

  Travers Smith and Braithwaite

  County NatWest Securities Limited

  House of Fraser Holdings Limited

  7 March 1990

  Herbert Smith

  Radio Scanners
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations apply to the use in the United Kingdom of radio scanners; what are the main requirements of such regulations; whether he proposes to extend such regulations or to alter the requirements of existing regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The use of radio scanners to listen to private messages is an offence under section 5(b) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 if done otherwise than under the authority of the Secretary of State or in the course of duty as a servant of the Crown. The Broadcasting Act 1990 will amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act so that scanners may be ordered forfeit by the court under section 14 upon conviction. There are no other proposals to extend or alter section 5(b).
  184
  Mr. Chope
  Remote signs to advise drivers of major incidents ahead are currently provided on our motorways only for major roadworks.

  The primary source of information about unforeseen events is radio reports.

  The Department is investigating means of improving driver information in such circumstances and I will write to my hon. Friend with more details.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether nuclear waste will be permitted to be carried through the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  Eurotunnel has announced that it does not intend to permit the transport of nuclear waste through the tunnel.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Legal Firms
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those legal firms that have been criticised by his Department's inspectors since June 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  Seven reports of inspectors appointed under the Companies Act and published since June 1979 have contained criticisms of firms of solicitors. The extent of criticism varies in degree and reference should be made to individual reports.

ENVIRONMENT

  Heritage Properties
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of heritage properties in public ownership which are open to view; and what incentives his Department makes available to private owners of properties to make their properties open to view.

  Mr. Trippier
  English Heritage owns, or manages on behalf of the Crown, over 400 historic properties, monuments and sites to which there is public access. The Historic Royal Palaces Agency has responsibility for six unoccupied royal palaces in London to which there is also public access. Both bodies are funded by the Department. In addition, a number of individual Government Departments and local authorities are responsible for other historic property, some of which is in use as office accommodation and to some of which there is public access. There is, however, no centrally held record of access arrangements to such properties.
  185
  This Department offers no direct incentives to private owners to open their properties to public view. However, private owners can be eligible for building repair grant from English Heritage provided there is provision for public access. In addition, Inland Revenue offers relief from certain capital taxes to encourage owners to keep and care for heritage property on condition that public access is provided.

  Education Spending
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list for each local education authority and for both the standard spending assessment element of(a) other education and (b) under-fives education the changes in these elements in both total sums and percentage caused by reducing the additional educational needs index from 70 to 50 per cent.;

  (2) if he will list for each local education authority the results of changing the proportion of the standard spending assessment elements for (a)other education standard spending assessment and (b)under-fives standard spending assessment that are distributed on the basis of the additional educational needs index.

  Mr. Key
  I have today placed in the Library a table showing the effect on the provisional 1991–92 standard spending assessments for other education and for the under-fives of the proposed reduction in the proportion of these elements to be distributed on the basis of the additional educational needs (A EN) index from 70 per cent. to 50 per cent. The table shows the effects of the change in £s million and percentage terms for each local education authortity in England.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the total standard spending assessment for education for each local education authority, (b) the standard spending assessment element for under-fives for each local education authority, (c) the standard spending assessment element for primary education for each local education authority, (d) the standard spending assessment element for secondary education for each local education authority, (e) the standard spending assessment element for post-16 education for each local education authority and (f) the standard spending assessment element for other education for each local education authority.

  Mr. Key
  I have today placed in the Library a table showing the information required.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State far the Environment if he will list(a) for each local education authority the adjustments to the indicator of student numbers within the post-16 education standard spending assessment in those areas expected to participate in the training credits pilot scheme for each local education authority involved and (b) the exemplification of changes in standard spending assessment for the post-16 education standard spending assessment for each local education authority involved.

  Mr. Key
  The figures requested are shown in the table:
  186

  Authority

  (a)

  (b)

  Reduction in student numbers

  Reduction in post 16 education SSA element

  (£ million)

  Bexley

  67

  0·246

  Bromley

  36

  0·134

  Croydon

  51

  0·202

  Birmingham

  110

  0·426

  Bradford

  109

  0·403

  Cheshire

  97

  0·322

  Cornwall

  160

  0·559

  Devon

  297

  1·017

  Hertfordshire

  230

  0·820

  Kent

  123

  0·433

  Northumberland

  77

  0·260

  Suffolk

  178

  0·602

  Isles of Scilly

  1—

  2—

  1 Less than 1.

  2 Less than £1,000.

  Metropolitan Water Board "B" Shares
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for I he Environment what representations he has received about compensation due to Metropolitan Water Board "B" stockholders since 1958; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Two inquiries have been made on behalf of stockholders, one in 1987 and the other this year. When the Metropolitan Water Board was abolished in 1974, Thames water authority took over responsibility for Metropolitan Water stocks: under the Water Act 1989 any outstanding liabilities were passed to Thames Water plc, and are a matter between that company and those persons who have an interest as stockholders.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will issue advice to poll tax officials on the powers in the Local Government Finance Act that allow an electoral registration officer to inspect the registers.

  Mr. Key
  Detailed guidance on the responsibilities of community charge registration officers is contained in the community charge practice notes, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The Home Office also issued guidance on 10 August 1990 which advises electoral registration officers on their right of access to the community charges register.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been distributed to London boroughs by the London residuary body since the abolition of the Greater London council.

  Mr. Key
  A total of £486 million in capital receipts and £184 million in revenue balances.

  Credit Approvals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the basic credit approvals for local authorities for 1991–92 classified by(a) specific service and (b) individual local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  Basic credit approvals for individual local authorities for 1991–92 will be announced in due course.

  Redditch Borough Council
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who submitted the original complaint of anti-competitive behaviour against Redditch borough council to his Department and when; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is our policy not to reveal the identity of the originators of complaints about failures by local authorities to comply with the requirements of part I of the Local Government Act 1988. I can confirm, however, that my Department first wrote to Redditch borough council on the matter of the refuse and other cleansing contract in July 1990.

  Street Cleaning
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from local authorities to his decision to postpone competitive tendering deadlines to enable the authorities affected to let their street cleaning contracts on the basis of the proposed code of practice on litter; and what consideration he has given to this response.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received a number of submissions from local authorities about our decision to extend competition deadlines for street cleaning. In particular, it has been drawn to our attention that authorities whose work has until 1 April 1991 fallen outside the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988 because expenditure incurred has fallen below £100,000 per annum are in a similar position to those authorities mentioned in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on 20 July which have already been granted an extension. I therefore intend to substitute a later deadline of 1 August 1991 for all authorities whose street cleaning work is required to be submitted to competition by 1 April 1991. I shall make an order giving effect to this intention. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will make similar arrangements for Scottish and Welsh authorities.

  Local Authority Staff
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are in employment(a) full time and (b) part time in each local authority; what percentage of that authority's population each figure represents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 14 November 1990]: I have today placed the available information based on local authority staffing figures for March 1990 in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met local authority representatives to discuss the effects of cuts in direct subsidies for community charge/housing benefits on the level of community charges for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.
  188
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the local authority associations on 24 September to discuss the proposal to reduce from 97 per cent. to 95 per cent. the rate of direct subsidy for community charge benefit and certain housing benefit cases from April 1991. This change has been fully taken into account in the proposed local authority finance settlements for 1991–92, and the distributional consequences should be minimal.

THE ARTS

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since an announcement was last made on the subject to the House.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since my announcement on 31 October at column 575, I am pleased to announce that a painting by W. R. Sickert, entitled "Girl at a Window, Little Rachel" has been accepted in satisfaction of £84,000 tax. No decision on the allocation of this offer has yet to be taken.

  I would also like to inform the House of two refunds my Department has received of moneys originally paid to the Inland Revenue for items accepted in lieu of tax. These receipts have arisen because of reassessment of the position on the estates concerned. The first relates to the acceptance of a series of 20 watercolour illustrations by J. M. W. Turner announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 13 January 1988 at column 293. My Department has been refunded £2,852·81 of the original payment making the final cost of acceptance of the offer £230,897·19. The second receipt, for £19·15, relates to the acceptance of a painting known as "Fabula" by El Greco which was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 20 April 1989 at column 254. The final cost of acceptance for this item was therefore £947,117·73. The refunded moneys have been paid directly into the Consolidated Fund and will not be added to this year's acceptance in lieu provision.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service Relocation
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the terms on which civil servants are relocated.

  Mr. Ryder
  As the House was informed on 17 January 1990 at columns 288–89 departmental Ministers have already announced decisions to relocate a substantial number of civil service posts away from London and the south-east over the next two to three years. These transfers of work not only represent good value for money for the taxpayer but also give advantages to staff and management, plus important benefits to the new locations, nearly all of which are the focus of the Government's regional or inner-city policies.

  The moves need careful planning. Many jobs which are being relocated will be filled by local recruitment, but sufficient numbers of experienced and mobile staff will need to move with their jobs so that continuity is

  189
  maintained and essential work is not put at risk. Accordingly Departments ensure that their staff and the civil service unions are consulted. Departments make every effort to ensure that, wherever possible, even staff with a mobility obligation move on a voluntary basis, and, of course, they already have a number of measures available to them for assisting mobile staff to meet the costs of transfers that are in the public interest.

  These measures include advances of up to six months' salary for house purchase, reimbursement of the actual costs of moving, special arrangements for meeting additional costs where the move is into a more expensive housing area, meeting the interest costs of any necessary bridging loans, payment of additional travel costs as an alternative to moving home, and, for moves out of London, payments over five years of amounts up to the level of London weighting. This range of measures compares very favourably with those offered by private sector employers.

  Most of these measures are intended for staff who decide to transfer their family home to the new location. Surveys of public and private sector relocations have shown that certain staff are reluctant to relocate for fear of damaging a spouse's career or disrupting their children's education at a key stage. Like other employers the Government take account of such concerns in the terms offered to staff relocating to a new area.

  The range of relocation assistance available to Departments is therefore being widened to include the discretion to offer, where it is cost-effective to do so, an alternative to existing permanent transfer terms to mobile staff who, for domestic reasons, are reluctant to move the family home. The additional discretion will enable relevant staff to take accommodation at the new location without prejudice to their existing family home. The assistance offered will comprise an advance of up to six months' salary to secure the new accommodation, to be repaid over seven years, help with some of the setting-up costs, assistance with legal costs and a tapering allowance for up to 10 years to meet part of the mortgage costs. Such assistance will be conditional on agreement to arrangements for sharing between the individual and the Government the proceeds of disposal when he or she moves again and the new accommodation is sold. In addition all such assistance will be taxable.

  The costs of these measures, which are expected to fall below the costs of existing transfer terms, will be contained within agreed running costs limits, and will be recovered from savings generated by the relocation.

  European Currency Unit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in drawing up his proposals on a hard ecu for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, whether he intends to propose any restrictions on the use of the hard ecu within the domestic economy.

  Mr. Maples
  The hard ecu would be used to the extent that the Government, companies and individuals chose to do so.

  Pension Funds
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has(a) been recouped from pension funds and (b) returned to the employers in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 14 November 1990]: Information is not available in the form requested. The table below gives information derived from pension funds reports to the Inland Revenue on action which they propose to take to remove surpluses, following the provisions of the Finance Act 1986.

  £ million

  Schemes reporting in

  Refunds to employers

  Tax due on refund

  1987–88

  91

  37

  1988–89

  224

  90

  1989–90

  423

  169

  Note: The amounts shown represent figures for schemes reporting to the Inland Revenue in each year where proposals have been agreed by the superannuation funds office. The tax may not yet have been paid if the proposals have not yet been implemented.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ecuador Rain Forest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information the Overseas Development Administration has on British Gas's proposals for development in the Ecuador rain forest.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have been informed of British Gas's exploration activities in Ecuador but have no information about any proposals for development.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Nunnykirk Hall School
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to give a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed of 19 July about the application of Nunnykirk Hall school, Northumberland, for non-maintained status, and to the application made by the school to the Department on 9 February; and whether he will make a statement as to the reason for the delay.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The preparation of a substantive reply to the letter received from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has required detailed research, but I shall reply shortly.

  Schools, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reports he has received providing information about damage caused to Bradford schools by fire; if he will consider making a supplementary allocation to Bradford local education authority to meet any shortfall between insurance payments made and the full cost of replacing school accommodation destroyed by fire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Bradford local education authority has been in touch with the Department about the damage
  191
  caused by fires over the weekend of 3 and 4 November at Gregory middle school and Tyersal first school in Bradford. The resources required for reinstatement of the damaged accommodation at these schools are a matter for negotiation in the first instance between the Bradford local education authority and its insurers.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of gross national product was spent on education in each of the OECD countries in 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available; and what was per capita spending on education in each OECD country in the same years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The readily available data are as follows:

  Current Education Expenditure as a percentage of Gross National Product

  1979

  1986

  Australia

  5·3

  5·3

  Belgium1

  5·8

  5·1

  (1987)

  Canada

  7·2

  6·7

  (1987)

  Denmark

  5·5

  7·6

  (1987)

  France2

  3·3

  3·3

  Germany, Federal Republic of

  4·0

  4·0

  Italy

  4·4

  14·5

  (1983)

  Japan

  3·9

  5·0

  Netherlands

  7·3

  5·9

  (1985)

  Spain

  2·3

  2·9

  (1986)

  Sweden

  8·3

  6·7

  (1987)

  United Kingdom

  5·2

  4·8

  United States of America

  6·7

  36·2

  (19850

  Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbooks 1983, 1989.

  Public Current Expenditure on Education per capita 19864

  £ Sterling at Purchasing Power Parity

  Australia

  330

  Belgium

  320

  Canada

  540

  Denmark5

  440

  France

  330

  German, Federal Republic of

  260

  Italy6

  220

  Japan7

  230

  Netherlands

  360

  Spain6

  130

  Sweden

  420

  United Kingdom

  300

  United States of America

  420

  Source: Table DD Education Statistics for the United Kingdom 1989

  Notes:

  1 Expenditure of Ministry of Education only.

  2 Metropolitan France.

  3 Total public and private expenditure on education.

  4 Figures for 1979 are not readily available.

  5 Provisional.

  6 3rd level qualifiers estimated for Denmark, France, Germany and Spain. Expenditure detail by level estimated via 1983 for Italy and 1979 for Spain.

  7 Estimated. Includes some private funding, but excludes fees.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many of those who have registered an interest in electricity privatisation are from households where more than one member has registered an interest.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The number of persons registered for the sale will be disclosed in the prospectus to be published on 21 November. It would be inappropriate to anticipate its publication or to go beyond what will be set out in that document.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will summarise the nuclear reprocessing deal between the German Nukem company and the Atomic Energy Authority; what amount of nuclear material is expected to be transported to the United Kingdom under this deal; where it will be reprocessed; what arrangements have been made for its transportation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Nuclear Fusion Power
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what reports, including from the European Commission, he has on nuclear fusion power and its potentially serious environmental problems; if he will summarise the problems referred to; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has lately seen the Fusion Programme Evaluation Board report prepared for the Commission of the European Communities and published in July 1990 and the report of the Senior Committee on Environmental, Safety and Economic Aspects of Magnetic Fusion Energy, published in the USA in September 1989. These reports concur in finding that fusion potentially has significant safety and environmental advantages over alternative methods of large-scale electricity generation, but that the realisation of this potential in a practical system requires solutions to a number of challenging problems. These problems concern the development of materials, the use of tritium, and the maintainability of the reactor.

  Sir Trevor Holdsworth
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how he arrived at the salary to be paid to Sir Trevor Holdsworth at National Power.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The salary for the National Power chairmanship was determined as being appropriate for the post.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the role of the security services has been reviewed in the wake of improved relations with much of eastern Europe; whether any reviews are planned; whether any savings have been ascertained; and if she will make a statement.
  193
  The Prime Minister
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence and security matters.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Chief Buthelezi.

WALES

  Advisers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will set out the process that is followed prior to the appointment of an adviser to him including details of the authorisation at(a) official and (b) ministerial level that is required;

  (2) what is the total cost to public funds, on a full-year basis, of appointing Mr. Rod Richards as his personal adviser.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Tuesday 13 November.

  Sketty Primary School
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his Department assesses to be the pupil capacity of Sketty primary school; and what are actual pupil numbers.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As at January 1990 there were 407 pupils on roll at Sketty primary school. The Department has made no estimate of pupil capacity at the school but I understand that the West Glamorgan education authority operates to an overall maximum figure of 420, as estimated in accordance with Welsh Office circular 20/88.

  Llwyn Mawr School
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will extend the deadline for West Glamorgan county council to implement his direction for the Llwyn Mawr site in Swansea.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering all the representations he has received following the issue of the direction.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what alternative sites for a new school will exist within the same catchment area when the sale of the Llwyn Mawr takes place.

  Mr. Grist
  It is for the local education authority to make decisions on school provision and to determine the suitability of individual sites.

DEFENCE

  Defence Sales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many items of equipment of types to be limited by the CFE treaty have been sold or given to other nations by the United Kingdom; and at what cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice of this, or previous, Administrations to comment on individual defence sales transactions.

  WE177
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he has taken a decision on the replacement of the WE177 with an air-to-surface missile;

  (2) if he will make a statement on possible co-operation with France on a replacement for the WE177 free-fall bomb.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are looking at both French and United States systems as possible replacements for our WE177 free-fall bomb. However, no decision has been taken.

  Loan Service Personnel
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will state the purpose for which service personnel are on loan service in(a) Bahrain, (b) Brunei, (c) Jordan, (d) Oman, (e) Qatar, (f) Sudi Arabia and (g) the United Arab Emirates;

  (2) if he will state the purpose for which service personnel are on loan service in (a) Botswana, (b) the Gambia, (c) Ghana, (d) Kenya, (e) Lesotho, (f) Namibia, (g) Nigeria, (h) Sudan, (i) Swaziland and (j) Zimbabwe;

  (3) if he will state the purpose for which service personnel are on loan service in (a) Bangladesh, (b) Hong Kong, (c) Indonesia, (d) Malaysia, (e) Mauritius, (f) new Zealand and (g) Singapore;

  (4) if he will state the purpose for which service personnel are on loan service in (a) Dominica, (b) Barbados, (c) Belize, (d) Bermuda, (e) Fiji, (f) Grenada, (g) St. Lucia, (h) St. Vincent and (i)the Turks and Caicos Islands

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Loan service personnel are employed on a variety of military assistance tasks for overseas Governments. Details are normally confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the country concerned.

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to come to a conclusion about a no-fault compensation scheme for service-related personnel who have been exposed to nuclear radiation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am considering the possibility of introducing a no-fault compensation scheme for MOD personnel. I hope to come to a conclusion on the merits of such a scheme early next year.

  Falklands (Ecology Report)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment and monitoring he has undertaken of the report by Dr. Miles in 1983, undertaken by his Department, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Natural Environment Research Council on the management of the ecology and sea bird life of the Falklands.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The 1984 report by Dr. Miles, which was an ecological impact assessment of the construction of Mount Pleasant airfield and associated developments, recommended inter alia the establishment of monitoring arrangements to assess the effects. The recommendations of the report have all been actioned and there has been no significant change in the ecology as a result of the construction of the airfield. More generally, the Ministry of Defence remains conscious of its responsibilities in assisting the Falkland Island Government in their management of the ecology of the islands.

  Defence Review
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the percentage reduction in real terms from current defence expenditure if all of the proposals outlined in "Options for Change" are implemented.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in his statement to the House in July, the "Options" proposals will bring savings and a reduction in the share of GDP taken by defence. The plans for the defence budget which were announced in the autumn statement envisage that on current inflation assumptions provision for 1993–94 will be 6 per cent. lower in real terms than the estimated outturn for 1990–91.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the target date for the achievement of the force reductions outlined in "Options for Change".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer which I gave on 30 October to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) at column 501.

  HMS Warspite and Churchill
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much of the expenditure on the refitting of HMS Warspite was incurred after the discovery of a fault in its reactor;

  (2) what is the total cost to date of the refitting of HMS Warspite.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount of money has been spent to date on the refit of(a) HMS Warspite and (b) HMS Churchill.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost of the refits on HMS Warspite and HMS Churchill is still being negotiated with the contractors. Such costs are in any case commercially confidential.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the factors which led to the decision to scrap HMS Warspite.
  196
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what influence the "Options for Change" study has had on the decision to decommission HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's announcement on 25 July at column 470 envisaged a reduction in the submarine fleet to around 16 boats, about three quarters of which would be nuclear-powered. This reduction in force levels is to be achieved by decommissioning older, less capable boats, such as HMS Warspite, while retaining the more modern ones in service.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many submarines in service and of what class have the same type of reactor as HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on matters relating to the design of nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date of commencement of the refitting of HMS Warspite.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date on which(a) HMS Warspite and (b) HMS Churchill started their refit programmes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The refit of HMS Warspite commenced in 1988 and that of HMS Churchill in 1989.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the fault was discovered in the reactor of HMS Warspite.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what faults have been discovered in the course of the refit of HMS Warspite with the submarine's nuclear reactor and its associated systems.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on specific events or features relating to the refits of the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered submarines or on matters relating to nuclear submarine design.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part the reactor fault played in the decision to scrap HMS Warspite.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what influence technical defects discovered in the course of the refit of HMS Warspite has had on the decision to decommission the submarine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A range of factors were taken into account before deciding which submarines to decommission to achieve the lower force level of about 16 boats, including age, capability, material state and cost of maintenance and operation. All of these factors are relevant in the case of HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to ascertain whether any other submarines in service have similar reactor faults to that found in HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A programme of inspections of all the Royal Navy's in-service nuclear-powered submarines is in progress following the discovery of a
  197
  technical defect in one of the submarines during refit. It is not our practice to comment on specific aspects of nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date on which a decision was taken to scrap HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The decision to reduce the submarine force level to around 16 was announced to the House on 25 July at column 471. The consequential decision to decommission HMS Warspite was taken in early September this year.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes to the maritime threat to the United Kingdom have occurred in the last two years; and what effect these changes have had on the decision to decommission HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, on 25 July at column 470, which outlined the major changes which are taking place in the international scene.

  Against that background, we aim to maintain the force levels envisaged in that statement with the more modern and capable assets in service or under construction; older platforms, such as HMS Warspite, are therefore being decommissioned.

  Naval Vessels
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if ministerial approval is required for any decision to scrap Royal Navy vessels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Postal Services (Gulf)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for reduced rate postage for parcel post by air to service personnel serving in the general area of the Persian Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Forces concessionary postage rates for service personnel serving in the Gulf were introduced on 12 September. The forces concessionary scheme normally provides for letters to be sent by air and parcels up to 10kg by sea at postage rates generally in line with the United Kingdom inland postage rate. At present all mail to the Gulf is being carried by RAF aircraft with a transit time of about five days for letters and 10 days for parcels.

  Naval Housing, Milford haven
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the disposal of his Department's houses on and adjacent to Royal Navy armaments depot Milford Haven.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Once the disposal of the main site has been arranged, occupied houses will be offered for sale to sitting tenants and vacant houses will be sold on the open market.

  Submarines
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many announcements of submarine decommissioning have been made since 25 July.
  198
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The decommissioning of HMS Churchill was announced on 29 October at column 414; and that of HMS Warspite on 1 November at column 770. In addition, on 31 July and MOD press release was issued in which it was stated that Her Majesty's ships Onslaught, Odin and Conqueror are to be decommissioned.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Living Beings (Patenting)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the Government's policies towards proposals to legislate to allow the patenting of living beings and the implications for farming and research in this country.

  Mr. Maclean
  Discussions are continuing on the European Community proposal for a directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. United Kingdom patent law does not permit the patenting of any variety of animal or plant or any essentially biological process; neither does the draft directive propose to do so. However, under present United Kingdom law and the proposed directive, microbiological processes (such as might be used in genetic engineering techniques) and their products can be patented. I expect farming and research in the United Kingdom to benefit from new developments in biotechnology, as it has benefited from other new technology.

  Racing Greyhounds
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received concerning the live export of racing greyhounds to Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a number of letters expressing concern about a trade in greyhounds from the Irish Republic to Spain. That is a matter for the authorities in the Irish Republic. There is no comparable trade from the United Kingdom.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account was taken of the verdict in the legal action initiated by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on his previous decision on the Hague preference in his latest decision in that case.

  Mr. Curry
  The terms of the understanding reached with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations were borne in mind in the decision-making process in 1990.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account he took of the views of the Grimsby industry in allocating 3,255 tonnes of North sea haddock to Scotland after his consultation document of 8 August.

  Mr. Curry
  Fisheries Ministers took careful account of all the views received from the industry, including those of Grimsby.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the cost criteria
  199
  used in deciding to allocate extra fish gained as a result of the Hague preference to north Britain; what is the area he has defined as north Britain; and what is the basis of his definition.

  Mr. Curry
  Fisheries Ministers decided on the definition of Bridlington and northwards as best meeting the needs of fishing communities given the circumstances which applied in 1990.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the loss of fish in tonnes to Grimsby, Fleetwood and Hull as a result of his decisions on the Hague preference.

  Mr. Curry
  Fisheries Ministers considered a range of options when deciding how to allocate west of Scotland whiting and North sea haddock in 1990. Some of those options involved allocating fish to Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood. The total quantities involved in the allocation of these stocks were small.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the communities he has defined as communities in north Britain dependent on fishing.

  Mr. Curry
  For the purposes of the allocation of "Hague preference" North sea haddock and west of Scotland whiting in 1990 the local communities, particularly dependent on fishing and allied industries were defined as Bridlington and northwards, on the basis of all relevant information available to Fisheries Ministers.

  Food Industry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will detail what measures are being taken by his Ministry actively to encourage the United Kingdom food industry to provide comprehensive nutrition information; and if he will make a statement on how the effectiveness of these measures is being monitored and evaluated.

  Mr. Maclean
  My officials have written to interested parties enclosing a copy of the EC nutrition labelling (rules) directive adopted on 24 September, and summarising its main provisions. This supplements existing guidance to the industry and encourages manufacturers and retailers to provide comprehensive nutrition declarations in accordance with the directive. I shall consider further action in the light of surveys conducted on the extent of nutrition labelling and the level of consumer understanding.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest figures for(a) suspected cases and (b) confirmed cases of BSE on a county-by-county basis in England, Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information up to 9 November 1990 is as follows:

  Region

  Suspects

  Confirmed

  Northern

  Cleveland

  29

  27

  Cumbria

  383

  335

  200

  Region

  Suspects

  Confirmed

  Durham

  80

  76

  Humberside

  102

  89

  Northumberland

  87

  74

  Tyne and Wear

  3

  2

  Yorkshire, North

  800

  713

  Yorkshire, South

  65

  59

  Yorkshire, West

  92

  84

  Mid and West

  Cheshire

  541

  450

  Derbyshire

  325

  284

  Hereford and Worcester

  421

  383

  Lancashire

  450

  397

  Leicestershire

  514

  465

  Manchester

  17

  11

  Merseyside

  15

  9

  Nottinghamshire

  144

  125

  Shropshire

  537

  475

  Staffordshire

  436

  380

  West Midlands

  16

  14

  Warwickshire

  239

  212

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  68

  58

  Cambridgeshire

  85

  73

  Essex

  105

  91

  Hertfordshire

  110

  93

  Lincolnshire

  186

  163

  Norfolk

  344

  292

  Northamptonshire

  186

  167

  Suffolk

  271

  243

  South-East

  Berkshire

  153

  125

  Buckinghamshire

  200

  160

  Hampshire

  906

  815

  Isle of Wight

  161

  144

  Kent

  531

  457

  London

  9

  8

  Oxfordshire

  371

  320

  Surrey

  234

  206

  Sussex East

  312

  267

  Sussex West

  586

  514

  South-West

  Avon

  472

  372

  Cornwall

  1,732

  1,515

  Devon

  2,478

  2,214

  Dorset

  1,950

  1,701

  Gloucestershire

  736

  614

  Somerset

  1,905

  1,608

  Wiltshire

  1,443

  1,213

  Wales

  Clwyd

  304

  193

  Dyfed

  838

  759

  Mid Glamorgan

  56

  47

  South Glamorgan

  61

  55

  West Glamorgan

  10

  8

  Gwent

  175

  150

  Gwynedd

  69

  57

  Powys

  202

  168

  South Scotland

  Borders

  30

  23

  Central

  27

  23

  Dumfries

  125

  112

  Lothian

  17

  15

  Strathclyde

  190

  168

  North Scotland

  Fife

  48

  43

  Grampian

  154

  136

  Highland

  40

  35

  Orkney

  9

  7

  Shetland

  2

  2

  Tayside

  68

  56

  Western Isles

  1

  1

  201

  Region

  Suspects

  Confirmed

  Total

  23,256

  20,155

  Farms
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the titles of the jobs of people he employs to visit farms and check details of grant and subsidy payments; how many of them he employs, on a region-by-region basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The verification visits to farms on grant and subsidy schemes are generally undertaken, among other duties, by staff in the executive officer (field) grade. The number of EOs (field) currently employed in the Ministry's regional offices are as follows:

  Number

  Northern Region

  29

  Midlands and Western Region

  119

  Eastern Region

  19

  South Western Region

  18

  South Eastern Region

  11

  England total

  96·5

  1Plus one half time official.

  Where specific technical verification is required, appropriate officers in the Ministry's Agricultural Development Advisory Service may also visit farms.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what has been the cost of the tuberculosis eradication scheme for badgers for each of the last 10 years, including 1990–91; what he estimates future expenditure for the next three years to be; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what has been the cost of the tuberculosis eradication scheme for each of the last 10 years, including 1990–91; what he estimates future expenditure to be for the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  A total of £0·4 million was spent on the badger control strategy in 1989. Comparable figures are not available for other years. The annual cost of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme (which relates to action taken in respect of tuberculosis in cattle, badgers and latterly deer) is:

  Total cost of the scheme

  £ million

  1981–82

  n/a

  1982–83

  n/a

  1983–84

  n/a

  1984–85

  6·3

  1985–86

  7·6

  1986–87

  7·1

  1987–88

  6·7

  1988–89

  6·5

  1989–90

  8·4

  1990–91

  19·1

  1991–92

  29·3

  1992–93

  29·6

  1993–94

  29·6

  1 Estimated.

  2 Forecast.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers meetings to reach a common Community negotiating position for the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks and the measure to be recommended so as to ensure a properly managed and incremental change in the present system.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on 8 November at column 8.

  Beef and Lamb
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the average price of(a) beef per kilo and (b) lamb per kilo received by British farmers and the average retail price at which it is sold in British shops.

  Mr. Maclean
  The average market price for all clean cattle for the week commencing 29 October 1990 was 102·52p per kg liveweight.

  Average retail prices for the same week range form £5·94 per kg for topside, to £14·45 per kg for fillet steak and £3·41 per kg for best mince.

  The average market price for lamb for the week commencing 29 October was 143·3p per kg. Average retail prices for the main cuts of home-killed lamb in the same week were:

  £kg

  1. Leg

  4·11

  2. Loin

  4·75

  3. Shoulder

  2·29

  Since the liveweight prices are for the whole animal on its feet and the retail prices are for meat as sold (generally off the bone) the two are not directly comparable.

  Fishing Licences
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he proposes to make to the conditions attached to fishing licences, in the light of the judgments of the European Court of Justice in the Agegate and Jaderow cases.

  Mr. Curry
  The Agegate and Jaderow proceedings were originally commenced against the Department in 1986 in order to challenge the validity of the fish licensing conditions designed to procure the proper implementation of the quota system under the common fisheries policy. In the course of those proceedings our courts referred certain legal questions to the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice delivered its judgments on 14 December 1989 and the matter is to return to the English divisional court.

  The ECJ judgments cast doubt on the validity of the crewing condition in its present form but upheld our right to have an operating condition provided that certain rights were respected. We have been considering what changes need to be made to our licence conditions in the light of these judgments. At present we are minded to tighten up the operating conditions in order to improve compliance

  203
  and to make enforcement easier. This will probably entail conditions such as the following applying to all vessels which do not land at least half their annual catch in the United Kingdom.

  (i) they will make at least four visits to United Kingdom ports in each half year (January-June and July-December);

  (ii) vessels to give at least 24 hours' notice of each visit, and to stay in port for at least eight hours; and

  (iii) there should be a minimum period of 10 days between "qualifying visits".

  The licence condition concerning the nationality and residence of crew members would probably be dropped, except in respect of non-EC nationals, as might the condition concerning social security payments (since this is covered elsewhere by Community law and the obligation to pay social security continues irrespective of whether there is a licence condition to that effect).

  These changes would have important implications for the Agegate and Jaderow cases and we have discussed them at their request with representatives of the Spanish fishing industry who have indicated that they accept that we were entitled to ensure that there is a real economic link between their vessels and the British fishing industry and to impose an effective operating condition. They have also indicated their intention to employ at least two British crewmen on their vessels, in addition to the British skipper and mate, and to land fish in British ports on at least two occasions in each half year. These discussions are very encouraging.

  The registration requirements in respect of fishing vessels contained in part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 will, subject to the interim orders of the European Court and the House of Lords, continue in force. This means, in particular, that fishing vessels may be registered here—and thus fish against British quotas—only if each vessel is managed, and its operations are directed and controlled from within the United Kingdom. The cases in the European Court challenging the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 will be vigorously contested by the Government. An oral hearing will take place at the European Court on 17 January 1991.

  Fisheries Departments will in due course be issuing a detailed notice about the new licence conditions and licences will be amended with effect from 1 January 1991.

  These amended conditions would contribute towards the objective of ensuring that British licensed fishing vessels have a real link with this country.

  Heracleum Montegazzianum
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the locations within the three counties of Yorkshire and Humberside that are affected with heracleum montegazzianum; and what advice has been issued in these counties to warn public of the dangers of coming into contact with heracleum montegazzianum.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has no detailed information on this subject but my advice from the Nature Conservancy Council is that the species is scarce in these areas. I am not aware that any advice has been issued about the dangers to the public of coming into contact with it.

HEALTH

  Neurosurgery
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently on all local health authority waiting lists for neurology operations in England and Wales; and how long patients have to wait for their operations in this department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At March 1990, the latest date for which information is available centrally, there were 3,721 patients on neurosurgery in-patient and day case waiting lists. What matters more than total number on the list is the time patients have to wait. The proportion of patients waiting more than 12 months in neurosurgery has fallen from 27 per cent. in March 1989 to 25 per cent. in March 1990. In addition, the number of patients treated per year in this specialty has risen by 6 per cent. from 39,500 to 41,700 in the same period.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received regarding waiting lists for neurosurgery.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no record of any representations about waiting lists for neurosurgery in the 12 months ending 13 November 1990.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been allocated for(a) research into and (b) help for families and sufferers of meningitis over the past 10 years; and what extra help will be given to this area of medicine by public awareness campaigns during the winter months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science, provided £887,000 for research during the period 1985–86 to 1989–90.

  This Department has made available £72,800 for research into meningitis for the period 1986–90; we are also awaiting the final report of a case control study of meningococcal disease in eight west country health districts from 1 May 1988 to 30 April 1990.

  Information about funding for meningitis research over the last 10 years is available only at disproportionate cost.

  The public health laboratory service's communicable disease surveillance centre began a study on 1 November, costing £135,000 and fully funded by the Department, to investigate candidate vaccines against haemophilus influenzae b(Hib) infection, one of the causes of bacterial meningitis. The centre also keeps the incidence of meningitis under close review, and is available to advise health authorities if an outbreak occurs.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has made a detailed and quantified assessment of the relation between closure of national health service wards and cuts in hospital beds available for in-patient treatment and the increase of waiting lists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no simple relation between the number of beds, the number of patients
  205
  treated, and the number awaiting treatment. Between March 1989 and March 1990 (the latest date for which comprehensive data are available) the number of available beds fell by 4·6 per cent., the number of patients treated per year rose by 4·4 per cent., and the number of patients waiting over one year fell by 7 per cent.

  Cholera Vaccine
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possibility of cholera vaccine no longer being produced in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Production difficulties earlier this year at the United Kingdom manufacturing site led to the temporary importation of cholera vaccine. The production difficulties have now been resolved and I am glad to say that the United Kingdom-produced vaccine will become available early next year. I expect that cholera vaccine will continue to be produced in the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future.

  Baby Care
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding of regionally planned perinatal and neonatal intensive care; and what is his policy towards the introduction of regional contracts to provide care for ill babies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Funding and contractual arrangements for perinatal and neonatal intensive care services are matters for regional and health authorities to determine in the light of local circumstances and requirements. We expect regional health authorities to ensure that the new contractual arrangements continue to provide for the referral of vulnerable and very sick babies to appropriate units, both before and following birth. The NHS management executive will pay particular attention to monitoring and reviewing the provision of maternity and neonatal services during the annual accountability review process in 1991–92.

  Helicopter Medical Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the independent evaluation of the helicopter emergency medical service by Professor Brian Williams is expected to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The evaluation of this service is due to begin early in the new year. It will take three years with the report expected in autumn 1994.

  Bradford Health Authority
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports have been submitted to him about action being taken by Bradford health authority to meet the financial deficit for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Measures to be taken by individual health authorities are for agreement between the region and the district concerned.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds there were within Bradford health authority area(a) in November 1989 and (b) to the latest available date in 1990; and if he will make a statement.
  206
  Mr. Dorrell
  Information held centrally shows that there were on average 2,188 beds (all categories) available within Bradford district health authority in the quarter ending December 1989. For the quarter ending March 1990, the latest available centrally, the number is 2,167.

  In the year ending March 1990, 67,226 in-patient cases were treated by Bradford district health authority, an increase of 3 per cent. over the previous year. Between 1979 and 1989, the number of in-patients treated rose by 21 per cent.

  For further information the hon. Member may like to contact Mr. Nerurker, chairman of Bradford district health authority.

  Lynfield Mount Hospital, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public consultation he proposes concerning Lynfield Mount hospital in Bradford becoming a national health service trust; what view has been expressed by Bradford health authority, the Yorkshire regional health authority or Bradford community health council; to whom consultants, doctors, nurses and other health workers and the general public may object; and if he will ensure that no action to issue any prospectus is taken until he has taken a decision concerning the application for Bradford acute hospital services becoming a national health service trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not received an application from Lynfield Mount hospital to become a national health service trust. The decision on whether, and if so when, to submit an application is a matter for local decision. If an application is made my right hon. Friend will direct Yorkshire regional health authority to consult the local community health council and such other bodies or persons as it considers appropriate and report the results of consultation to my right hon. Friend. It will be for the regional health authority to decide the range of interests to be consulted formally, but we have made it clear that this should include relevant health authorities, family health service authorities; staff in the proposed trust; local GPs; the local community and local Members of Parliament.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many submissions he has received to date concerning the establishment of a national health service trust in Bradford; how many(a) supported the establishment of such a trust, (b) opposed such a proposal, (c) urged him to defer any decision and (d) expressed no view; if he will list the names of the individuals/organisations who made the submissions referred to at (a), (b), (c) and (d); and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yorkshire regional health authority has been responsible for undertaking consultation on the application for Bradford hospitals to become a national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to ask the region for information on the views of those who commented on the application. All comments are publicly available except where the commentator has requested that his comments should be treated as confidential.

  Children
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children, in number and by percentage, have been born in each of the last three years to parents who are not married.
  207
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested for England and Wales is as follows:

  Year

  Live births outside marriage

  Percentage of total live births

  1987

  158,431

  23·2

  1988

  177,352

  25·6

  1989

  185,804

  27·0

  These data are published quarterly in "Population Trends" (HMSO).

SCOTLAND

  Heart Surgery
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients who were on the waiting list for heart surgery within the Greater Glasgow health board area have died of heart attacks prior to their operations in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the period 1 November 1989 to 31 October 1990, 43 deaths were recorded. Information on the actual cause of death is not recorded centrally.

  Self-governing Schools
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the financial arrangements to be made available to schools in Scotland which opt for self-governing status.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Self-governing schools will be directly funded by the Secretary of State in accordance with arrangements to be laid down in financial regulations and to be expressed in subsidiary agreements between the Secretary of State and such schools. These regulations and agreements will cover questions such as determination of grant, the timing and manner of payments, the arrangements for accounts and audits, and other requirements to be met to secure the payment of grant.

  Self-governing schools will be able to use the resources allotted on their behalf at their own discretion; this should ensure that substantial additional resources will reach the classroom to the benefit of pupils.

  Self-governing schools will get their capital funding direct from the Secretary of State instead of being subject to the priorities applied by an education authority.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the terms of any agreement reached between Scottish Homes and Glasgow district council; and if he will show by constituency the number and value of projects engaged in by Scottish Homes under the agreement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The details of these strategic agreements are matters for Scottish Homes and the local authority concerned. I have asked Sir James Mellon, chairman of Scottish Homes, to write direct to the hon. Member on this matter.

  House Repairs
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the repairs and maintenance grants available to owner-occupiers in Glasgow; and if he will show expenditure against each grant item for each of the past 12 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities may give grants for works of repair under section 248 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Such grants are not confined to owner-occupiers. They may be awarded to landlords, tenants and commercial proprietors participating in works of common repair under statutory notice. Grant is not available for maintenance, which is the responsibility of the owner or tenant.

  The following table lists expenditure on repairs grants by Glasgow district council from 1980 to 1989, the most recent year for which figures are available, in respect of all categories of applicant. No information is held centrally on grants to owner-occupiers alone. Comparable information is not available for earlier years.

  £'000

  1980

  666

  1981

  1,377

  1982

  3,704

  1983

  17,004

  1984

  30,876

  1985

  32,064

  1986

  24,144

  1987

  24,117

  1988

  23,575

  1989

  30,197

  Deaf People
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities are available in the district court, the sheriff court, the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Voice reinforcement systems are provided where necessary in court rooms used by the supreme and sheriff courts, and emphasis is placed on securing good acoustic efficiency when new court rooms are being planned and existing court rooms refurbished. Information on the district courts is not held centrally. When parties to court proceedings are deaf or hard of hearing interpretation facilities may be used at the discretion of the court.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to legislate to abolish the pre-emption rights of feudal superiors on land sales in Scotland and their powers to attach conditions to the use of land.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Law Commission is engaged in a major review of property law in Scotland, including the question of feudal superiors' rights and powers. My right hon. and learned Friend proposes to await their recommendations before deciding what legislation might be needed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants are having deductions made from their benefits(a) by category of claimant and (b) by type of deduction.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest information is for May 1989 in tables 10.1 to 10.4A of the income support annual statistical inquiry, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Benefit Recipients, Shetland
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many benefit recipients in Shetland were in receipt of the transitional protection payment in April 1988, April 1989 and April 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Support
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether he has any plans to bring forward proposals to repeal or amend(a) section 22(3) and (b) section 22(4) of the Social Security Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to repeal or amend paragraph 13, schedule 2, of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (SI 1967); and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The legislation concerned provides for the severe disability premium (currently £28·20 a week) in the calculation of income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit. This premium is intended for people who are in receipt of attendance allowance who live alone in the community, or who live with other people on a commercial basis, and provided invalid care allowance is not in payment for their care. We have no plans to change this policy.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the families who will benefit from the recently announced £1 a week increase in child allowance are presently in receipt of income support; whether the increase will be disregarded in assessment for income support; and what would be the cost if the increase were to be so disregarded.

  April 19901 Equivalents of SSP rates in April 1983 expressed as a percentage of male average earnings2

  SSP Rates

  Average real value of benefit at April 1990 over the period

  Equivalent value at April 1990 prices at date of uprating

  As percentage male average earnings (gross)

  Apr 1983

  Apr 1990

  April 1983 to March 1984

  Apr 1983

  Apr 1990

  £. d

  £. d

  £. d

  £. d

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Lower rate

  27·20

  39·25

  39·56

  40·37

  16·5

  13·3

  Middle rate3

  33·75

  —

  49·09

  50·09

  20·5

  —

  Standard rate

  40·25

  52·50

  58·54

  59·74

  24·4

  17·8

  210
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that about 1·2 million families on income support will receive the £1 increase in child benefit for the only, elder or eldest eligible child. The payment of this additional amount will be taken into account for income support purposes in the normal way. It is estimated that if it were to be disregarded in the assessment for income support the benefit cost would be approximately £65 million a year.

  The income support rates will be increased from next April which will help many families with children.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans further to amend regulation 3 of the Income Support Regulations 1987 (SI 1967); and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no current plans to do so.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will take steps to ensure that any draft regulations altering statutory sick pay rates from April 1991 are referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee in time for the Committee to allow a consultation period of at least six weeks, excluding Christmas week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The proposed changes in statutory sick pay rates from April 1991 will be contained in an order to be made under section 7(1A) of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 (as amended by paragraph 15 of schedule 6 to the Social Security Act 1990). Orders are not referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. The order will be considered by each House under the affirmative resolution procedure.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the April 1990 and April 1991 equivalents of the rates of statutory sick pay introduced in April 1983 and the earnings bands to which they related, in real terms and as a proportion of average earnings, taking account of the best available estimate of April 1991 earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is in the table:
  211

  April 19901 Equivalents of earnings bands for SSP in April 1983 expressed as a percentage of male average earnings2

  Earnings band at

  Earnings band at

  Equivalent value at 1990 prices at date of uprating

  As percentage of male average earnings (gross)

  April 1983

  April 1990

  April 1983

  April 1990

  £

  £

  £

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Lower rate

  32·50 to 48·49

  46·00 to 124·99

  48·24 to 71·97

  19·7 to 29·4

  15·6 to 42·3

  Middle rate3

  48·50 to 64·99

  —

  71·99 to 96·46

  29·4 to 39·5

  —

  Standard rate

  65·00 or more

  125 or more

  96·48 or more

  39·5

  42·3

  Notes:

  1 Earnings and RPI details for April 1991 are not available

  2 The majority of SSP recipients will get occupational sick pay on top of SSP when they are sick. In many cases this will bring the total payment received up to full pay.

  3 The middle rate of SSP was abolished in April 1987.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the proportion of recipients of statutory sick pay who are also receiving occupational sick pay(a) of any amount and (b) to provide full basic pay when added to statutory sick pay, and the extent to which these proportions vary with duration of sickness.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available in the form requested, but research carried out by IFF Research Ltd. on behalf of the Department in 1988 shows that 91 per cent. of employees work for employers with occupational sick pay schemes. Of the private sector schemes, half cover all employees immediately regardless of other factors, for example, length of service and 83 per cent. top up SSP to full basic pay. Payments are usually made either for a fixed period of six months or vary according to length of service. The vast majority of SSP recipients are likely to be getting occupational sick pay.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current interval in working days between the date on which new applications or applications for renewal of family credit are received at the family credit unit and the date on which work commences on the processing of those applications.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The first stage in the processing of claims is registration; and normally all claims, whether new or renewal, are registered within 24 hours of receipt at the family credit unit.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to review the establishment at the family credit unit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The establishment of the family credit unit is routinely reviewed at the end of each quarter. Adjustments are made as necessary to match staffing to changes in work intake. Additional resources have been deployed to deal with arrears of work which have accumulated recently.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  EC Interreg Scheme
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken by Northern Ireland Government Departments and public agencies to avail themselves of funding from the European Community's Interreg scheme; and, in particular, what steps are being
  212
  taken to comply with each of the development aims as outlined in European Community notice C(90)1562/3 which lays down guidelines for operational programmes under the Interreg scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland is liaising with the Department of Finance in Dublin to draw up a joint programme for submission to the European Commission towards the end of this year.

  Following publication of the Interreg guidelines on 30 August, the Department of Finance and Personnel invited local interests to put forward proposals for inclusion in the programme; copies of the guidelines were also circulated to local bodies. Following this, a series of presentations was arranged for early October in Newry, Omagh and Coleraine to ensure local interests were fully aware of the requirements of the guidelines. In addition, a joint North/South conference of all interested parties was held in Enniskillen on 9 November. This conference was organised by the EC offices in Belfast and Dublin.

  Of the four development aims mentioned in the guidelines, two do not apply directly to Northern Ireland as there is no external border with a third non-EC country. The development aims will be carefully borne in mind when the joint programme is being drawn up.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to introduce measures to ensure that individuals who qualify for mobility allowance will continue to receive this allowance beyond their 75th birthday;

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that pensioners, over 65 years of age, who otherwise would qualify for mobility allowance, will not be disqualified on grounds of age.

  Mr. Needham
  Mobility allowance can be paid only if the claim is made before age 66. However, people who have applied for and been awarded mobility allowance can continue to get it until age 80.

  There are no plans to change the existing rules as it is intended to replace mobility allowance with a new disability living allowance.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals in Northern Ireland received mobility allowance in each year since 1985; and how many applications for mobility allowance were turned down in each of the years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:
  213

  Mobility allowance

  Year

  Number of recipients

  Number of claims disallowed

  1985

  9,312

  2,363

  1986

  10,470

  2,597

  1987

  11,339

  2,770

  1988

  12,616

  3,462

  1989

  14,385

  4,497

  Social Fund
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number, and value, of(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans (i) issued and (ii) refused, by each office of the Department of Health and Social Services Northern Ireland in each quarter since the social fund was established.

  Mr. Needham
  Information about the number of community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans processed each month, the number awarded and the amount paid for each social security office is available in the Library. The number of applications refused can be derived from these figures. However, information on the value of applications refused is not available.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of individuals receiving income support are currently repaying loans from the social fund; and if he will give details for each office of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The proportion of individuals receiving income support and repaying loans from the social fund at 31 August 1990, the latest date for which information is available, was 17·12 per cent.

  Details for each office are as follows:

  Social Security Office

  Loans being repaid

  (per cent.)

  Andersonstown

  35·97

  Antrim

  22·64

  Armargh

  15·71

  Ballymena

  16·42

  Ballymoney

  15·29

  Ballynahinch

  7·28

  Banbridge

  13·72

  Bangor

  9·92

  Carrickfergus

  16·20

  Coleraine

  18·87

  Cookstown

  14·17

  Corporation Street

  25·84

  Downpatrick

  17·94

  Dungannon

  12·30

  Enniskillen

  8·93

  Falls

  29·66

  Holywood Road

  15·07

  Kilkeel

  10·65

  Knockbreda

  10·90

  Larne

  21·68

  Limavady

  13·24

  Lisburn

  21·04

  Londonderry

  22·22

  Lurgan

  25·71

  Magherafelt

  15·53

  Newcastle

  10·24

  Newry

  15·06

  Newtownabbey

  15·80

  Newtownards

  11·24

  Omagh

  14·45

  Portadown

  15·62

  214

  Social Security Office

  Loans being repaid

  (per cent.)

  Shaftesbury Square

  20·56

  Shankill

  28·11

  Strabane

  14·14

  Radio Scanners
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what regulations apply to the use of car telephones in Northern Ireland; what regulations apply to the use in Northern Ireland of radio scanners; whether he proposes seeking to extend or alter any such regulations; and what is his estimate of(a) authorised and (b) unauthorised radio scanner users in Northern Ireland;

  (2) if he will list the names of those in Northern Ireland authorised to operate radio scanners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The use of car telephone and radio equipment generally is governed by the same law throughout the United Kingdom and responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 requires the use of radio equipment to be licensed unless exempted. Receive-only apparatus (which includes scanners) is exempt. No authority is therefore required for the possession of a radio scanner; but it is an offence for any person without lawful authority to use such equipment to listen to any private message, or to disclose the content of any such message.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what investigation is being undertaken into how recent ministerial conversations by car telephone have been overheard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Some implications of these reports are being addressed in a number of respects.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of his ministerial colleagues or officials have car telephones for official purposes; whether the number of such telephones are changed regularly; and who has access to such numbers.

  Mr. Cope
  Opportunities exist for making telephone calls to and from a variety of cars used by Ministers and officials. Access to the relevant numbers is limited on a "need to know" basis.

  Gas Mains
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will recommend the retention of the existing gas mains network to Belfast city council.

  Mr. Needham
  No.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on whether the existing gas trunk mains network in Belfast is capable of being adapted for natural gas distribution when a supply of natural gas becomes available in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Should a supply of natural gas become available the gas mains system could not be used for the distribution of gas without substantial expenditure on repairs, upgrading and renewal.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Fair Employment Commission will publish regular and frequent reports on the progress it is making towards achievement of fair employment as between Protestants and Roman Catholics within its own organisation.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1989 the then Fair Employment Agency published a report on the composition of its staff and the steps which it was taking to achieve fair employment. In October 1990, the Fair Employment Commission published a progress report. I understand that from May 1991 monitoring information on the r j 6–4religious composition of the Fair Employment Commission staff will be available on request.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wormwood Scrubs
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to visit Her Majesty's prison Wormwood Scrubs to discuss conditions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend visited Wormwood Scrubs in March this year, when he discussed a number of matters with the governor and staff, including conditions in the prison.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take to reform Sunday and late-night trading.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the regulation of Sunday trading.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Since the defeat of the Shops Bill, the Government have made it clear that they are prepared to consider reform of the Shops Act 1950, short of total deregulation, if a solution can be found which is widely accepted, enforceable, practicable and likely to command a parliamentary majority. No such solution has yet emerged, but the Government continue to encourage interested parties to find common ground.

  Police Constables
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extra police constables have been appointed in Devon and Cornwall this year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There were 24 more police constables on the strength of the Devon and Cornwall police at the end of October 1990 than there were at the end of October 1989.

  Prisons Building Board
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Prisons Building Board in involving the private sector in the penal system.
  216
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Prisons Building Board, which includes three members from the private sector, is responsible for advising the Department on the delivery of the prison building programme, particularly new prisons. The expertise of the private sector members has proved very helpful in monitoring the progress of specific schemes.

  As I announced on 11 July, I also propose to invite competitive tenders for the operation of the remand centre now under construction at Everthorpe, Humberside and for escorting prisoners to and from court. The Criminal Justice Bill now before Parliament makes the necessary provision for these changes.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an estimate of the total saving to public funds during the current financial year by police authorities in England and Wales as a result of their no longer having to pay domestic rates for police officers(a) in respect of police authority-owned accommodation and (b) owner-occupied housing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information needed to produce such estimates is not held centrally. The new arrangements protect the position of officers in service on or before 31 March 1990. Those who were in provided accommodation then are receiving an allowance of £300 per year for a transitional period of three years. Those in other than provided accommodation on 31 March are receiving a transitional rent allowance which includes an element for their former rates. Any savings in the current financial year are, therefore, likely to be very small.

  Marriage Guidance Organisations
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects his review into the level of grant in aid to marriage guidance organisations for the next financial year to be completed.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is completed. They will receive an increase of approximately 10 per cent. on their existing grants in aid. I have just announced a review of Government policy in relation to procedures for funding of marriage guidance organisations.

  Calcutt Report
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the press about implementation of the recommendations of the Calcutt report.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My ministerial colleagues and I have had informal discussions with a number of press interests on this matter.

  Sentence Powers
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to widen the powers of sentence available to the courts.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Criminal Justice Bill contains proposals to provide the courts with a wider and more flexible range of punishments in the community. These include powers to combine community service and probation, to impose curfews, and to link community with
  217
  financial penalties. The Bill also ensures that the courts continue to have adequate powers to pass custodial sentences on offenders whose offences warrant such sentences, or on whom such a sentence needs to be passed to protect the public from serious harm.

  Debt-related Crime
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are currently in prison for debt-related crime.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  On 30 June 1990, a total of 16 women were in prison service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of fines.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce free television licences for all pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to introduce free or concessionary TV licences for all pensioners.That would be a crude and non-selective instrument of social policy which would benefit many people of pensionable age who are well able to afford the full fee.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for police manpower in the United Kingdom; and what was the position in 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has responsibility for police forces in England and Wales. As

  Prisoners held in prison service establishments in England and Wales under prison rule 43 and young offender institution rule 46 by type of segregation, age group, sex and current period of segregation, 31 March 1990

  Males

  Females

  Aged under 21

  Adults

  Aged under 21

  Adults

  Own protection

  Current period of segregation

  Up to 1 month

  52

  449

  1

  5

  Over 1 up to 3 months

  70

  493

  1

  4

  Over 3 up to 12 months

  53

  960

  2

  5

  Over 12 months

  6

  189

  0

  6

  All periods

  181

  2,091

  4

  20

  Good order or discipline

  Current period of segregation

  Up to 1 month

  44

  116

  2

  8

  Over 1 up to 3 months

  9

  43

  0

  1

  Over 3 months

  6

  14

  1

  1

  All periods

  59

  173

  3

  10

  Total (Rule 43/46)

  240

  2,264

  7

  30

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to reduce the level of juvenile crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  Some parents can do more to control their children's behaviour, and the emphasis on parental responsibilities in the Criminal Justice Bill will encourage them to do so. The Home Office is also considering with the DES what action needs to he taken to reduce truancy.
  218
  at 31 August 1990 there were 127,024 police officers and 45,253 civilian staff, an increase of 15,531 police officers and 10,523 civilian staff since May 1979.

  Building Design (Security)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives are planned to incorporate security features in building design.

  Mr. John Patten
  Over the next 18 months, the ministerial group on crime prevention will, as one of its priorities, be concentrating on work to design out crime. Additionally, the Government are fully supportive of initiatives such as "Secured by Design", a police-led initiative which is currently running in the south-eastern and eastern regions. The scheme is designed to encourage housebuilders to consult police crime prevention officers when designing new houses. Housebuilders whose work conforms to police crime prevention standards are entitled to use a police-approved house security logo in their marketing. There are plans for the scheme to be adopted nationwide.

  Rule 43 Prisioners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of inmates in prisons in England and Wales who were segregated under rule 43 on 1 November; and what was the period of time of each segregation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest readily available information is given in the table.

  In addition the Home Office safer cities programme is funding a number of schemes across the country aimed at providing educational and recreational activities for young people, and we envisage that local activities to occupy young people will be an important theme of our Crime Prevention Week 1991. This will be held from 15 to 20 April.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list grants and other support
  219
  made available by his Department to organisations, statutory and voluntary, that exist to tackle the incidence of juvenile crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office safer cities programme, operating through 16 local crime prevention projects in England, makes grants for activities and facilities for young people to reduce their likely involvement in crime and anti-social activity. I will send the hon. Member a list. The probation service, which is 80 per cent. funded by central Government, is involved in some areas in crime prevention activities which may include juveniles. Some probation services supervise juveniles on court orders.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is being conducted by his Department into the cause of the current high levels of juvenile crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of known juvenile offenders has fallen steadily over recent years by more than we would expect from purely demographic changes. Juvenile crime rates have fallen also. Much research has already been done on the cause of crime, including juvenile crime. The current emphasis is on projects aimed at helping young people become more responsible citizens.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support is available to families who are unable to control the criminal activities of their juvenile children.

  Mr. John Patten
  Under the Children Act 1989, there is provision for local authorities to make available advice, guidance, counselling and other services in respect of children in need in their area.

  Dowries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his policy towards proposals to ban dowries in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many representations he has received regarding dowries in the Asian community, and the exploitation of this practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Home Office has received two representations about dowries, including one from the hon. Member. The Government are undertaking a number of initiatives to address the problem of domestic violence generally, but have no evidence to suggest that there is need to legislate specifically in connection with dowries.

  Risley Remand Centre
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received a report from the Judge Tumim with regard to conditions for remand prisoners at Risley remand centre; what is the estimated cost of undertaking the changes proposed by Judge Tumim; and by what date he expects these to be completed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The report of Her Majesty's chief inspector on Her Majesty's remand centre Risley was received in April 1988 and published on 30 June 1988. Copies of the inspectorate report were placed in the 220
  Library, together with copies of the then Home Secretary's response which set out proposals for action. It is not possible to give precise costs for all the various measures, but the redevelopment of Risley, on which work began in April 1989, is estimated to cost £63 million (at 1989 prices). The first two houseblocks should be ready for November 1991. It is expected that the full development of Risley will be completed by 1997.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the then Home Secretary's reply to a question from the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) on 25 July 1989 at columns 607–08 when, following the receipt of the Dunbar report, a copy of which is in the Library, he accepted the recommendation that the male remand function at Risley should cease. Since 15 October 1990 Risley has been a category C training prison for adult sentenced males. The women's remand prison will continue its function as before.

  Arrest Warrants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police forces that(a) executed arrest warrants under the old rating system and (b) are executing arrest warrants under the community charge system to defaulters as a matter of course.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not held centrally. However, forces generally had a limited involvement with executing warrants under the rates system and it is anticipated that this will continue in relation to the community charge.

  School Attendance
  Mr. Peter Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parents have been successfully prosecuted for a child's non-attendance at school(a) in the Bolton education authority area and (b) nationally during each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not possible from the information held centrally to identify prosecutions of parents for a child's non-attendance at school from prosecutions for other offences under the Education Acts.

  Exercise NOREX
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the scenario of Exercise NOREX; who are the anticipated protagonists in this scenario; and what is the estimated total cost.

  Mr. John Patten
  NOREX is one of a series of regional civil defence exercises. It will exercise certain United Kingdom civil defence plans in a situation where there is a fictional, non-specific, threat following unrest in Europe. There are no protagonists because the scenario does not include the outbreak of hostilities.

  The exercise involves staff from central and local government, public utilities, the emergency services, and the military, for whom civil defence is a normal part of their duties. Establishing the total cost of the exercise would involve disproportionate cost.

  Cable Television
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the regulations governing the use of cable television companies of opportunities given in the 12 gigahertz microwave band.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Broadcasting Act 1990, which will come into force on 1 January 1991, permits new local delivery operators to use microwave video distribution system—MVDS—in addition to or instead of cable. Under the transitional arrangements some existing cable operators have the right to apply to become local delivery operators and therefore to use microwave video distribution systems.

  Last year, after wide consultation, the Department of Trade and Industry announced that the 40·5–42·5 gigahertz band would be made available to microwave video distribution systems and that further work would be done to see whether it could also be accommodated in the 11·7–12·5 gigahertz band.

  This further work indicates that only very limited microwave video distribution systems would be possible within the 12 gigahertz band without displacing existing users. Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry are now consulting interested parties to see whether there is sufficient interest in such a limited operation and intend to make their conclusions known as soon as possible.

  BSB-Sky Merger
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the merger of BSB and Sky Television.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to a question from the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland).

  HMP Belmarsh
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff he now expects to be employed at Her Majesty's prison Belmarsh; in what grades; and how many of them will be recruited locally.

  Rank

  Numbers

  Percentage increase

  August 1978

  August 1990

  Per cent.

  Constable

  15,798

  21,494

  36·06

  Sergeant

  3,704

  4,443

  19·95

  Inspector

  1,219

  1,457

  19·53

  Chief Inspector

  432

  498

  15·28

  Superintendent

  211

  249

  18·01

  Chief Superintendent1

  199

  168

  −15·58

  Commander1

  51

  35

  −31·37

  Deputy Assistant Commissioner1

  16

  15

  −6·25

  Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners

  4

  6

  50·00

  Total

  21,634

  28,365

  31·11

  1 Reduction in numbers at these ranks due to structural changes following force reorganisation.

  222
  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is expected that there will be 651 unified prison grades of which 80 will be recruited locally. There will also be 135 civilian workers of which 51 will be recruited locally.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of staff at Her Majesty's prison Belmarsh who are likely to be seeking housing accommodation in the area.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  To date, 32 staff due to be employed at Her Majesty's prison Belmarsh have been identified as requiring accommodation. As the complete staff have yet to be allocated, it is difficult to estimate the final number, but it is expected to be between 200 and 250.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the housing authorities approached by his Department with a request to provide accommodation for staff at Her Majesty's prison Belmarsh, together with the number of units being made available in each case.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Although it is not normally the policy of the prison department to provide accommodation, contact has been made with the following housing organisations:

  (a) Thamesmead Housing—which states that it is likely to offer approximately six units of one and two bedroom flats, but this will depend on what is available at the time.

  (b) Bexley Borough Council—which is prepared to consider offering accommodation but is not prepared to specify the amount at this stage.

  Probe—only initial contact made, but local follow up action to be taken.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of police officers of all ranks currently employed in the Metropolitan area; what is the comparable figure for 1978; what is the current average rate of pay for a police officer; what is the comparable figure for 1978 in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There has been a significant increase in Metropolitan police strength and pay since 1978. The information requested is in the tables.
  223

  Pay and percentage increase in real terms

  Rank and service

  September 1978

  September1990

  Percentage increase in real terms

  £

  £

  Constable (4 years)

  4,017

  14,463

  41·29

  Sergeant (4 years)

  5,301

  19,896

  47·17

  Inspector (4 years)

  6,369

  23,673

  45·88

  Chief inspector (4 years)

  7,134

  26,205

  44·16

  Superintendent (3 years)

  9,333

  33,369

  40·32

  Chief Superintendent (3 years)

  10,326

  36,276

  37·88

  Commander (Max)

  10,949

  140,278

  44·38

  Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Max)

  13,196

  145,894

  36·50

  Assistant Commissioner

  16,336

  157,366

  37·82

  Deputy Commissioner

  17,984

  165,025

  41·90

  1Does not include additional 2·5 per cent, increase for officers with over 3 years service in rank—approved in September 1990 and payable from 1 August 1991.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when form RPF 32B was introduced; how widely it is used; what form it replaced; and whether there was any material difference between the old and new forms.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Form RPF 32B was introduced in 1968, and did not replace any earlier form. It is used by less than half the electoral registration officers in England and Wales, but I understand that many others produce their own version of it.

  Mr. Roy Hanney
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan police commissioner as to what action is being taken against police constables Tony Egan and Richard Ramsay regarding(a) police constable Egan's alleged assault of Mr. Roy Hanney and (b) alleged perjury by the two officers in the case relating to Mr. Hanney at Southwark Crown court in early November.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that an officer has been appointed to investigate the allegation of assault made by Mr. Hanney and Ms. Nicola Todd, and that this officer has invited Mr. Hanney to attend for interview to discuss this and any other matters which he may wish to raise.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an invitation to attend part of the celebrations for the bicentenary of the Cour de Cassation in Paris on Thursday, 29th November 1990. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Thursday, 29th November.

AIDS Unit: Hammersmith Hospital
3.2 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the new hematology ward for AIDS patients at the Hammersmith Hospital, funded by the National Health Service and charitable money, is now to be used for private patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, this unit is not being used for private care. Although I understand that the Hammersmith Special Health Authority had planned to treat private patients in the unit, none has been admitted. As from next week the unit is to be used for its originally intended purpose —to treat National Health Service patients who have infectious diseases, including AIDS.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. It is very reassuring. Will she accept that there will be much satisfaction that the ward is to be used for AIDS patients, for which it was originally provided both with NHS and private funding? That is good news. Will the Minister also accept my thanks for the fact that the unit is not now to be used for private patients and that it will be used for the NHS? From the statement that the noble Baroness made, I assume that that position is not likely to change within the next two or three weeks and that the Answer she has given has some finality.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I simply answer yes to the noble Lord.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, leaving aside for the moment the doctrinal question of private patients, important though that may be, perhaps I may focus the Minister's attention on the crucial issue of whether the resources of the unit are adequate to meet the needs of AIDS patients. Can the noble Baroness advise the House whether the hematological resources in the unit are wholly adequate to meet the needs of AIDS patients as we now know them to be, or will there be a shortfall, whether caused by private patients or otherwise?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as always in these matters, the special health authority is the authority responsible for the spending of the budget. The money being made available for this unit is from the central AIDS budget, which is initially reserved for the use of special health authorities. The agreement as to the amount of funding in this case has been the result of discussions between officials of the Department of Health and the Hammersmith Special Health Authority in response to the formal bid for funds from the special health authority.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that, if there is any change in the future and the beds are used as private beds, the hospital will have to make a refund to the charities which contributed money for a different purpose?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he could advise me which charities contributed to this purpose. My understanding is that the funds for the capital costs of the building of the unit were essentially National Health Service funds. Nevertheless, the principle is that in certain cases pay-beds have been allowed in National Health Service hospitals; that has been true since the inception of the National Health Service. However, careful consideration is always given beforehand.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, if the unit is to be run in anything like a business manner, I am at a loss to understand why it is not an advantage to increase the turnover and the amount of money coming in from private patients.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is true that it is better to use facilities to earn money which can then be redistributed than to leave facilities lying idle.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as matters are progressing so well this afternoon, is it possible for the Minister to say whether the report in the Observer last Sunday is true, that there was a similar alleged transference of funds for AIDS patients in the Riverside Health Authority?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I assume that the Observer article to which the noble Lord refers is alleging that the Riverside, which receives funds from the North-West Thames Region expressly for the purpose of providing services for people who are HIV positive or who have AIDS, proposes to use the £1 million underspend for purposes other than HIV/AIDS. The region is discussing the position with the district and seeking ways of correcting the situation. The department is also looking at ways in which the monitoring of earmarked funds can be improved so that no such problem occurs in the future.

Gordon Hospital
3.8 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the future of the Gordon day hospital, Westminster, opened five years ago by Lord Ennals, to treat patients with mental illness in South-West London.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the future of the Gordon hospital and its day hospital is secure. Riverside Health Authority is committed to the hospital and is considering ways in which more specialised services can be brought onto the site to supplement the core mental health services already provided there.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I visited the Gordon hospital two or three days ago and as from last Friday it has been forced to close 18 beds. Is the Minister aware that the hospital was largely opened in its current form to enable the Banstead mental hospital to be closed and therefore to provide beds in the community for those discharged from the psychiatric hospital? Is the noble Baroness also aware that there is considerable concern among doctors and nurses at the hospital about the closure of the 18 beds? Surely the Minister is not saying that it has not closed those beds.
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords. There has been a temporary closure of 18 beds at the Gordon hospital. That is part of a range of measures that the health authority is putting into effect to ensure that levels of expenditure are contained within revenue allocation. The industrial therapy unit, which was moved to the Gordon hospital on a temporary basis following the closure of Banstead hospital, to which the noble Lord referred, can best fulfil its function in a community setting. The district is exploring the possibility of relocating into the community, and a working group has been established to consider that position. In all those matters I understand that members of staff in the unit have been consulted and have agreed to the general strategy.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is great concern about the closure of beds? She said that they are temporary closures, but how temporary is temporary? When I was at the hospital I was told that they may be closed until April. That is a long time and may lead to a great build-up of single homeless people without a place to go to.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that since the proposal to make some closures was agreed it has been possible to limit closures to a net reduction of only nine beds.
Lord Ennals: Good news, my Lords.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is by no means the only Minister of Health to have opened beds which subsequently were closed? Does she recollect that every Minister of Health since the NHS was formed has opened beds which later were closed? Is she further aware that I attended the opening by a Conservative Minister of Health of some new beds in Oldham and that I then waited after the official opening to see the beds locked up by the caretaker because there were no nurses to staff them? Is it not a fact that there has been a shortage of resources ever since the NHS began, irrespective of the party in power?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only say that there has been considerable activity within the NHS
442
and an enormous increase in the number of people treated. It is misleading to look at London in isolation because the fall in bed numbers has been faster in London than elsewhere. That reflects the policy of successive governments to move resources out of London to surrounding areas, thus enabling people to be treated nearer their homes.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I opened the hospital only five years ago, in the days of a Conservative Government.

Education: A-Levels
3.12 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their plan for the future of A-levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government are fully committed to maintaining A-levels' standard of excellence.
Baroness David: My Lords, I cannot say that I am satisfied with the Minister's reply. Surely the need for reform has been brought forward not only since Higginson in 1986—a report which the Government turned down—but by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, by the School Examinations and Assessment Council, the National Curriculum Council and Her Majesty's Inspectorate. Therefore, does the noble Baroness agree with Professor Pring of Oxford University that before reform of examinations at 16 it would have been more sensible to reform the whole provision of education at 16, as the staying on rate is so very poor in this country? It would have been wiser to do that before the reform of A-levels. Is the whole provision being considered?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it must first be said that there has been considerable reform. Indeed, when the national curriculum changes work through the system the hope is—there is some evidence already—that the staying on rate will improve. We are committed to maintaining A-levels. That is not to say that we do not have concern about breadth and about introducing some changes. Indeed, the noble Baroness knows that SEAC is at present looking at that area of examinations. I can say with absolute assurance that we are not prepared to compromise standards at that level.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend assist the House? It seems to me, as a father of one university child and one who has just left university, that we in this country specialise far too early. Is my noble friend aware that at American and French universities the level of specialisation is much lower? Specialisation forces children into choices at too early an age.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that with these reforms the Government have addressed that problem. All children will now study a range of subjects up to the age of 16 whereas hitherto many young children dropped sciences, languages and other subjects which are extremely important. That is one

443
important change. Secondly, the Government have also addressed breadth at 16-plus with the introduction of AS-levels, which have half the content of A-levels but allow those taking A-levels to study other subjects to the same standard but with half the content.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister accept that although AS-levels may have been well-intentioned, very few schools can afford to run A-level and AS-level courses in the same subject? They have different curricula, and as a result very few schools can offer more than two or three AS-levels. Consequently, they may offer 15 or 17 A-levels and the hope for breadth therefore is not being carried by AS- levels.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware that head teachers themselves are arguing for breadth. They would not be arguing for breadth if they could not deliver it. I am not sure about the schools with which the noble Baroness is familiar but I know that AS-levels are offered and many schools, where they believe it to be appropriate, are encouraging young people to take them up.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the Government make it easier for schools to offer vocational courses such as BTEC alongside A-levels? That is apparently rather difficult under the terms of the Education Act 1988.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is an important point. Certainly vocational courses and the extension of BTEC courses are actively being considered. For example, we know that Kingshurst CTC is applying vocational courses at 16-plus level with some success. We hope that SEAC will take that into account when it reports.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, while I welcome my noble friend's reply, can she take this occasion to inform my noble friend Lord Onslow and others that it is very unlikely that any government in the foreseeable future will have the financial resources to enable universities to extend three-year courses into four years and four-year courses into five years? That would be the inevitable result of a lowering of A-level standards.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. The inevitable consequence of any dilution of standards would be an extension of courses at university level. I believe that A-levels have served our brightest children very well. We should now be aiming to have more children in that percentage bracket actually taking and passing A-levels.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there are other alternatives, such as the international baccalaureate which is already offered, and also BTEC and City and Guilds courses which are available in colleges of further education? They are often better options for many children in our schools than staying on at school.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has also made a very important point. I believe that we should not he so hung up on where the children are
444
educated at 16-plus but that they should be educated in the most appropriate place. Very recently my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in a press release that he will take into account the increasing recognition that. A-levels are not the only option and will give consideration to, for example, the international baccalaureate and BTEC courses.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is there not now overwhelming evidence that A-levels cause over-specialisation, and not only at certain ages as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow'? That, in turn, causes under-education in other important fields, not least in science and technology.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree. I know that there is some evidence and that there is a strong body of opinion which believes that A-levels have served us well and should be retained but that we should be giving some consideration to breadth at A-level. I have given an assurance that that will be taken into account. There is also a minority opinion that for many years has been doing its level best to have A-levels taken out of the system.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is widespread concern over possible falling standards at GCSE level, particularly with the 100 per cent. course work? Therefore, will my noble friend reiterate her welcome and unequivocal assurance that A-level standards will not be compromised in any way?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no difficulty in giving that assurance. A-level standards will not he compromised. When SEAC comes forward with its proposals it will have to prove and demonstrate that standards will not be compromised. Any changes that are proposed must be changes that do not compromise standards.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as a former chief examiner at A-level I believe that the noble Baroness exaggerates the quality of the standards, but we can leave that on one side. Will the noble Baroness take more seriously the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow? Is she not aware that pouring into our universities every year are, for example, students of science, engineering and (I regret to say this) economics, who know nothing about the history of their country, or who certainly do not retain such knowledge? They have no interest in literature, which is a subject they drop once they have done it at O-level.
Is the noble Baroness not aware of the disaster that is hitting our system, led, may I add, by our university teachers who go for narrowness of knowledge in education? Is she not aware that this constant reiteration of standards is damaging to the education of most of our children?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot agree with that statement. The rationale for the reforms that have been put on the statute book by the Government was that young people were coming out of the top end of school without an understanding of geography, history, a language and so forth. The national curriculum changes and those reforms, as they work through the system, will result in young people leaving

445
school with a broader education. If one applies AS as well as A-levels and some consideration is given to BTEC and vocational courses, I believe that we shall serve our young people very well.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend add to her consideration of the point made by my noble friend Lord Beloff this further consideration? In the sciences, which arc cumulative and growing subjects, the volume of knowledge to be acquired by those seeking degrees is constantly increasing. Scientists who return to university 25 years after having left, find not only that they could not answer, but also that they could not have asked a number of the questions on the final examination papers. Therefore, does the noble Baroness agree that there is an impending problem of national proportions on the length of courses for science degrees anyway?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's remarks strengthen the reasons why we should keep some subjects to be studied in considerable depth as a preparation for university courses.

Political Parties: Funding
3.21 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to require political parties to declare all their sources of funding and to publish full accounts.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, none.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his admirably brief Answer. Is he aware that there is an election coming up soon?
Noble Lords: Which one?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I do not refer to the election which exclusively preoccupies the attention of the party opposite. I refer to the election which involves everyone in the country. Is the Minister aware that at that election there will be a serious double standard? This House and Parliament generally requires companies, trade unions, businesses and charities to publish their accounts and for them to be open and accountable. Does he not agree that there is a double standard in that political parties alone are exempt from this requirement and, when the election comes, voters will be deprived of information that is relevant to their decision?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no, I do not think so. Company law requires that political contributions in excess of £200 in any financial year must be mentioned in a company's annual report, together with a note of the recipients. The law does not define political parties and as such they are not recognised by electoral law —only the candidates are recognised. If parties are in receipt of gifts which are freely given, I do not see that there is any reason to say where the gifts have come from.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there is another example of double standards? The Government have rightly required unions to hold ballots before making political levies, but they oppose any requirement of shareholders to hold ballots before making political donations. Does the Minister agree that that is a rather discreditable example of partisanship?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think so at all. People can buy shares in whatever companies they choose and they can remove their shareholdings. If one is a member of a trade union one can remain a member of it and pay the funds irrespective of where they go.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper says that there should be a declaration of
"all their sources of funding and to publish full accounts".
Does not that mean that a proper audit has to take place which will automatically involve an audit of membership? Can the noble Earl comment on the membership of the Liberal Democrat Party?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a very interesting question indeed. I do not think that I shall venture into that quarter.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether any foreign-based companies are currently making donations to any British political party? If so, can he advise the House how many companies there are and what are the funds involved?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answers are no, no and no to all three questions.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the reason why the noble Earl is so reluctant to answer any of these straightforward questions straightforwardly that the Conservative Party is profoundly ashamed of the sources of its funds and of the influence that its funders bring to bear on its policies?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not understand the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and not for the first time. He said that I have not answered the questions straightforwardly. I answered the last three questions with a "no, no and no". I do not think that anyone can be more straightforward than that. However, coming to the substance of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the answer to that is no, too.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as far as the Conservative Party is concerned, there has been a no more honourable organisation as regards the raising of funds? Surely, any company that makes a donation to a political party makes quite clear in its accounts that it does so and such information is public. Does not my noble friend agree that when a private individual gives his own money to anyone, that should be his own private business?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the answer is yes.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, after 11 years of a Conservative Government, is not the noble Earl aware that there has been a change in the way that money is available for disbursement? Is he further aware that until fairly recently the sources of funds for political parties were, in the main, the trade unions and companies? However, since the successes—if one likes to describe them in that way—of the Conservative Government, individual wealth has increased. That wealth has become a major potential source of funding for political parties. Does not the Minister agree that that is a reason for the Government to review the regulations that pertain to the funding of political parties?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for having acknowledged that over the past 11 years individual wealth has increased. That is a very good reason why companies should give donations to the Conservative Party.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, many people in this country are concerned about financial contributions by trade unions to the Labour Party and by the City to the Conservative Party. I am not too sure who contributes to the Liberal Democrat Party. In so far as this concern has been reflected in the House today — and the noble Earl has taken full cognizance of it— will he consider with the Leader of the House the possibility of one day having a full debate on this particularly important subject so that the matter can be cleared up for the benefit not only of Members of this House but for the people of this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if noble Lords wish to have a debate on this subject it is for your Lordships to arrange it through the usual channels. The position is absolutely crystal clear. Those companies which give over £200 to a political party are obliged to say so. Any individual who wishes to give of his own money can do so quite freely. There is no reason why these donations should be declared by a political party of any kind for the very good reason that political parties are not described or prescribed in law.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will my noble friend educate the parties opposite by telling them that the biggest donation to the Conservative Party is time which is given by people in the party organisations who work to raise a very large proportion of the money that is given to the party?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Money is one thing, but actual work and dedication is another. Both of those factors are very important. The party of which I am a member is very good at both.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does not the noble Earl agree that it is simple justice that individual shareholders should be given similar rights to those enjoyed by individual trade unionists; namely, the right of opting out individually without shareholders being obliged to contribute to the Conservative Party as a condition of holding shares?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if an individual does not like the way in which his company is dealing with
448
matters, he can raise it at the annual general meeting or he can sell his shareholding. I know of one company which subscribed at a general election to all three parties, presumably because the company did not wish to upset anyone and in order to keep the hounds off them. I thought that was rather wet.
Lord Brookes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that for many years it has been much easier to opt out of a company by selling one's shares than to opt out of a union in order to keep one's job?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct.
Lord Molloy: He is not.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend asked me a question. If the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, wishes to answer it he had better come to this side of the House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am perfectly willing to swap and to go to the other side of the House and ask my question right now.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that we generally take pride in the way our elections are conducted through the Representation of the People Act? Does he further agree that this failure of openness in political affairs does great harm to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act? I am a member of a party which for nearly 60 years has always published its accounts. Surely that is an example for other parties. The public would like to know and to have full details.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be an example, but there is no reason to change the law.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I had the honour to represent a constituency? We had a membership of more than 10,000. They subscribed in order to engage an agent and keep the office going and they also made a contribution to headquarters. That is quite common form in most constituencies in the country. We published our accounts every year. Is my noble friend further aware that I have yet to see the publication of the accounts of Labour Party constituency organisations? They might show the contribution local union officials make in the running of them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct. Once one goes down that path the matter becomes extremely complicated. It could be impractical to require political parties to declare all their sources of funding, which include large numbers of small individual donations. As my noble friend said, one also becomes involved with paid employees as well.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Thursday, 20th December and return in the week beginning 14th January. As Easter

449
next year falls at the end of March, the Easter Recess will include the week immediately after Easter Day, Sunday, 31st March.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to give effect to the convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, including the protocols annexed thereto, opened for signature at Lugano on 16th September, 1988, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to town and country planning; to extend the powers to acquire by agreement land which may be affected by carrying out public works; to amend the law relating to compulsory acquisition of land and to compensation where persons are displaced from land or the value of land or its enjoyment may be affected by public works; to provide, in the case of compensation payable in respect of things done in the exercise of statutory powers, for advance payments and payments in interest; and to repeal Part X of the Highways Act 1980. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
North Yorkshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Debate, 21st November
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 debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Blackstone set down for Wednesday,
450
21st November shall be limited to five hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "21 hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

Adrian, L.

Butterworth, L.

Caldecote, V.

Carver, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Dainton, L.

Flowers L. (Chairman)

Gregson, L.

Kearton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Nicol, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whaddon, L.

That the Committee has power to appoint Sub-Committees and that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman;
That the Committee has power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the Committee or any Sub-Committee;
That the Committee has leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee thinks fit, be delivered out;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities Committee: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or

451
otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle and on other questions to which the Committee considers that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:

Aldington, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Bridges, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

David, B.

Elles, B.

Ezra, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Middleton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Nathan, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Peston, L.

Renwick, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Serota, B. (Chairman)

Shepherd, L.

Somerset, D.

Stedman, B.

Thurlow, L.

Young, B.

That the Committee has power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee has power to appoint the Chairman of Sub-Committees, but that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman for the purpose of particular enquiries; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees;
That the Committee has the power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committees have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee has power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee has leave to report from time to time;
That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee from time to time shall, if the Committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee appointed by it has leave to confer and to meet concurrently with any Committee of the Commons on European Legislation etc. or any Sub-Committee of that Committee for the purpose of deliberating and of
452
examining witnesses; and has leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any such meeting.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Future of Rural Society: ECC Report
3.35 p.m.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on The Future of Rural Society (24th Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 80).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was a happy coincidence that your Lordships' European Communities Committee should have produced its report on The Future of Rural Society at virtually the same time as that of the Archbishops' Commission. We were working quite independently but looking at very much the same problems and coming to very much the same conclusions, the difference between us being that the inquiry of my Sub-Committee D was done in a European context, in contrast to the English context of that of the most reverend Primates. It is also a happy coincidence that I should have the honour of presenting our report on the day when the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York presents the other one, living as I do, if not quite within the shadow of York Minster, at least within half an hour's drive of Bishopthorpe.
The European Commission published in 1988 a communication addressed to the Council and to the Parliament entitled The Future of Rural Society which attempts to identify policies for sustaining the economies of the rural areas in the Community and to face up to the problems arising from diminishing support for farmers. The issues addressed in that communication have far-reaching implications for the Community and particularly for the agricultural sector.
The Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr. MacSharry, has closely identified himself with initiatives to implement a programme based on that communication. Indeed, Sub-Committee D of the Select Committee has already found the thinking expressed in it to be increasingly evident in Commission proposals. We therefore decided that an inquiry into the subject would be opportune.
In our report, also entitled The Future of Rural Society, we concentrated on the United Kingdom experience, though we have attempted to relate this experience to that of other member states. We paid special attention to the implications of change in the countryside for the agricultural sector and for agricultural policy-making. Our report is a long one, and we received a mass of evidence, printed in the accompanying volumes. We are grateful to all those who contributed to the report; to our specialist adviser, Dr. Berkeley Hill of Wye College, who guided us through the complex issues involved, and particularly to our clerk for his industry and skill.
What then are the problems? In its paper the Commission identifies three standard problem areas. We agreed that this was a sensible attempt at classification on a European basis. In the United Kingdom there are problem areas that fall into all three of those categories which are described in paragraph 15 of the report. We found little evidence that, except in the more remote parts, the rural areas were suffering from depopulation or from disproportionate levels of unemployment compared with the national average. There is, however, especially in the United Kingdom, a pronounced change in the social composition of those dwelling in the countryside, as new businesses and urban dwellers relocate to rural areas. There is too a problem peculiar to the United Kingdom arising from the growing shortage of affordable housing for the indigenous rural population. The second of these problems is consequential upon the first.
The Commission believes, and the committee agrees, that because of its major significance in the rural economy the restructuring of European agriculture consequent on its greater exposure to market forces will increase the risk of unemployment, depopulation and social disruption in the rural areas. I do not have to remind the House that a restrictive price policy in force since the late 1980s is putting increased downward pressure on farm incomes. Any conclusion of the current round of GATT negotiations is likely to continue that pressure. Structural adjustments are being made, the agricultural workforce is declining in numbers across the Community and farm organisation is changing.
In the United Kingdom statistics show an increase in the number of large-sized farm holdings and in the very small holdings. However, there is a decrease in the number of intermediate-sized holdings. A major trend seems to be an increase in the number of part-time holdings and a movement towards what in Eurospeak is known as "pluriactivity" in all EC member states as well as in the United Kingdom. The committee saw that trend as being favourable to sustaining the fabric of rural society. Nevertheless, it is clear that the capacity of the Community to produce food is outstripping its ability to consume it. We simply do not need as much land to be as intensively farmed as is the case today. The Commission estimates that in the Community anywhere from 6 million to 16 million hectares will become surplus to requirements by the year 2000. That compares with the total land area of the UK which is 24 million hectares, of which only about 40 per cent. can be cultivated.
The committee was told in evidence that there could e as much as 4 million surplus hectares in the UK. That would be a very high proportion of our 10 million hectares of cropping land. Estimates of surplus land depend upon the rest of the land being farmed as intensively as it is now. The alternative approach is to encourage more extensive farming methods—something some people appear to want, although they may be less enthusiastic to pay for it. The question of how
454
the notional surplus of land is to be managed raises environmental problems to which I should like to return later.
As to what should be the objectives of rural policy, members of the committee were of the opinion that the potential objectives fell under five main headings: first and foremost, maintaining the potential of the countryside to produce food, timber and water; secondly, promoting economic performance and providing job opportunities so as to enable people to remain in their communities; thirdly, pursuing social objectives, maintaining social balance and ensuring access to basic services such as housing and schools; fourthly, protecting the environment; and, fifthly, maintaining cultural and recreational benefits.
I turn now to rural development policies. Members of the committee had three main reservations about the Commission's initiative. First, we considered that policies towards the countryside needed to guide rather than to inhibit change. Secondly, we were of the opinion that rural policies must recognise the diversity of rural areas. The notion of some kind of model rural society is illusory. Finally, we felt that the Commission tends to overemphasise the relative importance of agriculture to rural economies and societies and hence the availability of purely agricultural means to deliver new economic prosperity. We felt that agricultural support should be merely one of a range of measures which can be addressed to rural problems. However, it is clear that agricultural policies will continue to play an integral role in sustaining the economies of many rural areas, in supporting rural communities and in determining the appearance of the countryside.
There has always been some debate as to the extent to which the common agricultural policy is fundamentally a social policy. In some member states the social objectives of the CAP assume greater importance than they do in the United Kingdom because of the political weight attached to the maintenance of people in farming. In the UK farms are seen primarily as economic rather than social units. Hence the British tendency to regard the CAP as primarily an economic policy.
By contrast, the committee recognised that, as the CAP is reformed, it will be necessary to target assistance to those farmers most affected. In that context a form of income aid which has been applied with great success in the United Kingdom is the system of payment to farmers in the less favoured areas.
In addition to special payments to farmers in LFAs, the Commission has proposed three other types of support mechanism. First, the modulation of price support. The committee regarded a policy of modulation of price support in favour of economically weak family farms as doubtful in principle and flawed in practice. Further, it did not regard the concept of "the family farm" as one which is useful for policy purposes as it can mean more or less anything one wants it to mean.
Secondly, the committee recognised that the current Community scheme for direct income aids

455
may be impractical because in most member states there are administrative difficulties in assessing the level of farmers' incomes. Thirdly, in regard to diversification, while the present support scheme is welcomed, the committee believed that the focus should be switched away from on-farm diversification to the promotion of other forms of employment which will enable farmers, farm workers and their families to live in the rural areas. In general the committee was concerned that the entirely legitimate social aims of minimising hardship do not become reasons for inhibiting the development of more efficient agricultural structures.
I should like to reinforce what I said in that last sentence in the light of a recent statement made by Mr. MacSharry, which I heard two weeks ago in Brussels. I was invited to speak at a hearing convened by the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament, the purpose of which was to discuss the use of rural areas. The committee's report was considered to be of some relevance. The commissioner made an opening statement in which he said:
"We have begun the process of adapting the agricultural market mechanisms to ensure that they are more specifically targeted on farmers who find themselves in a structurally difficult position".
As I have already said, such modulation of price support did not find favour with the committee. Members of the committee were in agreement with MAFF which said in evidence that in principle the market support mechanisms of the CAP should be neutral as between regions as well as between farmers. MAFF has long felt—and we agreed—that the issue of small farmers, or of farmers in less favoured areas, is primarily a social one which should not be addressed by distorting the price mechanisms.
Whatever social measures may be devised—in my view, payments to farmers in less favoured areas come under this heading—headage payments in LFAs are not primarily to do with lamb production; they are intended to keep farmers in the hills. Whatever social payments are devised, the way to preserve rural communities is to open them gently to market forces and not to insulate them from such forces.
I turn now to deal with regional economic policies. As the committee says in paragraph 205:
"Agricultural policies alone will not be sufficient if many rural areas are to be helped to adjust to agricultural reform".
The committee continues in paragraph 206 to say that,
"the prime requirement is to broaden the range of economic activities".
If there had to be but one message I could give your Lordships from this report, that would be it. The main instruments at Community level to achieve this aim are the reformed structural funds. If rural development initiatives are to be effective, it is essential that the three funds are used in a co-ordinated way.
The selection of areas and the method of allocation of funds under the Commission's Objectives (1) and (5b) mean that some peripheral and sparsely populated areas such as the Western Isles and the Western Highlands have lost out under the reform of the funds.
In the United Kingdom the three most important agencies in the public sector which promote such economic diversification are: in England, the Rural Development Commission, and I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, who is the chairman of that organisation, will be speaking later; in Scotland, it is the Highlands and Islands Development Board; and there is a similar organisation in mid-Wales called the DBRW. Each of those agencies appears to have played a significant part in promoting employment in rural problem areas. The committee considers that they will remain the proper vehicles through which to channel public support for rural economies and social development.
We noted the absence of similar agencies in many other member states and consider that those United Kingdom agencies may serve as a useful model to be adopted elsewhere in the Community. Less that should seem too chauvinistic an opinion, I should say that it was suggested to us by the Commission when it gave evidence to the committee.
At a local level, the committee saw the need to bring together public, private and voluntary bodies to deliver integrated rural development initiatives. I note that the Commission itself is now taking steps to promote such an approach under what is called its LEADER initiative.
One further issue of importance emerged in our inquiry to which I referred earlier: the question of low-cost rural housing and housing for rent. Many witnesses suggested that the shortage of affordable housing was the largest problem affecting rural areas in the United Kingdom. If the economies of such areas are to diversify it is clearly important that local accommodation at reasonable prices be available for workers. We therefore recommend that the Government take steps to increase the provision of low-cost rural housing and to retain such housing for the benefit of the local community. The announcement made last Monday night by my noble friend Lady Blatch on increased funding for low-cost rural housing in rural areas is welcome. I look forward to hearing anything more that she may have to say on that subject later this afternoon.
I turn lastly to environmental policies. The terrestrial environment is rightly perceived by the public as a common heritage to be enjoyed by all. However, the land is also the property of individual members of society who, equally rightly, wish to maximise their returns from it. Those two public requirements—to protect the rural environment and to benefit from its produce—have not been resolved satisfactorily. Farmers, as main land users, have been asked to play two roles: as food producers and as environmental managers. It goes without saying that farming practices which are harmful to or which pollute the environment can and should be controlled. Good environmental management in the sense of conservation of natural beauty and of fauna and flora is a much more subjective matter where regulation may not be appropriate.
If farming in a certain way produces environmental goods which the public wants, farmers must be paid

457
for producing them. That principle has already been established in the environmentally sensitive areas schemes. The committee therefore supports an extension of the ESA principle more widely throughout the Community. I also note that the Commission has recently proposed such an extension. In that context, we have also drawn attention to the need to relate payments to farmers in less favoured areas more closely to environmental objectives.
Perhaps I may conclude by quoting a speech delivered by Commissioner MacSharry earlier this year at the University of Ulster, because I believe that it provides a summary of the committee's main theme. He said:
"The Commission's general approach is to ensure a balance between the agricultural and the non-agricultural sectors of economic activity in rural areas. In most cases their economies up to now have been based mainly on agriculture and will continue to remain largely dependent on it. We need a policy which both supports the primary sector and integrates it into a wider economic context by providing alternative sources of employment for those wishing to leave the land".
The challenge on the Commission now is to live up to those words. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on The Future of Rural Society (24th Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 80). —(Lord Middleton.)
3.55 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I have been told that I should say that I shall not move the item standing in my name on the Order Paper, but I am nevertheless grateful to have the opportunity to draw to the attention of your Lordships' House the report of the Archbishops' Commission on Rural Areas entitled Faith in the Countryside. I speak as one of those who commissioned the report and to whom it was addressed. Later in the debate your Lordships' House will have an opportunity to hear the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who chaired the commission for us and who can speak on it with far greater authority than I can. I hope that he can take your Lordships into some of the detail. It is he who should be making this speech, but this is an opportunity for me to thank him for what he did on our behalf.
I am glad that the report is being considered alongside that of the European Communities Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has said, our report is primarily about the situation in England, but as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reminded us in the General Synod yesterday, the state of the countryside in England, especially in its agricultural aspects, is now about 80 per cent. dependent upon what is happening in the European Community. The two reports therefore belong together, and I hope they will reinforce one another.
An organisation known as Rural Voice has already produced a list of agreements between the two reports, and what it says reinforces the message that there are severe and identifiable problems in our countryside which need urgent attention. What the noble Lord,
458
Lord Middleton, has just said about the vital importance of the diversification of employment in the countryside is one of the main conjunctions between the two reports. I hope that it will be taken seriously.
Faith in the Countryside is a long report—some 400 pages. The evidence is not included—it is all report. It is one which needs to be read. In case any of your Lordships quail at the thought of reading 400 pages, perhaps I may say that it is a good read. It is entertaining to read as well as instructive. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that two-thirds of its 148 recommendations are addressed to the Church and that the remaining 48 are not an exercise in government baiting because, as your Lordships will know, the Church of England never goes in for government baiting; it merely tries to state facts objectively and elicit a response. I say that despite the initial response in one of our popular newspapers which had the headline, "Runcie's Last Stand" when the report came out.
The recommendations arise out of a serious and many-sided analysis of what is happening in the countryside and, in particular, an analysis of what a large number of people feel about it. It is that analysis and feeling which come through the report rather than the recommendations which constitute its main value.
It was an enormously active commission. It did not just sit and receive evidence; it travelled widely. Members of the commission visited 41 out of the 43 English dioceses. They received evidence from some 500 individuals and organisations, and in their travels they talked to some 6,000 people. They have managed to provide a quarry of information, of ideas and encouraging stories of good practice on the social, economic and spiritual condition of the countryside. The report needs to be read as a whole because the totality of the picture is important rather than this or that proposal.
It is a sad fact about the way in which our society is organised that very few bodies except the Church are in a position to look at the totality of what is going on in an area of activity. Government concern is inevitably fragmented between different departments, but in the countryside we are concerned with housing, transport, education, health, social services, agriculture, industry, tourism, environmental issues and such imponderables as the health and vitality of community life. These all interact with one another in what the report calls the arena of the countryside. The main message of the report is that unless these are brought together more effectively in terms of policy and planning we shall see a progressive degradation of the countryside; indeed, a loss of those very qualities for which both country and townspeople value it.
This is a Church report, rooted in a clearly stated theology which stresses reverence for the created world, our need to cherish and care for it, our individual responsibility but also our need to do these things together as persons in community. Again, in our fragmented society so rooted in individualism these days the quality of community life in the countryside can be one of our most precious possessions and one of the things which drive many

459
people to live in the country when they are fed up with the rat race in the cities. Alas, very often they destroy the very thing they have come to enjoy.
The report tries to set out boldly some of the aims for human living, why we should care about these things and what we are doing about them. Unless we have such aims for human living and rise above the level of individual self-satisfaction or self-interest, we are not likely to be able to handle the complex choices which now confront us without further destroying what we have inherited.
Many Members of your Lordships' House value their connections with village churches. Whenever a bishop comes into this House he is buttonholed by one or other of your Lordships with a horror story about what is going on in his village. I hope that your Lordships will find the report reassuring in the strong affirmation which it gives to the life of local parishes centred on lively churches and the determination which is expressed to maintain and develop this life, to strengthen community and to ensure that the spiritual heart of the countryside is not allowed to decay.
However, there are problems. If I concentrate now on the secular aspects, it is because they lie more within the responsibility of this House. The commission found deep anxiety about the future in many of the areas which it visited, a deep sense that all is not well in the country communities and evidence in some quarters of real deprivation. There is the village family, for example, without its own transport, having to rely on minimal and diminishing public transport, without easy access to health services, without the cost savings that can come through shopping in supermarkets, without leisure facilities such as one might expect to find in the towns, with low wages and no prospect of buying its own house. Such a family is caught as effectively in a poverty trap as those who live in the most deprived areas of our cities.
The single most common ground for complaint is —as in the European report—the shortage of low-cost housing, particularly housing for rent. Many of these people will never be able to buy their own houses on the levels of wages common in the countryside. This inability to find proper housing is not just an inconvenience for individuals who might be encouraged to move elsewhere; it is a major factor in driving people away from the countryside, driving away those very people who in the past have maintained it as a community worth living in. Therefore, unless this housing problem is tackled we shall destroy one of our greatest assets, which is the community life of the countryside.
The report then draws attention to the obvious conflicts of interest between commuters, "second-homers", conservationists and those who see the salvation of country life in the bringing into it of suitable light industry and small businesses. These need to be worked through. There are questions too in the report about the closure of village schools, the closure of cottage hospitals and such basic matters as the maintenance of local post offices and village shops as well as the crippling financial burdens which are now placed on these fragile institutions. There are
460
problems about the limits set on general practitioners who act as their own dispensers in situations where it is extraordinarily difficult for people to travel to a properly set up dispensary. There are 101 issues of a similar kind.
It is not for me to go into further details, even if I were competent to do so. Many noble Lords know these problems from experience because they are themselves deeply involved in the life of the countryside. All I wish to say is that in the report the issues are exposed. They need to be seen in relation to one another and not tackled piecemeal. They will need sensitive handling at local, regional, national and European Community level. Therefore I simply wish to commend the report to your Lordships as a resource for the tasks which lie ahead.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, the House would wish me to thank both my noble friend Lord Middleton and the most reverend Primate for the way in which they have introduced the House of Lords Select Committee report on the countryside and the Church of England report, Faith in the Countryside.
The publication of the House of Lords report and Faith in the Countryside has focused attention on rural areas. I welcome this opportunity to debate the topical and wide-ranging issues raised by both reports. The debate also provides an opportunity for me to respond on behalf of the Government to the reports' recommendations.
I should like first to set the scene by explaining the Government's overall approach to rural development and then to look in more detail at the committees' recommendations.
Our overall aim is to maintain a thriving countryside through a sensible balance between farming, conservation, recreation, employment creation and the needs of rural communities. Our twin objectives are to achieve a healthy rural economy and an attractive rural environment. Our policies provide a framework for achieving these objectives. Government departments work together to develop policies to cope with changes affecting rural communities. They work closely with the private sector, voluntary organisations, local authorities and government agencies to solve rural problems.
Our main task is to guide and encourage others. We want to encourage the enterprise of all those who live and work in rural communities and to see increasing activity by the private and voluntary sectors. We are anxious to see that the best possible use is made of limited public funds, by making full use of opportunities to influence others and by concentrating activities in the areas with the greatest needs. But we do not hesitate to take direct action where necessary, through legislation or by providing pump-priming finance.
In many rural areas the efforts of all concerned have resulted in substantial improvements. The population of the rural areas of Britain increased by about 10 per cent. between 1971 and 1981. Employment and economic activity have become

461
more diversified and, in many areas, the unemployment rate is now well below the national average. But there are still places with problems. These are often related to their remoteness from the main areas of economic activity or to a decline in employment in traditional industries. Other rural communities are now suffering from the problems of success, with shortages of low cost housing and strong pressures for extensive new development. Both reports have highlighted those points. I know that a number of your Lordships will have views on those and many other issues.
The Government are taking steps to deal with these problems and to ensure that policies are flexible and up-to-date to meet the changing requirements of the countryside. Where particular problems develop in some rural areas, as with rural housing, we have developed new measures to deal with them. When necessary, we have commissioned research reports to provide the information which can be used to inform future decisions and policy changes.
Many of the Select Committee's recommendations are directed at the European Commission. We share the committee's concern that the European Commission's activities should have clear objectives. They should be well related to the problems on the ground and should be sufficiently flexible to deal with the different and changing circumstances in member states. There are many recent examples which point up the need for flexibility.
Your Lordships will have followed closely reports of discussions in the agriculture and foreign affairs councils leading up to agreement on the EC agriculture offer last week. The aim is to reduce agricultural support by 30 per cent. over 10 years from 1986. The proposal is a tough one with significant implications for our agriculture, industry and the rural economy.
One very important element, which is of particular relevance to your Lordships' debate today, is that we are seeking to maintain and develop the environmental and conservation policies which will ensure that environmental benefit will flow from any restructuring that may result from the new competitive position. The Government have also been making strong efforts to ensure that the Commission's structural funds are directed at the most severe problems and that bureaucracy is kept to a minimum. We are pleased that the Commission selected some areas in the United Kingdom, although we were unable to secure eligibility for all the areas for which we bid.
The Government entirely agree with the Select Committee that more support should be given to peripheral and sparsely populated regions in Britain under objective 5b of the structural funds, although this should not necessarily be done at the expense of objective 1 or 2 spending priorities. My honourable friend the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry pressed Commissioner MacSharry hard to provide increased funds for the UK's objective 5b areas. While the increase of 15 mecu which he secured was welcome, it was insufficient to enable European
462
Regional Development Fund funding in the Highlands and Islands and other 5b areas in England and Wales to continue at more than a fraction of that in earlier years. We hope that the Community initiative on rural development, the LEADER initiative, will enable further funds to be channelled to those areas and we shall be pressing for a good share of the funds available for our objective 5b regions and for the objective 1 region of Northern Ireland.
In order to limit the amount of bureaucracy involved in administering the funds, several decisions have been taken recently to streamline operations in the United Kingdom. Officials are also in discussion with the Commission on ways in which its procedures might be simplified and made more flexible.
In addition to our efforts to influence the European Community, we have taken many steps to help rural areas through this period of change. In particular we have taken action ourselves on farming, forestry, rural housing and planning. We have also worked closely with our rural development agencies to provide assistance for rural areas when and where it is most needed.
The encouragement of entrepreneurial activities both on and off farm is already an established part of Government support. Similarly, policies introduced to help farmers make the necessary adjustments to the new economic circumstances in agriculture, for example farm diversification and woodlands grants, or to assist in the protection of the environment, for example environmentally sensitive areas, can at the same time contribute significantly to rural development. What is not desirable is to introduce into the CAP, in the name of rural development, measures which are primarily social in character. In the first place other measures and expenditure, often at the national level, already exist to tackle social problems. We must avoid taking action at the EC level which cuts across perfectly adequate national measures.
I think we must be cautious about the Select Committee's conclusion that,
"Agricultural policies alone can no longer be assumed to provide widespread benefits to the rural economy and society as a whole".
What we are seeing is a significant change in emphasis in those policies. As agriculture and forestry occupy 90 per cent. of the land, these industries have a major influence on the appearance of the countryside and on the condition of wildlife habitats and our natural resources.
As the recent White Paper This Common Inheritance made clear, it is now Government policy to integrate environmental objectives fully into agricultural support measures. A great deal is being done to protect and improve the countryside and reduce pollution while at the same time bringing agricultural output more into line with demand. The Archbishops' Commission recommended that payment should be made to farmers and other landowners to facilitate communities' enjoyment of rural land. The White Paper sets out proposals for a national countryside initiative by the Countryside Commission which is very much along these lines. I am delighted to

463
say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was able to announce last week the provision of £1·1 million next year and £3·8 million in 1992–93 and £8·4 million in 1993–94 to allow the Countryside Commission to launch this initiative.
The Government have been in the forefront of attempts to shift the emphasis of the common agricultural policy towards improving the environment and have pioneered the introduction of support for this purpose. Environmental measures were first introduced into the CAP in 1985 and there has been considerable progress since. Most recently the Commission has proposed new measures this year to encourage low input, environmentally friendly farming right across the Community. Our experience with our existing programmes will stand us in good stead as these proposals are considered.
I welcome the Select Committee's support for an expansion of forestry, especially in the form of multiple-purpose woodland and community forests, and its endorsement of the view held by the Government that foresty offers a major alternative use for agricultural land that is no longer needed for food production. There should be no doubt about the Government's continuing commitment to forestry; the fact that about a quarter of a million hectares of new planting has been grant-aided over the past 10 years is proof of this. Certainly much of that planting has taken place on land of poor agricultural quality and it is now central to our forestry policy to encourage more planting on better land. As I think the House is aware, the Government are supporting major forestry initiatives to create new national forests in the English Midlands and central Scotland. Three community forests in east London, south Staffordshire and Tyne and Wear are already being supported by the Government. Planting these new forests will provide a wide range of public benefits.
As regards financial assistance, we are already doing a great deal. The Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme is now well established and attracting a great deal of interest. This scheme offers substantial rates of grant with higher grants for the planting of broadleaves and with a supplement for planting on better land. We have also announced recently that we shall be introducing management grants under the scheme in April 1992. Care for the environment is an integral part of the scheme which has been designed to achieve the full range of our policy objectives.
I will turn now to housing and planning in rural areas. Both the Archbishops' Commission and the Select Committee draw specific attention to housing issues in rural areas. We accept that it is crucial that affordable housing should be available for those who live and work in rural areas. We recognise that there are particular difficulties in some rural areas, especially where house prices have been driven upwards by demand from long-distance commuters and well-off retired people. On the other hand, we cannot simply resist these market pressures; after all they represent genuine demands from many people
464
who wish to live in attractive rural surroundings. The survival of rural communities depends on successfully adapting to change.
In July 1988 the Secretary of State for the Environment announced his rural housing initiative which for the first time set out a policy on low cost housing in rural areas. Since then we have introduced a series of measures designed to boost the supply of low-cost housing in rural England. We are increasing the level of investment in rural areas through housing associations, which have a major role to play in providing affordable housing for rent and low-cost sale, particularly on shared ownership terms.
We have increased the public funding available to the Housing Corporation from £1·1 billion this year to over £2 billion in 1993–94, enabling it to increase the targets under its special rural programme for low-cost housing for rent and sale in small villages. Despite recent cash planning difficulties resulting from housing associations completing houses faster under the new financial system, the Housing Corporation has been able to maintain the programme. The corporation has publicly stated that no rural homes will be lost.
In Wales, Housing for Wales launched a rural housing initiative last year aimed at assisting local people to find affordable housing in their own communities. Housing for Wales has directed around £25 million—no less than a quarter of its resources —to be spent by housing associations in rural areas this financial year.
In Scotland the Government asked the housing development agency, Scottish Homes, to formulate a rural housing strategy as one of its first priorities. Research carried out by Scottish Homes has established that, although problems exist in rural areas, mechanisms are already in place which would allow Scottish Homes and others to tackle those problems and that very few new means are required to fill gaps in provision. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has approved a number of new initiatives intended to tackle rural housing problems. He has also approved 10 areas throughout rural Scotland where the initiatives can be demonstrated and proved. The Government have also made available to Scottish Homes an additional £1 million to launch the scheme this year.
We have also introduced a scheme in England to allow housing associations in rural areas to repurchase former shared ownership dwellings at full market value when an occupier moves on, thus preserving the supply of shared ownership houses for local needs.
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that only last week we announced a new scheme to boost rural housing in England. A sum of £50 million is to be allocated to local councils where the needs are greatest to support housing association activity in rural areas.
Of course public sector provision alone is not enough. We have also taken steps to encourage landowners and developers to provide new houses at prices or rents that local people can afford. In particular, we announced changes to the planning

465
rules in England and Wales in 1989 which enabled local authorities to release small sites not previously designated for housing for low-cost housing schemes to meet specific local needs, subject to arrangements to ensure that the houses remain available for local needs. That should enable housing to be provided at lower cost since the land concerned will not be valued at the price of housing land. We shall shortly be commissioning research to investigate how successful that initiative has been. Scottish Homes has recommended that the Scottish Office should encourage Scottish planning authorities to adopt similar policies.
I turn to the committees' recommendation on assessment of housing need. Earlier this month Housing for Wales published results of two research projects on the nature and extent of the need for housing in rural Wales. We shall shortly be commissioning research into the nature of demand for housing in rural areas in England.
In Northern Ireland affordable rural housing is generally available. However the number of single unfit rural dwellings is a significant problem which is being addressed positively by enhanced incentives to improve rural dwellings and through a rural housing review.
Considerable work has been done on the development of planning guidance for rural areas over the past few years. For example, in England planning policy guidance on rural enterprise and development was published in 1988. Advice on the countryside and the rural economy is now being finalised. The development plan system is to be improved and streamlined with regional guidance as an integral part of the system.
In Northern Ireland, where the main responsibility for the countryside is shared by government departments, the Department of Agriculture has recently published a countryside management strategy and the Department of the Environment is developing a planning strategy to guide and control development in the countryside.
The Government sponsor specialist agencies to do much of the work in implementing their policies for rural communities. In England the Rural Development Commission, which is sponsored by my department, is the Government's main agency for diversifying rural enterprise. Its task is to highlight rural problems, to create a climate in which rural businesses, communities and services can prosper and to initiate action which will improve the economic and social development of rural areas. In Wales similar tasks are undertaken primarily by the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. In Scotland the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board fulfil broadly similar functions. In Northern Ireland, an inter-departmental committee is considering how best to tackle problems in the most deprived rural areas.
466
The agencies have a star-studded list of achievements to their credit. They provide advice and work space and create jobs. The success of the Welsh Development Agency demonstrates that point well. Over the last five years the Welsh Development Agency has created over 12,000 jobs in its rural areas. Nearly 50 inward investment projects have been secured for rural areas in the Welsh Development Agency area involving capital investment of almost £40 million.
The Archbishops' Commission has commended the use of the integrated approach to economic development being used in the Rural Development Commission's priority areas, the rural development areas. There are many other examples of close co-operation and the Government believe that it is important to allow room for flexibility to meet local circumstances while encouraging close working relationships among private, public and voluntary sectors. That is a point that was made very forcibly by the most reverend Primate and my noble friend Lord Middleton.
For instance, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the rural enterprise programme which the Government are introducing in the Highlands and Islands. A project team with a programme controller and locally-based project officers has been set up. The Government envisage that a loose, informal structure will be set up appropriate to the wishes of local communities rather than a centrally prescribed format and membership.
The Archbishops' Commission also suggested that local authorities and the Rural Development Commission should be empowered to declare a special status for areas which are dependent on a single employer and where that employment is being substantially reduced. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Rural Development Commission already targets its activities on such areas as well as on others with pressing needs. Earlier this year the Rural Development Commission announced a package of financial assistance for rural coalfield areas with high unemployment. The Rural Development Commission offers its full range of assistance in the rural coalfields of East Derbyshire, North Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire. A more limited range of assistance has been extended to the rural coalfields of South Derbyshire and North West Leicestershire. Hence the Government are aware of the problems and pressures which the countryside faces. They are taking steps to protect the countryside, which we value, to open up more varied employment opportunities where that is appropriate and to ensure that the social needs of rural areas are not neglected.
The last decade has seen rapid and substantial change in the countryside. In many cases we have been successful in meeting our objectives for a healthy rural economy and an attractive rural environment. We are targeting our policies on those areas where there are still problems. In future, above all, we must maintain a package of rural policies which will continue to meet

467
our objectives and must ensure that European Commission policies are designed to meet the varied needs of the countryside.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the report on The Future of Rural Society submitted by your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities is in our opinion an excellent document. If anything, the scope of the document is almost too wide, but that fault, if fault it be, lies with the Commission because the scope of its communication to Parliament and the Council of the European Communities is significant and almost without limitation as to the ideas it seeks to encompass. As it stands, the report is in some ways a definitive document. Everyone who has had a hand in its preparation deserves both the thanks and congratulations of your Lordships' House.
I go along entirely with the submission that it is impossible to define rural society, even in Great Britain. For example, the Scottish Borders and Western Isles have little in common. The affluent villages in the South East of England have little in common with the mining villages in the North Midlands and the northern half of this country. The hill farmers of North Wales do not have a great deal in common with the dairy farmers of Pembrokeshire. If such disparity exists in rural areas of Great Britain, how can the European Community define and effectively administer assistance with rural change in mind? There are 12 member states. They are all different and within each country there are undoubtedly disparities as wide as those which we know exist in our own country.
That leads me to suggest that a weakness of the report, no doubt influenced by the communication, is that it addresses itself mainly to a European Community solution to the problem. I am well aware that the prospect of Community funding is something which no self-respecting committee can afford to ignore, but the opportunity to state a case for the repatriation of these problems as the beginning of the unscrambling of the common agricultural policy seems to me to have been missed on this occasion.
Community funding as such, despite its undoubted popularity and acceptance—indeed, we almost have an industry building in Britain in an attempt to get money out of the Community—is both a roundabout and a somewhat expensive way of financing basic national activity. It is more so in Great Britain's case because of the additionality principle which all governments have applied ever since we became a member of the Community.
For example, when one considers Britain's share of the FEOGA guidance awards, it is fairly obvious as and when they are announced that they tend to favour a few large applicants. No one quarrels with that. Undoubtedly the idea is that it is better to give fairly substantial sums of money to a few large applicants than to spread what is available too thinly over a great number of applicants. Therefore I believe that the opportunity has been missed in the report to begin what undoubtedly will have to happen one day: the
468
return of those aspects of common agricultural policy which are better dealt with on a national basis than by the European Commission.
It was right to mention the GATT negotiations because until we know the full implications of the GATT settlement—if there is a settlement—on the common agricultural policy, we shall lot know for certain how the whole of the changes will impact upon rural society as well as farming. But we know that on the basis of what has already been offered by the Community the impact will be significant. Farming practices will undoubtedly change and in addition we shall probably face even more intensive import competition than is currently the case.
In regard to planning aspects, I was grateful for the amplification conveyed in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Although country planning was not much mentioned in the gracious Speech, the document entitled This Common Inheritance is somewhat vague on the subject. Yet, reading that document and studying its references to agriculture, one has the feeling that there will be substantial changes, perhaps not during this Session but certainly in the future. Our feeling is that country planning needs careful handling, not least because town planning is not universally regarded as a great success by those people who have experience of it. It is a costly business, slow in operation and sometimes inflexible. If country planning is to be approached on that basis, it will be necessary for those who are likely to be affected by it to make sure that some of the errors inherent in town planning as such are not repeated in the country.
For that reason we are glad that the Select Committee's report welcomes the reprieve for county councils' structure plans which the Government recently announced. Perhaps also county councils should be the planning authorities for rural areas. It seems to us that their wider geographical spread is more important in the context of county development than district councils can hope to be. But the whole question of planning divergence, which we know exists in this country, justifies my proposition that member states should handle the future of rural society rather than leave it to the Commission.
Turning to national agencies, we accept as wise the recommendation in the Select Committee's report that those successful rural agencies which are already functioning and well experienced in this area—namely, the Welsh Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Rural Development Commission and the Development Board for Rural Wales—should continue to be regarded as the main bodies in promoting diversification of the rural economy.
Too many bodies in this area may result in much consultation —a thought that crossed my mind as I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—but may also result in too little being done about a problem which will not diminish but tend to grow the less urgently it is tackled. Also, the fewer reference points there are, the better as regards redevelopment. The less confusion that there is in this area, the better it will

469
be for the rural economy as a whole. Indeed, in its conclusions the report acknowledges that by anticipating in the long term a rural development advisory service.
Much attention has been given to housing. Undoubtedly it is a key question so far as concerns the rural economy. We all agree that rural housing at affordable rents for local people is the crux of the problem. It is the most basic aspect of the rural society problem. We recognise too that it is tied to land values in the country, which vary considerably, as well as to planning consent and local demand, which again are variables in the light of who administers the arrangements, who asks for what and who is prepared to pay for what is on offer.
Here again the severity of the problem varies. As I listened to the noble Baroness I had the impression that it was bad in certain parts of the country—for example, in Scotland, although there are other areas affected and, taking the country as a whole, the problem is not as acute there as it is in, say, the South East of England. We are all famililar in the South East with the syndrome of the two agricultural cottages which are knocked into one to provide a single home of high standard in an attractive area, appealing to the affluent commuter or the home-working professional and available for the sum of perhaps £200,000 plus. How can the local artisan who is born and bred in the village find accommodation in areas subject to such a situation? Come to that, how can small firms be encouraged to move to the area, having regard to their need to recruit local labour? In other areas, in our opinion planning refusals are too easily influenced by local people whose housing needs have been met. There is an element of selfishness which it is as well to recognise.
Housing associations are currently favoured by Her Majesty's Government as the medium for providing rural housing. That view was fully confirmed by what the noble Baroness had to say on that subject. Quite frankly, we welcome the additional money that is to be made available to housing associations through the Housing Corporation for rented housing in rural areas. However, without prejudice to the housing associations, we ask whether there is not still a role for local authorities in rented housing in rural areas. Could not district councils with accumulated receipts from housing sales, the use of which is currently restricted, be allowed to use somewhat more of those funds if they were devoted specifically to housing in rural areas?
The question of planning gain is important in this context. Currently we tend to think of it in terms of urban areas. From this side of the House we ask whether there is not also a rural dimension to planning gain. For example, a change of use from farming to other activities must be sympathetically handled, we agree, but if job creation is used as a supporting factor in applications for change of use should not applicants who use that argument be expected to make a contribution to housing demand?
470
I have in mind golf courses, which are a popular form of alternative use for farmland in many parts of the country. In most such applications, in addition to the clubhouse and the hotel there is usually a substantial housing element. It is mainly the four-bedroom, two-bathroom detached house which the agricultural or factory worker in a rural environment could not afford even in his wildest dreams.
In those circumstances would it not be reasonable to ask such applicants to make land available for housing so that the demand for labour which they say will be created by the development could be met by the provision of low-cost housing in those areas? It would not be a major contribution and, having regard to the economics of some of those schemes with which I am reasonably familiar, I am sure that it could easily be afforded.
Regarding community co-operatives, I was disappointed to note that the only mention of co-operatives in the report was a reference to a visit made by the Select Committee to a co-operative society in south-east Belgium. Of course housing associations and co-operatives are not always referred to as such. Is there not a role for a community co-operative on a village basis, possibly to run a post office, a shop, a local bus, a petrol station and even a pharmacy? One can run a pharmacy on a co-operative basis provided that one gives the pharmacist a seat on the board of directors—as we well know from our experience.
Now that Her Majesty's Government have wound up the co-operative development agencies, and recently have discontinued grants to establish agricultural societies, we on these Benches see a gap in the provisions for the formation of new co-operatives in such areas. Cannot the four rural agencies commended in the report be asked to undertake the provision of advice on forming community cooperatives in villages? A small survey would show whether or not there was a reasonable prospect of success for such a development. Such self-help should commend itself to Her Majesty's Government.
I do not wish to spend too much time dealing with other farming aspects in the report, important though they are. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, will deal with them when he replies. Perhaps I may conclude by saying that the problems of the rural society are likely to be with us for some considerable time. On the basis of all the evidence, they are likely to intensify. However, there are also opportunities, and both reports indicate ways in which they can be fully realised. The reports make a valid and useful contribution to the question. We are grateful to the authors in both cases for bringing the matters to our notice in such a clear, concise and helpful fashion.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, from these Benches we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and the members of the Select Committee on their report, and the noble Lord, Lord Prior, and the members of his commission on their report. They both make

471
fascinating and interesting reading to someone like myself who was brought up on a family farm and still lives in the heart of the Welsh countryside.
I regret that the two reports have been discussed together. It seems to me that the report of the Select Committee deals basically with the underlying economic problems—the skeleton, as it were—while the Church of England report deals with the flesh to be put on the skeleton thereafter. Both would have made more interesting debates had they been debated separately.
I intend to limit my remarks to one issue. I should like to quote on it from the report of the Archbishops' commission. At page 310 it states:
"Policies which provide local work, local homes and local communications for those who are less well-off, but who wish to remain in the country, are crucial if rural living is to retain the balance and cohesion which appear so attractive not only to those looking on from outside, but also to many of the people whom we met throughout the villages of England".
It seems to me that that presupposes a basically sound agricultural policy and a paternalistic role in the state or in the European Community. I am a firm believer, as I am sure is the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who chaired the commission, in the paternalistic role of government and the need for it to interfere at times to protect the governed.
I refer to page 17, paragraph 43 of the report of the Select Committee. From my experience I entirely agree about the importance of farming to the rural economy as emphasised by the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office. It states:
"the Welsh Office emphasised the 'strong dependency' of rural parts of LFAs on agriculture and the Northern Ireland Office considered agriculture 'the cornerstone of the rural economy"".
I was brought up on a family farm. I well remember my parents and the agricultural community talking about the grave slump that hit agriculture in the 1920s and 1930s, the terrible devastation that it caused to rural communities, the rural depopulation that took place as a result of it, and the interference with and undermining of the cohesion of social and cultural life as well as its economic life. In 1962 I fought a by-election in my old constituency of Montgomery when we were suffering enormously from depopulation. It was before there was a rural development board, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred. In the by-election I concentrated on the need for a policy for the rural areas which maintained some certainty of a decent future. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, will remember how important the Milk Marketing Board was to the rural areas of this country. It brought some certainty where uncertainty existed before.
I therefore wish to concentrate on the basics: agricultural policy. Although from my experience a rural community cannot live on agriculture alone, certainly the rural community cannot live without a healthy agriculture. We are today discussing the reports against the background of the Uruguay round of the GATT talks where there is increasing pressure from the United States in particular, from the Cairns group, and, to a lesser degree, from Japan, for greater
472
liberalisation in agriculture. Free trade in agriculture is their eventual aim. I believe that we should regard the process with considerable circumspection.
I wish to put the much maligned agricultural policy of the European Commission into proper perspective. In many ways, whatever differences we may have, however we may criticise parts of it, it is the greatest success story of the EC so far. Without it there would have been enormous depopulation in Europe. There would have been great unemployment. There would have been not only agrarian unrest; there would have been tremendous industrial unrest.
Noble Lords who have talked to German politicians know the importance that they attach to the small farmers whom one often sees farming the land around the perimeters of the great cities. They regard them as being the most stabilising factor in their industrial sphere. It is estimated that between 10 million and 12 million farming families within the EC benefit enormously from the agricultural policy. In addition to the 10 million or 12 million farming families, there are those who depend on agriculture, servicing it, and so on. Without these farmers in the countryside one would not have the population for one's rural industries.
I have been involved with the development of rural industries in mid-Wales. I have had an association with one of the great success stories of rural mid-Wales—a company which has become a great international company. That in itself brings other problems in its train. Nevertheless, the point I make is that one cannot find the labour for rural industries unless one has farmers, farm workers, whose daughters and sons provide the workforce in the rural industries. Rural industry and agriculture are closely linked.
I was in the United States last weekend. I have already adverted to the fact that it is the United States in particular which is bringing pressure to bear on the Uruguay round of the GATT talks. It is interesting to ask the question: why was agriculture not included in the GATT negotiations in the first place? It is because in 1955 at the specific request of the United States it was excluded because it served the United States book at the time. It did not consider it wise from the point of view of its own economy to include agriculture in the GATT discipline.
However, in a leading article in the New York Times this week the following statement appears:
"European taxpayers pay huge sums, more than $100 billion each year, to support a handful of inefficient family farmers".
That is the way in which the agricultural policy of the EC is being mispresented. It states,
"to support a handful of inefficient family farmers",
instead of referring to the fact that between 100 million and 200 million people within the EC may be directly supported by that policy.
The article goes on to state what American policy has in mind:

473
"The economic gains from an international trade agreement would be enormous, adding perhaps $1 trillion to the US economy alone. To reap these benefits, the Western leaders will have to stare down the special interests".
In fairness I must quote an earlier passage from the article. It states:
"The Europeans are not the only obstinate leaders. The Japanese won't agree to import rice; and the US proposes to exempt telecommunications, aviation and shipping from the new regulations governing service industries".
I believe that France and Germany were right to object to going beyond the concessions now made by the EC in their negotiations on agriculture. If we were as successful in our economy as France and Germany have been during the past decade we could read them lessons on how to run their economies and how to balance their agricultural interests with their industrial and commercial interests. After all, between the two of them they indulge in much more world trade than we do. Our Minister of Agriculture described the attitudes of the French and German opposition to further subsidy cuts as making the Community look ridiculous and incompetent, and that was a stupid observation. It makes our country look stupid and incompetent.
We must appreciate that the problems of agriculture are difficult to anticipate. A fair balance must be made with many other interests. I have in my hand a copy of a publication by the OECD. It was published this year and is entitled Agricultural Trade Liberalisation: Implications for Developing Countries. The argument has been put forward that the Western countries are extremely selfish with regard to their agricultural policies, for example, and benefit would be brought to third world countries if we had far greater liberalisation. The studies do not bear that out.
I shall quote from page 476 of the publication. The OECD studied many models and it states:
"All the models point to increases in meat, dairy and sugar prices, and all but one … forecast rises in food grain prices".
The article goes on to discuss those various aspects and concludes:
"Certainly some developing countries will be adversely affected by international price rises, particularly of food grains".
Noble Lords will be aware that the world price of grain is now just above £40 per tonne. However, that is the subsidised price of food grain. I am assured that the actual price in economic terms if there were no subsidies in any country would be about £86 per tonne.
Every country, even a large industrial country with an enormous agricultural background such as the United States, Argentina or Brazil, subsidises its agriculture. The reasons for doing so are obvious and I shall quote again from page 479 of the publication. It states:
"In practice, we know little of the actual factors that drive the instability in agricultural markets".
Everyone concerned in agriculture knows how during the past three or four decades we have been protected from that instability. The paragraph continues:
474
"But we do know that political uncertainty cannot help. The major political actors should define clearly and irrevocably the direction that liberalisation is to take to avoid contributing to this inherent uncertainty in agricultural markets. Equally, price booms and busts which are sure to occur must not be used as an excuse to derail the long-term adjustment process and further contribute to uncertainty".
Agricultural policy is and still will be the basis of our rural economy in this country. I believe that we should get it into the correct perspective. It is important to us to have a measure of protection from instability. It is important that this basic component of the health of the rural economy should be right. That means a fair balance between the industrial and commercial interests within our country and the Community, on the one hand, and of our agricultural interests, on the other.
I hope that in reviewing the two reports it can be seen that we must achieve such a balance in our policy approach. That alone will enable us to add the superstructure with which much of the reports—particularly the Church of England report—is concerned. We can talk about rural housing and about bringing industries to rural areas. In my part of the country much of that has been or is in the process of being done. However, such areas cannot survive without a basic healthy agricultural policy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned several countries which have subsidies. Does he have any comments to make on Australia and New Zealand?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, they have changed their attitudes but there remains a deal of subsidy. The claim of New Zealand that it has abolished all subsidies is not borne out by the studies that I have read. It is a question of balance in all such things. We admit to the EC exports from New Zealand under special arrangements, and I am all for those continuing. However, in the interests of our rural areas it is necessary to make sure that we get the balance right.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I know the Argentine well and believe that it would be wrong to say that it subsidises its agriculture. The reverse situation has always been the case. The so-called Oligarchy, who basically are the Estancieros, have been taxed up to the hilt.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says. In relation to my remarks about the Argentine, I relied on articles which I read recently in the American press. They stated that the Argentine food producers are subsidised.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Wrenbury: My Lords, I shall confine myself, if I may, to the report Faith in the Countryside, which is a major work both of erudition and investigation. I should particularly wish to commend the theological reflections at the start of the report and the analysis of the objectives of ministry halfway through. In view of the way in which the debate has progressed my contribution may not be sufficiently in line with your Lordships' thinking.

475
However, my heart sank when I read the list of recommendations arising out of the report and that is so for the following reasons. First, out of 47 principal recommedations only about 15 can really be said to have any connection with spiritual affairs. The rest are concerned with material, practical and political problems. That leads directly to the question of what the function of the ordained ministry should be. To what extent should the priesthood involve itself in political and domestic issues at national and local levels?
There are some who will tell you that if religious faith is to have any relevance to contemporary society the Church—here meaning the institution as opposed to the individuals who compose it—must involve itself in all aspects of modern life and particularly the problem areas. On that view of the matter there is unlikely to be any aspect of the domestic and political scene on which the Church will not feel entitled to hold a view and to get involved. This in turn will lead to, indeed has already led to, the creation of a substantial bureaucracy in order to keep these interests properly serviced and the expenditure of a great deal of money in order to promote the various corporate endeavours and initiatives that require to be undertaken.
I do not believe that the scriptural authority quoted at the beginning of the report supports this proposition, and nor do the more modern authorities quoted under the chapter heading "Ministry" appear to do so. The foremost duty of the ordained ministry is correctly stated by the 1988 Lambeth conference as being "to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom", and this is something as different from official involvement in the material, practical and political problems of the day as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are from a political manifesto.
It is perfectly true that the proclamation of the good news will undoubtedly result in a deepening commitment by individual Christians to all aspects of our national, social and environmental well-being. After all, the whole purpose of the proclamation is to make manifest the workings of God in the lives of men, and the whole essence of a Christian life is one that is dedicated to the service of our fellow man. But involvement in public affairs for the benefit of the community is the end product of the proclamation and not the proclamation itself.
My own conviction, and the reason why, after 63 years as a layman, I felt impelled to offer myself for ordination to the non-stipendiary ministry in June this year, is that the Church in the countryside is wilting for one reason only, and that is that the sheep are not being adequately fed. And in this context it should be remarked that to feed them with the wrong food is no better than not feeding them at all.
The difficulty I see with the kind of recommendations made in the report are, first, that by suggesting solutions to current national, domestic and environmental problems the Church identifies itself with particular courses of action and thereby implicitly rejects all others. I dislike the word "judgmental". But
476
on this occasion it seems to me apt to describe the espousal by the Church of points of view which have no direct connection with the promulgation of the gospel. Politics is about legitimate differences of opinion on practical affairs, not about ethical issues, and the Church makes a mistake when it takes sides on these matters.
Secondly, it seems to me that the main purpose of the Church is to equip individual Christians with the spiritual armour necessary to go out into the world and tackle these problems most effectively. To the extent that the Church itself decides to get involved in these affairs of state it usurps the functions and free choice of its individual members who have no moral obligation whatever to favour any particular solution to the exclusion of others. The Church must not fall into the error of the petrol pump attendant who, having filled his customer's car with the best lead-free spirit, took it upon himself to tell him where to drive afterwards.
Thirdly, my training leads me to suppose that there is considerable confusion at the present time as to where the functions of a welfare officer leave off and the functions of the ordained clergy begin. It is perhaps significant that in order to accommodate Moslem susceptibilities our padres in the Gulf are now officially referred to as welfare officers, thereby one might suppose effectively hiding their light under a bushel. All I can say, and I do so with absolute conviction, is that church membership will not be increased by the appointment of welfare officers in the guise of clergymen, which seems to be the implication of some of the recommendations in the report, and still less will it help to appoint public relations officers as per Recommendation No. 34.
Nothing that I have said should be interpreted as implying that the Church should not get involved in good works to the extent that these can be undertaken without prejudice to the wider responsibility of bearing witness to Christ. There are respectable precedents for this, one of the more obvious perhaps being the hostels for weary travellers that used to be run by medieval monasteries. But to undertake charitable work oneself is a very different thing from directing others to do so. The danger of the recommendations in the report is that they go a long way towards turning the Church into a political pressure group, and nothing could be more fatal to its survival than that.
By way of illustration of the dangers I must tell you that when I was an impressionable young man, the question arose as to whether I should be confirmed into the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland, I was assured, was immeasurably better at preaching sermons. So in order to sample their wares we arose at 6.30 one Sunday morning and bicycled 20 miles to the nearest church. I regret to tell you that the minister preached at length about the current housing situation, and this finally and irrevocably determined my confirmation into the Church of England.
However, the commission has merely responded to the terms of reference put to it, and one feels bound to

477
say that it has responded very well. The danger lies in the terms of reference themselves, which assume that the objectives of the rural ministry require rethinking as opposed to restating. If the commission had been asked the simple question, "In what way can the relevance of the gospel message to the problems of modern life be more effectively demonstrated?" it might have come up with very different answers. As it is, one is conscious of an uncomfortable lack of distinction between the things which are Caesar's and the things which are God's.
I dislike either hostile or destructive criticism and I hope that what I have said will not be taken as either. The sower went forth to sow good seed; he did not tell the plant how to grow, and that in essence is what I have sought to say.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, when I first put my name down to speak in this debate there were relatively few noble Lords who had already done so. It was only today that I realised that the debate would perhaps go on for a time far beyond the last train that I have to catch. If that is so, it means that I shall not be able to be here for the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and possibly for other noble Lords, and I ask the indulgence of the House for that. The reason why I did not withdraw, as I perhaps should have done, was partly my great interest in the subject and also my particular respect for the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, as chairman of the committee on which I was privileged to sit and which brought out this report. It is indeed a valuable report. I shall not go through it. The noble Lord has done so in a way that would make it otiose for me to do so.
However, I would emphasise one point. The noble Lord spoke of the difference between social and economic objectives in agricultural policy and that they must be kept separate. That was emphasised even more by the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. At least on one or two points I feel I must take issue with them, and I speak as someone who has been involved in farming for virtually the whole of his life.
It is entirely misleading for us to believe that we can solve the problems of rural society purely, or even primarily, by having a prosperous agricultural industry. It is of course important that we should have one for a whole variety of reasons. But let me remind your Lordships that, whereas in the days of the youth of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, on his family farm —why he did not stay there I do not know if it was such a lovely life, but that is a question one can ask a great many people who have been brought up on family farms and have taken the first opportunity to leave them—the chances were that you needed one man to milk about 12 or 15 cows, today you need one man to milk 100 cows.
In those days on an arable farm of some size you needed three men for every 100 acres, and that was pushing it rather fine. Today you are not doing very well if you have one man on 300 acres. It is more like
478
one man on 500 acres. Therefore, no matter how prosperous agriculture is, while the countryside will look prosperous and tidy and may have trees planted on it and even some hedges trimmed, it will not repopulate the rural areas and it will not play a significant part in helping to create a vital rural society.
Why do we like the idea of a rural society? What is it about a rural society that attracts all of us no matter where we live? In what way does it differ from an urban society? Partly it is because the countryside is much more attractive to look at than the streets of London or Manchester. It is more fun to play and recreate oneself in the countryside than to wander through streets teeming with the noxious fumes of motor cars. In other words, it is attractive because to town dwellers it is an escape from town life.
Part of the reason is also nostalgic. People still think of thatched cottages, with roses growing around the door. They do not remember that those thatched cottages were lucky if they had a privy down the garden; that they had no running water except the water which came through the leak in the roof. The countryside is a lovely nostalgic idea. People like the idea of lowing cows and the absence of bustle. Very often when they come to live in the countryside those same people are the ones who complain about the noxious smell of dung when the cattleyard is cleaned and the smell seeps in through their bedroom window or about the cows blocking the road as they hurry to catch their morning commuter train. The picture is not always 100 per cent. rosy, so that is not really what attracts us.
The real reason we are all anxious to preserve rural society is that it is a small society. It is a society where everyone knows everyone else; everybody feels some responsibility for their neighbour, tolerates their weaknesses and helps where help is needed and, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said, people are prepared and able to take community action to make their community a better place.
There is nothing anonymous about rural life. People know each other. We can compare that with the big cities where every night when we walk home we pass the homeless sleeping in the doorways of shops. They are anonymous people; we do not know who they are. We pass by on the other side and pay no attention to them; that is someone else's job. One has virtually no neighbours except the people who live in the flat next door. They may do the same kind of job, work in the same office and leave for work at the same time as oneself. But that is not community life.
It is the absence of community feeling in towns which draws people into a rural life if they can possibly manage it. Above all it makes rural life worth supporting for the country as a whole. It is important to ensure that there are places still, in spite of our urban bustle, our great factories and huge insoluble problems, where problems are soluble, where one can play a part in the community and one feels a worthwhile member of society.

479
In order to achieve that, a true rural society must be small, though not too small. It must have a mix of ages, of interests and of income. It must welcome newcomers but not be swamped by them. It is essential that rural communities allow new houses to be built to accommodate newcomers. Some newcomers will undoubtedly want to live in former farmworkers' cottages. Houses will have to be built for those who would have been farmworkers had they been born half a century earlier. They must now look elsewhere to live. But they may not want to leave the village of their birth, the friends with whom they played football and the village life of which they are part.
The most reverend Primate and the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Middleton, mentioned the overriding need for rural housing of a sort which can be afforded by these young people who are anxious to marry, to start a family and to contribute to their rural society. Often they cannot afford the houses that are available at the present time.
Those young people must find work. There will not be sufficient work in the village, forgetting the farming side. There will not be sufficient factories and offices in the village to give them all an occupation. In any case, they will want to spread their wings and travel a little further away. Opportunities must be provided for varied employment —high technology, shops and offices, the whole range of jobs—within reasonable travelling distance of the rural areas. Without that it will be impossible to keep young people in the village.
New jobs will be needed and the siting of those jobs will be decided mainly by local authorities. They must bear in mind that there should be small towns and industrial centres which are close enough to every village for young people to reach them within a reasonable time. At the same time, the training of those young people, which has also been mentioned and I should like to support and emphasise the point, must not simply be as it was under the previous Agricultural Training Board, to teach them to milk cows, look after pigs and drive tractors. They must be trained for a whole variety of other jobs—industrial and office jobs—which can be obtained within the locality.
We must not simply cater for the young; we must also look after the old. A whole variety of services are needed for old people, as most of your Lordships are aware. There must be a good bus service provided to enable the old to travel into town from time to time to do their shopping. There must be a village shop. Increasingly village shops find it impossible to continue and are succumbing to poll tax business rates, the competition of the multi-nationals in the nearest town and the supermarkets.
By some means or other the shop and the post office must he maintained in the villages. The post office is particularly important for old age pensions and so on. There must be a doctor's surgery and the facility for the doctor to dispense medication in his surgery rather than writing out a prescription and people travelling a long way to have it fulfilled. All those things and many
480
more are needed—especially adequate transport facilities—to make life supportable and reasonable for the older people of the community.
If the natives, old and young, are provide with affordable houses, work, schools and shops, it will be easier for them to accept newcomers and not resent them. Also the potential conflict of interests—again mentioned, rightly, by the most reverend Primate—between these people and the commuters, the retired and other people who come in (I believe nature lovers were mentioned) will be minimised and a form of community of the sort that we all wish to see will he created.
I believe that in that way the old spirit of a rural community can be maintained or perhaps one should say revived. We will find in our country districts a new form of rural society to take the place of the old form. It will no longer be based on the squire and the parson. I imagine that the parson will have a role to play, if enough people can be found to play that role. The squire is of the past. Mutual interest and shared responsibilities will prevail and the dangers of an uncaring, divided urban society will be avoided.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, it is unusual, regrettably, to receive one major report on rural areas let alone two. However, within a few weeks of each other we have seen published both our Select Committee's report and the Archbishops' Commission's report. Both complement and reinforce each other and have done much to raise the profile of rural matters which I for one find most welcome.
Before I go further I must declare an interest in this debate on two counts. First, I am chairman of the Rural Development Commission to which much reference—favourable reference, I am glad to say—is made in both reports. Secondly, I am also an upland sheep farmer, identified in both reports as an endangered species. On both counts I must congratulate the chairmen, my noble friends Lord Middleton and Lord Prior, and their colleagues, on their inquiries and the reports. Taken together they provide a superb analysis of the problems facing rural areas, highlighting in particular the issues facing the United Kingdom.
Your Lordships will know that the Rural Development Commission is the government agency for economic and social development in rural areas of England. We have a statutory duty to keep under review and advise government on all matters relating to the economic and social development of English rural areas. We have wide powers, together with an annual budget of just under £40 million, to take measures to further such development.
Much of our effort is concentrated on advising government, raising awareness of the particular needs of rural areas and rural dwellers and seeking to influence the policies and actions of other bodies—public, private and voluntary—to take account of the rural dimension. However, what distinguishes us from other government countryside agencies is that we are concerned principally with the people who live and

481
work in the countryside. We are, therefore, very concerned with all the contents of both reports, but I shall be as brief as possible.
One of the important messages from the Select Committee's report is the danger of confusing "rural" with "agricultural". Here in England the proportion of jobs related to agriculture is in fact the lowest in the European Community. The ratio is about one-in-50 compared, say, to one-in-four in Greece. While agriculture remains the major land use in the countryside and its contraction poses serious problems for the management of the landscape, it is no longer the main economic activity in most rural areas. I am not sure that that point is always understood or accepted elsewhere in Europe. We must try to ensure that the European Community initiatives on rural development do not have too narrow a focus on agriculture and the land.
In many areas the rural economy is adapting and becoming more diversified, with a minimum of public sector intervention. In other areas, particularly the remoter or hillier areas such as where I live, the economy is fragile because of over-reliance on agriculture or on other declining industries and because of geographical obstacles to the easy establishment of new businesses. These areas have a continuing need for support.
The Select Committee's report—and other noble Lords who have spoken today—recognise that there is a great diversity of rural areas in England. Even the commission's priority areas encompass places as different as upland hill farming areas in the North and West, relatively inaccessible lowland areas such as the Isle of Wight and North Norfolk and the declining rural coalfield closure districts of the East Midlands.
There cannot be one solution for the development of them all. Our approach through our regional staff structure is to work out rural development programmes with local bodies in each priority area. These are suited to local needs. Rural development needs to be small scale, environmentally sensitive and locally determined. We put that point strongly to the European Commission and it seems to be reflected in its proposals, which envisage local agencies playing a key role in the delivery of community programmes.
It is gratifying that all these reports recognise the work of the Rural Development Commission as providing perhaps a useful model for other parts of the European Community. Personally, I take no credit for that as I became chairman of the commission only this year; but I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Vinson. He has asked me to say how sorry he is that due to an inescapable engagement elsewhere he is unable to take part in the debate. He has also asked me to convey to your Lordships his endorsement of both reports.
Just for a moment I shall concentrate on one particular issue—that of rural housing. The subject has been much mentioned today but it is so important that I make no apology for doing so again. For some years now the commission has seen this as the key
482
issue facing many rural communities. We welcome the recognition of the problem by the Government and the steps they have taken to increase the supply. However, we are quite clear that much more still needs to be done.
A recent study for the commission estimated that at least 116,000 additional homes will be needed over the next five years. In the main what is needed is an increase in the amount of rented accommodation at affordable levels. The private sector, through developers, landlords and landowners, has a role to play but by definition adequate provision of low-cost affordable housing is not susceptible to a commercial market solution. Much of the need will be met only with public sector financial assistance.
After helpful discussions with the chairman of the Housing Corporation and with others the Rural Development Commission suggested a number of additional steps to the Government which we feel should be taken as a matter of urgency. These proposals are additional to the support we already give to achieving the existing programme. I do not suggest that any particular step will have a major impact on its own, but taken together with earlier government initiatives I think they can all make a useful contribution. I wish briefly to refer to three of them.
First, we should like to see an increase in the Housing Corporation's rural rented programme. The corporation has given an assurance that current slippage in the programme will be recovered by the end of 1992–93. That is welcome, but the fact is that the planned target for 1992–93 of 1,500 units is simply not enough. Secondly, local authorities should be allowed to retain more of their capital receipts from council house sales on condition that the extra amount retained is reinvested through housing associations for an increase in the supply of low-cost housing in those small communities targeted by the Housing Corporation's special rural programme. I welcome the statement made by the Minister for Housing last Friday on a new scheme to boost the supply of low-cost rented housing in rural areas through local authority housing credit approvals. However, it is not yet clear what this means in terms of additional houses to be built and which areas will be eligible under this new initiative.
Thirdly, further steps are needed to make sure that sites which landowners are willing to make available for affordable housing are not lost due to the current shortage of public funds for development. One option is to make funds available to purchase sites in advance. A more attractive proposition might be to build on the land bank trust concept which has been adopted by the Devon Rural Community Council, which takes options from landowners on sites which have a reasonable expectation of planning permission. The only costs involved are administrative and legal. If the Government were willing to support the idea, the Rural Development Commission would fund the costs of similar trusts in other counties. These are not

483
the only steps—far from it—that might be taken, but I believe that they could go some way to ease the immediate problem.
I am sometimes asked whether housing is an economic or social problem. It is both. Those who try to categorise problems in this way fundamentally misunderstand the countryside. It is an extremely complicated web of interrelated issues. For example, I visit businesses which are short of labour because of the lack of local housing. I visit village housing schemes isolated from services like shops and schools. The Commission sees most aspects of life in the countryside as interrelated and practises an integrated approach to rural development. It believes equally in the importance of working in partnership with local authorities, the county rural community councils and so on in assessing the problems, needs and opportunities of an area and in drawing up programmes of action. I am pleased that the Select Committee endorsed this approach in its report.
I have referred principally to the issue of rural housing this afternoon because a shortage of rural housing now threatens the very viability of rural areas. However, that is in no way to minimise the importance of many of the other issues identified in both reports. We in the Rural Development Commission feel that rural areas and rural people do not get enough attention. We live in an urban-dominated society and too often policy is formulated from an urban standpoint. The Select Committee's report and the Archbishops' Commission report have helped to remind a much wider audience that the countryside is where large numbers of people live and work. There are some special problems and solutions need to be tailored to local circumstances. I welcome both reports for focusing attention on the rural areas and the future that they face.
5.33 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I welcome our debate today partly because the report of your Lordships' Select Committee well deserves consideration, and partly because it provides me with an opportunity to draw your Lordships' attention to the very serious problems which face the rural community in my own country of Wales. I listened with much interest to the stimulating speech of the most reverend Primate. It left me with the feeling that salvation stops at Offa's Dyke. I am sure that that was not intentional. It was very much an English enterprise.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, also made a wide-ranging and very interesting speech. I could not help feeling that he was so much immersed in American journalism that he had not been reading the Welsh press recently. Otherwise I feel that we would have had more reference to the problems in rural Wales than the very agreeable personal reminiscences with which he regaled us.
In the report of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his colleagues, there are some references to the Principality. But the only oral evidence taken, which allowed cross-examination by members of the Committee, was that of the Development Board for
484
Rural Wales. It is true that the Association of County Councils, whose team included the very knowledgeable chief executive of the county of Gwynedd, also touched on Welsh affairs. The Welsh Office submitted a written memorandum but did not think it necessary to send representatives to London, although the Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices did.
The committee interviewed the National Farmers' Union and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, but not the National Farmers' Union of Wales. Of the voluntary environmental bodies, audience was awarded to the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), but not to CPRW, which is its Welsh counterpart. The committee itself numbered 11 Members of this House, including the chairman. Of these, four noble Lords are based in Scotland, one in Northern Ireland and five in England. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who unfortunately is not able to be with us today, is based in Wales. I can only suppose that the forebears of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, must have had some Welsh connections in 1765, when the title came into being, but he seems to be firmly established in Wiltshire.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I must put the noble Baroness right since she has mentioned my name. There is no connection whatsoever.
Baroness White: My Lords, that is most regrettable. I had always hoped to recognise him as a fellow countryman, but I am obviously deprived of that privilege. Perhaps he will tell me afterwards which Radnor he belongs to.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has an exemplary record of public service in what is now the county of Gwent and in the border country adjoining Gloucester, Hereford and Worcester. I am sure that he himself would not claim close familiarity with the position in south-west, mid and north-west Wales which is where our acute anxieties lie. I am aware that the membership of the Select Committee in this House is personal and not representative. Nevertheless, in the circumstances which I have described one could have expected that the committee might feel it necessary to include Wales in its programme of visits. It did not. Visits were paid to the Highlands of Scotland, Northern Ireland and south-eastern Belgium. No one bothered to come to see what is causing alarm and despondency in large areas of rural Wales.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, suggested, most of us in Wales can trace our origins to a rural, if not a farming, background. My paternal and maternal great grandfathers farmed in Cardiganshire and Denbighshire respectively. The mainstay of most Welsh farming, as I expect most of your Lordships recognise, is sheep or cattle. Today, especially but not exclusively in the upland areas, there is not just anxiety about the future. There is an element of fear. I wish that had been more fully recognised.
This fear is based mainly on the collapse of livestock prices, with even darker clouds on the horizon. It is true that the Government are trying to take palliative measures such as advance payments on the sheep annual premium, the suckler cow premium

485
and beef intervention, referred to by the Secretary of State for Wales on 29th October in another place. But these provide no permanent foundation. In addition to the 30 per cent. farm support reduction, who is to know how far the present international discussions may change the current restrictions on imports—for example, of New Zealand lamb—or whether there may be further reductions in dairy quotas or a drop in milk prices? We do not know. Two days ago Sir Simon Gourlay, known, I am sure, to many of your Lordships, was trying his best to sell the idea of supply management to Welsh farmers. I can say that was done with only limited success.
By Mediterranean standards, small farmers in Wales may appear better off than those in Greece and Portugal, but as Professor Michael Haines of University College, Aberystwyth, pointed out in his memorandum to the Select Committee, what matters in social and economic terms is what is relative to the society in which you actually live. Proposals for an income support scheme based on Mediterranean standards could be very damaging, and not beneficial, to small farmers in Wales. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, endorsed that view in her speech. I hope that we shall not have any move in that direction. It is essential that in dismantling the CAP we lose no time in establishing an alternative regime which will sustain and retain our upland farming population.
A partial framework is to hand in the less favoured areas, to which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, referred, and in the environmentally sensitive areas which, with national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, cover virtually the whole of rural Wales. But the framework must be filled in and the pattern thought through—and quickly.
I understand that, under the ESA regime, the Community pays 25 per cent. and the Treasury 75 per cent. of the cost. That explains the reluctance of the Treasury to agree to extensions of the ESA areas, although the concept has the great advantage of being environmentally beneficial while restraining production. There is also an EC proposal for a LEADER scheme as a mechanism for sustaining local economic and community development work in selected rural areas. Meanwhile, the proposed reduction in agricultural support payments, to whatever level, will release Community funds. Unless our negotiators are skilful and persistent, we may fail to transfer adequate amounts in other ways to sustain rural society, particularly in the physically disadvantaged areas of our country, at a tolerable and ongoing level. Hence our profound concern at the present state of affairs.
This concern is greatly intensified in Wales by the fact that it is primarily in the rural areas of north-west Wales, mid-Wales and south-west Wales that our Welsh language, traditions and culture survive and flourish. If these areas seriously decline, then much of what we cherish may go too. It is far more than simply an economic problem, most particularly in the Welsh speaking areas.
There is no doubt that the past decade has shown
486
marked Welsh success in obtaining inward investment to replace the declining basic industries of coal, steel and shipping. The present Secretary of State for Wales was recently in Japan, simultaneously with the Prince and Princess of Wales, but with more mundane objectives than imperial ceremonial on his mind. We have attracted both Japanese and German entrepreneurs of substance. It is only right to acknowledge the efforts of successive Secretaries of State, including the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who set an excellent example to his immediate successor and to the present incumbent. But they and the Welsh Office have not been equally successful in bringing European Community funds to Welsh rural areas.
This too was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It is partly but not entirely due to the bureaucracy of Brussels. In particular, the delay in obtaining any financial benefit at all for rural Wales from the European Community ERDF source, although the three Welsh rural counties of Powys, Dyfed and Gwynedd have been lingering in the designated 5B queue literally for years, has been irritating beyond belief. I am told that there is now something definite in the pipeline. Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate may have some good news for us.
Finally, I turn to the major agencies with economic and to some extent social responsibilities in rural Wales—the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board. Important as tourism is, in this debate I believe that the two economic agencies should take precedence.
For reasons of history, their relationship is anomalous. Sir Wyn Roberts, Minister of State at the Welsh Office, has recently provided some very interesting information on their respective achievements. This too was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Development Board for Rural Wales, based at Newtown in Montgomeryshire, has jurisdiction in the country of Powys and in one district each of Dyfed and Gwynedd—in all, some 40 per cent. of the land area of Wales but only 8 per cent. of the population. Its writ does not run in the other distinctly rural areas of Pembrokeshire, Carmarthen, Caernarvon or Anglesea nor in the more industrialised counties of Glamorgan, Gwent and Clwyd. In these, it is the Welsh Development Agency which operates, with increasing emphasis on rural investment, but lacking the social remit of DBRW.
This is not the occasion to discuss these irrationalities, but in relation to the increasing influence of Community decisions on patterns of rural life throughout Europe one must ask whether the present arrangements are really the most effective ones that we can devise for Wales. Both DBRW and WDA are doing admirable and, in general, successful work in the Principality, assisted by the Wales Tourist Board, Coed Cymru and Tai Cymru, for woodland development and rural housing respectively. But are the two agencies, separately or conjointly, in a strong enough position to carry adequate weight in Brussels? They are both answerable to the Welsh Office, as is the

487
Welsh Agricultural Division. But the Welsh Office has multifarious concerns and its ministerial team carry extensive responsibilities. Can they spare the time and effort needed seriously to influence both Whitehall and the international activity on which the future salvation of rural society in Wales depends? Judging by the showing of the report which is before us this afternoon, one cannot help expressing a certain degree of doubt. But the noble Baroness who is to reply was put on notice that Welsh concerns would be raised today. I for one await her response with interest.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to speak in the debate as a member of the committee which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. He is an admirable chairman. He has a wide knowledge and a kindly way of putting one down. He has all the necessary characteristics except that he is too kind a man. When the Whips came to him and said that they wanted to lump two reports together, one from the Church and one from the committee, he said yes, of course. He would not be nasty enough to tell the Whips where they should go. However, that would not apply to me.
It is ridiculous for us to discuss two important reports. The most reverend Primate who introduced the Church report said that it was 70 per cent. addressed to the Church. The Select Committee report is one on rural society and is mainly concerned with economic and other social factors.
We now have a situation where we have a list of 30 speakers which means that the proceedings will run extraordinarily late. I am 500 miles away from home. I expected to discuss one report and, as a result, both my noble friend Lord Hooson and myself, who live in remote parts of the United Kingdom will have to be discourteous and leave before the end of the debate. We apologise to the assembled noble Lords and to the Minister for that fact. Of course, the latter has full permission and scope to be rude about us in our absence. Nevertheless, we shall read what she says with great interest.
As everyone has said, the whole question of rural society is one which is not susceptible to one single solution; indeed, there is an enormous variety over the whole of the United Kingdom. In some parts of the South East the great problem is not to let people into the countryside, but in parts of the Highlands, and in agricultural areas, the problem is how to retain the population.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hooson that the question of agriculture still remains absolutely paramount in many areas. I know that those directly employed in that industry represent only 2 per cent. of the whole working population, but there are also a large number of dependent industries which make agriculture remain one of the most important industries in the country. Certainly, in large areas of the countryside, if you do not have a viable agriculture then you will not have a very comfortable or viable countryside.
488
In the debate on the gracious Speech, I, and others, gave figures on the decline in the income of agriculture which applied not only to small farmers and family farmers but also to the larger farmers. There is no questioning the fact that farming income is in decline. However, that is not the part of the report upon which I wish to concentrate.
I wish to concentrate upon the other industries in the countryside. I dare say many noble Lords have visited the Black Forest. I recently toured the area. It is absolutely delightful. One valley which we visited had perhaps half a dozen farms. We came across on the top of a hill a most glorious little chapel which was beautifully kept. We noticed that there were two good cars outside each farm and that there was no possibility of that standard of life being supported from the acres of land which we saw. Of course, the answer is that there is spread throughout greater Germany, or the Federal Republic, a large variety of industries in which people may work, while still living on their farms. It was quite apparent to me that that was supporting an extremely healthy rural society. Clearly that factor is one of great importance.
I was delighted to hear the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, whom I regarded with great suspicion because he succeeded such a good chairman in the RDC. However, no doubt he will be relieved to know that my fears have been set at rest. I am sure that the commission will continue to carry out extremely good work. Members of the committee were very impressed with its evidence. I hope and trust that the Minister will pay close attention to what the noble Lord said about the need for rural housing, the need to support rural local government communities and the need to release money. Further, I hope that they will be allowed to keep the houses and that they will not have to sell them because of the sale policy of the Government which, taken as a whole, is excellent; but, in rural areas, there are many places where this has done a great deal of harm.
Along with the RDC in England, the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that the committee also took evidence from the development agency in central Wales which was obviously on top of its job.
Baroness White: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt simply to correct the noble Lord. It is called the Development Board for Rural Wales.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I stand corrected.
These other agencies have been of enormous value in showing us the way which we should go. I hope that the Government will not only bless them in theory but that they will also bless them with money. The Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency in Scotland have done much good. However, the format has now been altered. They are now called, respectively, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Board and the Scottish Enterprise Board. A great deal of devolution of power has taken place. I am not sure about the situation, but I shall watch it with great interest. In my view, it is most important that the Government

489
support these agencies by giving them the money which they need. Of course, they will get the money back because there is nothing which costs a government more in the countryside than having to support a run-down area. Indeed, if an area proves to be prosperous, the Government's investment will provide dividends. That is the essential assurance which we need from the Minister.
I was not altogether reassured when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that Scottish Homes were to receive £1 million in respect of an experiment in housing. I hope that that is not all that it will receive. I say that because, so far as I know, £1 million will not build many houses. I see that the Minister does not wish to say anything further on the matter, so it appears that £1 million is the correct figure.
I have great hopes of Scottish Homes; that is, if it is properly funded. However, if it is not, then the present troubles that we have in the Scottish rural areas will continue. In that area we are seeing exactly the same situations arising as has been the case in the South for many years. People come up to Scotland, having sold their homes at a high price, and buy up the houses. That means that local people cannot afford to stay in the area.
Many of the topics mentioned in our report have proved to be most useful. All the evidence the committee took—and the evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, is recent confirmation of this—showed that housing in the countryside for local people must he available for rent at an affordable price. If such housing is not available, we shall not see the right kind of development.
Unless people actually work in a community, they do not take part in it. That is the evidence we heard from all over Scotland and England. If you commute 30 or 40 miles from your home to your place of work, you simply have a house in the area. That is not good enough. We know that the numbers of people in farming will decline, but a major Government objective should be to ensure that any enterprise outside farming is supported and that industrial ventures in the rural community are also supported. In that way we can contain and hold the indigenous community and make a much better community for people who wish to come into the countryside.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, it is timely that we debate the issues facing rural society. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Middleton on his Select Committee's report and wholly support his comments upon it. I also warmly welcome the fact that it is linked with that excellent document Faith in the Countryside produced by my noble friend Lord Prior. I am almost tempted to agree with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and say that we perhaps should take two bites at this massive report because there is the agricultural and the rural content to consider. We
490
should remind ourselves, however, that we have one rural society and therefore it might be appropriate to link the two reports.
I shall deal with the various parts of the workbench: the land itself and those who live in the countryside. We are aware that since the report was written the problems facing agriculture have escalated. The financial position of many farmers is critical; and people are still leaving the land in ever-increasing numbers. The causes of that are well known and have been well researched, but solutions must be found if traditional farming families are to survive. We must avoid at all costs driving the whole of agriculture into huge intensive units. Neither farmers nor society want that. We should realise that at the height of the surpluses caused by the CAP, 80 per cent. of the cost of the CAP was spent upon the storage of surpluses and export subsidies. So a combination of measures is necessary to rectify that unbalanced expenditure. That can be done only by a switch from production incentives to market management, linked to further extensification and care for the environment.
We are well aware—we have experience of this that progressive price cutting does not by itself provide the answer. In fact it can, and does, do the reverse. Farmers are realists and accept that farm support will be reduced in the years to come, but within the framework of any GATT settlement we must not drive thousands of farmers, and young farmers, out of business.
As has already been said, there has been a move into the countryside, with people taking over country dwellings. We note that one in five people in England live in rural areas, and nine out of 10 who live in those areas are not involved in farming. It is therefore essential to unite the voice of the countryside and to use every endeavour to create an environment in which we can all live and work together to maintain or protect village life, the Church, the school, the community centre and the very fabric of the countryside. However, we have first to recognise one another's needs in order to create the balance of demands for land use, housing, farming, recreation, country pursuits and the development of small businesses which now form a growing part of the national economy. The provision of services to those rural areas must not be neglected. Medical, pharmaceutical and advisory services and care for the elderly and sick are crucial in order to help rural areas.
So we see the whole face of the countryside changing. Nearly every farmer in my village has applied for planning permission to convert barns and other buildings into dwellings or business enterprises which we hope will keep village life alive without destroying the environment; but will the newcomers be made welcome by those whose roots are in the village?
The most reverend Primate mentioned the role of the Church in rural society. I was reminded of when I was staying with friends in Dorset a while ago. As we went into the village on the Sunday morning the church bells were ringing. People were coming out of

491
every house and going up to the church for the service. I said to my host, "This is quite remarkable. You must have a good vicar". He said, "On the contrary, but you see we own all these houses and I only let a house to a family which promises that at least one of its members will attend church on a Sunday". I said, "That sounds positively feudal". He said, "You see, I have to look after the welfare of the church. I am the patron and that is the way to keep it going". He said it had brought the community together and that all the village activities take place in the community centre.
Villages will die without organisations to keep them alive such as the Women's Institute, the Young Farmers (that fine marriage bureau) and the many voluntary bodies that are wholly dependent upon voluntary contributions of time and effort. That is a factor that cannot always be measured in financial terms.
As we hear so often, "No man is an island". We cannot live in isolation from one another. We look at the problems of pollution and environmental issues. Chernobyl shocked and frightened the world into the realisation that pollution knows no boundaries.
Both rural and urban dwellers are therefore affected by the world's development. Every nine year-old schoolgirl will lecture over the breakfast table on the ozone layer, acid rain and the greenhouse effect on the weather. Even the world's 25 million flatulent cows are accused of blowing a hole in the ozone layer as we are told that they produce 90 million tonnes of methane gas a year, which brings global disaster nearer by boosting the greenhouse effect. Your Lordships will of course be aware that one tonne of methane has the same effect on the earth's atmosphere as 75 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The good news for cows, according to some scientists, is that brewery products are better for them than cereals and grass since they produce half the quantity of methane gas.
I should like to concentrate on agriculture and the need for balance. We seem to live in an age where society has rediscovered the environment. There is an increasing demand for all things healthy or natural. The paradox is that against the concern for "natural" is the growing demand for a higher standard of living. It is a human characteristic to want to have one's cake and eat it: the countryside should be there as a haven of recreation, of calm and of natural beauty when work in the city or factory is finished.
The public perception has changed. People now talk about the scandal of surpluses and of the rape of the countryside and do not applaud economic efficiency. Sir Derek Barber, who is known to us all, reminded us recently in his anatomy of "green" agriculture that by definition "green" should mean:
"a commercially effective industry which operates within the sensible constraints imposed upon it by the need to protect and enhance the farmed environment".
That seems to me the most balanced definition of what might be termed the environmental care of farm land and the economic health of the agricultural industry. It is outrageous to postulate a situation where wholly non-scientific pressures lead to agriculture being
492
placed in a straitjacket of dubious fashioning which will blunt the edge of its ability to produce economically and to compete in the market place.
Farmers will be blamed and criticised increasingly by consumers and "Christmas Tree Party" supporters alike for polluting the atmosphere. Yet is it difficult to link a particular environmental quality problem to a farm or set of farms. That makes the design and enforcement of pollution control policies extremely difficult.
Pollution transcends national boundaries, especially in respect of water. Countries that would benefit from reducing agricultural pollution are therefore often different from the countries that would have to bear the cost. Uniform environmental regulation across countries would result in differential incidence of control costs across countries. For example, the strict regulation of pesticides in Western Europe would disadvantage farmers in Mediterranean countries relative to northern European countries due to the greater pest problem in countries with warmer climates.
I make no apology for stressing this point because I believe it is an important factor involved in what is happening in rural society: balancing food output with environmental legislation poses many questions. To make food and water safe, we must decide what we mean by safe. Safe from what? Safe for what? Safe for whom? At what cost, and who pays? Who decides what safe means? Is it the bureaucrats? Is it the scientists? The answer in money terms is simply—a lot.
The big question to legislators is: can a European directive be equally operative from Portugal to the Po valley? There is of course in all this a need for flexibility and common sense. To balance farming and further demands for land use in the countryside is, I believe, the most important and demanding task we face. We have to look at the development of rural society in two ways. The first concerns the living standards for all those for whom the countryside is a home and a workplace, farmers and non-farmers alike. We must remember that life in the vast majority of rural areas has been shaped by agriculture. This means that rural areas must adapt to the rapid changes occurring in agriculture. The European structures policy is designed to do this, covering not only purely farming interests but the non-agricultural income-earning activities which are open to farmers.
Perhaps the second way of looking at rural society involves seeing the countryside as a vital part of the Community's geographical area. It means making the countryside accessible to the urban population, as well as recognising the role the countryside plays in the environmental balance. In this context, all the European Community's policy-making must take account of the importance of rural development. In monitoring the laws of supply and demand in the food market we must distinguish between those able to cope with reforms and those who through no fault of their own are unable to do so. The policy therefore has to be designed to help them adapt to new conditions

493
and to help older farmers who so wish to hand over their farms to younger men and women who are perhaps more prepared to take up the challenge.
I have a vision of people in the not too distant future working a 30-hour week for 30 weeks of the year. If that vision becomes a reality, then the growth industry will inevitably be the leisure industry. The rural areas of Britain can provide the facilities, but as David Bellamy said recently:
"Hotel owners and others involved in the tourism business should contribute towards the cost of looking after the countryside—calling for urgent action if we are to avoid loving our countryside to death".
If faith is to be restored among the rural society in the countryside, as indicated so clearly in the report of my noble friend Lord Prior, following the initiative of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury we would do well to recommend action on the report so ably presented by my noble friend Lord Middleton.
6.13 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, I too rise as a member of the sub-committee that produced this report. I feel that the document under discussion produced by the commission is to be warmly welcomed. Today's debate on the Select Committee report occurs at a most appropriate time when the worldwide debate on GATT and public concern for the countryside are reaching a crescendo. As the report makes clear, the commission's initiative is a good start but it needs flesh added to it and it needs objectives clarified. It is significant that the EC finds it difficult to agree its own negotiating position in Uruguay.
Agriculture is still the heart pump for the rural areas of the EC, all 80 per cent. of it, and the 50 per cent. of people who work and live therein. Even in the UK where agricultural sophistication has meant that farming touches upon a low percentage of the population, it causes the electorate concern where their aspirations for the beauty of the countryside are affected.
A typical economist's view of any rural problem might be to consider abandoning agriculture to market forces. The reasoning for this embraces a wider political concept as well as that of a market economy. We believe that some third world countries are close to obtaining nuclear weapons. Perhaps in future the only way to stop them being used for territorial gain is for the developed countries to make third world countries more prosperous thus avoiding internal coups d'etat. In other words, they must improve their agriculture and primary industries.
Thus the EC must, in the greater interest, give up any protectionist policies, such as for agriculture, to pacify these threatening countries. Of course, the result will be a slow dereliction over about the next 20 years with recreation being an important user of the land. I find it interesting to note that in the summary of the commission's paper, paragraph 2 at the back of the report refers to recreation and leisure.
494
Is this the future that we want? We must not allow our greed for short-term profits to permit the sale of nuclear materials to such countries. Likewise, we must develop a policy to retain a viable rural economy while changing to an open market that is properly regulated throughout the Community.
I am most taken by the mission of Rural Voice from which I quote:
"We look to the maintenance or creation of rural communities which have a measure of social mix … in order to nurture that communal self-help without which very heavy financial burdens must fall on the statutory social services".
The management of supply in agriculture is not a success. Set aside has not been an environmental panacea nor will it reduce cereal outputs because of biotechnology improvements. Quotas have produced divisions of interest and reduced prospects for new entrants. They will inevitably ossify the industry. On the other hand, we do not wish to give up this country's efficiency and competitiveness which has been achieved by nearly 40 years of restructuring and investment. Let us make the most of our advantages and expertise.
It is the smaller producers with, say, under 30 hectares that are most favoured by supply management. Paragraph 250 of the report rejects the concept of the family farm for policy purposes. As the CLA states, an open market is not inconsistent with a supportive market. Producers in the UK expect similar levels of support as in any other country and as allowed under GATT. A case in point is the hill farmers and those in the marginal areas. To my mind it is vital that those in the UK are aided by the raising of HLCA and extending the ESA. Environmental incentives are now allowed and should be incorporated into these provisions.
The imminent decline of communities in these hill areas epitomises what could happen throughout the rural areas if a proper and sensible policy in the CAP and GATT is not achieved. To illustrate this, I wish to comment on one or two of the detailed points covered in the report. These are topics that we need to get right if an open market policy is to work. The greatest of these, to my mind and the minds of other noble Lords, appears to be rural housing. It may well be that the number of times the subject has been mentioned in this debate reflects the importance that noble Lords attach to it. However, I am afraid that I do not share the Minister's confidence in this matter. Rural housing is not such a pressing problem elsewhere in the Community. Second homes in the countryside do not hold the same appeal for Romans and other Continentals as they hold for British people.
I wish to pick up the point of the Housing Corporation's desire to have 1500 rural dwellings built a year. As we have heard, the present rate of building is 300 to 400 houses per year. Even the upper figure of 400 per year will not go very far to satisfy the need for housing that exists over the length and breadth of the countryside. The Minister talked about surveys. A figure was given which tallies with the figure I have. The organisation Action with Communities in Rural England estimates that the rural shortfall is of the

495
order of 23,000 to 37,000 dwellings. Are the Government aware of the size of the need for rural housing? Will the funds that have recently been announced be adequate to meet the need? Further, will the Minister say why local authorities are not allowed to spend more than 25 per cent. of their sale receipts from council houses in assisting in the provision of social housing? The report highlights that factor as a major problem. I hope we can be reassured that the Government will address that problem.
A point of concern that is of equal importance to the one I have just referred to is the environment and planning controls. Positive management which produces environmental benefits needs to be paid for. That management has been established under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme and in Part VII of the Environmental Protection Act. Those measures represent a start and they are good news. The Country Landowners' Association's environmental land management scheme and the Countryside Commission's "menu" scheme can be adopted Community wide. However, the negative effect of any increased planning controls in the countryside would not encourage entrepreneurship or the much vaunted diversification.
The reorganisation of local government funding has thrown up a real crisis for village shops and post offices which are a lifeline in remote rural areas. The combined effect of the unified business rate and the personal charge is seriously threatening their viability and thus their continued operation. In my local village the unified business rate alone is almost twice the level of the former rates. In Suffolk a survey has revealed that increases of up to 235 per cent. have been levied. That figure will, of course, be reduced by the five year transitional arrangements but it still represents an increase of 37 per cent. this year. Most of the increases levied in that county are three-figure increases but admittedly one or two of the increases are as low as 8 per cent. However, a storekeeper then has to add to those expenses the cost of at least one personal charge, or more if he is married. The result is that a grocery and post office business comes near to losing its viability. Any closures of such businesses are devastating to a remote village without public transport. The Government must view that matter as a problem. I would be keen to hear how they will tackle it, or will it just be put to one side? Petrol forecourts and pubs are assessed on a profitability or turnover basis. Could this not be extended to the shops I have mentioned?
Forestry is frequently mentioned as a good rural alternative to pure farming but it again suffers from a similar malady to that I have already mentioned and that is a lack of sufficient funding to make it a good starter. The prospect in two-and-a-half years' time of maintenance grants which are subject to the ravages of inflation is not encouraging and neither is a determination to avoid planting the much needed softwoods in England to feed the established processing sector. Without adequate rabbit, squirrel and deer control, the envisaged hardwood forests will not materialise. The shortfall that exists between
496
actual planting and the Government's targets is an adequate demonstration of the loss of confidence in this industry.
The report touches on the subject of energy and the potential for renewable raw materials. Even now exciting experiments are being conducted to try to run diesel engines on raw rapeseed oil, apparently without any modifications. However, I gather that the engine life is fairly limited. Nevertheless the Brazilians have used alcohol as a substitute for petrol for a number of years. In view of the current price of oil surely there is plenty of scope for research into alternative diesel fuels. I wonder whether the Government have any information on that matter.
Finally, I wish to encourage the Commission to develop training and educational facilities for the young. That point is emphasised in the report. I hope the Government will act upon it. Since the Second World War the UK has been a leader in Europe on matters of agriculture. Let us not squander that advantage but go into Europe and lead the way in adapting land and rural communities to present needs and constrictions. We have roughed out a basic framework but many of the schemes need a little more financial help to enable them to succeed. That is a better way than overt price support. I hope I may join the chairman of the sub-committee, the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in thanking all of those who have helped in one way or another in facilitating the production of this report.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Select Committee. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, was also a member. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for the splendid way in which he chaired the committee. The committee's affairs aroused enormous interest. We met a large number of people and many people expressed their views. Those views are all recorded in the report. That is vitally important. We are very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for the way he handled the report.
I wish to assure the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the interests of Wales coincide very much with those of Scotland. Although the only member of the committee who was a Welsh farmer was the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, a great many of the committee members knew about Wales and about farming in Wales. I live in a very beautiful area which is considered to be one of the less favoured areas. I appreciate that Wales has the same problems as those present in my area. Therefore the problems of Wales were continually before us and I wish to reassure the noble Baroness that we were concerned about agriculture in Wales.
The important point that has come out of the report and this debate concerns the diversity of agricultural areas. It would be useless to have one general policy for all farming methods. The variety of farming methods has been and must continue to be recognised and catered for in any agricultural policy. I wish to mention five of the matters that the report

497
considered as they outline what is needed. First, it is important to maintain the potential of the countryside as the public wish it to be maintained. However, that process must be carried out within the economic constraints that exist. The public, after all, enjoy the rural areas and they would be disappointed if those areas ceased to exist. It is not just agriculturalists who wish to preserve the countryside.
Secondly, it is important that the right produce is provided to ensure that employment is maintained in rural areas. Money must be invested to provide for the production materials and methods that are needed. In my opinion agriculture represents a good investment. Money invested in it is not wasted. It is not a matter of throwing money away but rather of investing it in something that will produce what the ordinary consumer needs. I believe that is important.
Thirdly, we must provide the right social conditions. The quality of life would then be as good in rural areas as it is in towns, or even better. We must not remove schools from rural areas. Rural children want to be educated in their home areas. Housing has been dealt with by a great many speakers so I shall not mention the subject other than to endorse what they said. There is also a need for doctors and pharmaceutical services in rural areas. No doubt many of your Lordships have received very interesting letters from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain urging that facilities for doctors and patients should be available in rural societies. Transport is also very important. Although nowadays many people have motor cars there are still some people who need to use buses and a bus service is therefore essential. Post offices are also vital. In my opinion, those needs are still with us and require to be supported. Opportunities for young people to learn about agriculture and rural activities are also of great importance.
It is important to maintain the attractive aspects of rural areas—landscapes and buildings, access to rural beauty spots and rural walks. All of those come into the picture. Although they do not necessarily involve production, they create the atmosphere and scenery which attract people from other parts of the country.
The rural environment should be protected from ugly developments or uses which conflict with rural landscapes and interests. I had a shattering experience in my own area while I was still a member of the county council. There was a proposal to rebuild the county offices and the plans were put out to competition. We selected a very nice building which would have been most suitable. However, the Royal Institute of British Architects was involved and chose another building which is absolutely hideous. Every time I go past it I can hardly bear it. It was built not at the will of the rural population but at the will of the architects. I have never forgiven them.
In modern times development in country villages means the integration of people who work in towns or in industry but who want to live in a village. The integration of different ways of life can be difficult but it is not impossible. In my village—where I have lived
498
for 50 years or more—there are now a great many people who work in towns. Although that has created problems they have been largely overcome. That is due to the voluntary organisations. I am very enthusiastic about the voluntary organisations in rural areas such as the Women's Institutes, youth clubs and sports clubs, which can bring people together in their spare time. Village halls and clubs are a great help. It is important to approach the problem with an open mind and see how the interests of urban dwellers coming into rural areas can be assimilated to the benefit of all.
Members of your Lordships' House have spoken about finance. Without help from the department or the EC, agriculture would be in a very poor way. If farming is to continue in less favoured areas—which are usually the most beautiful —it is essential that there should be some income support. Unless that continues farms in by far the greatest proportion of land will go out of production. In Scotland almost 80 per cent. of farms are in less favoured areas and the figure for Wales is similar. That assistance is not expenditure; it is an investment. It ensures that the countryside stays beautiful, it provides jobs and means that people take an interest in the countryside, and people from urban areas can also enjoy it.
If we did not have that support those areas would become wildernesses. I believe that that would also apply in Europe. I do not know what the situation is in Europe, but I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, with great interest. I believe that the same applies with regard to less favoured areas in Europe, which would also become derelict without support. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, spoke about the Highlands and Islands, and we all know how important it is that help should be given there.
Diversification is very much part of the picture, but it is difficult to carry out in less favoured areas where the only diversification appears to be in forestry. No income is generated by trees until they are felled, and that takes 30 to 40 years at least. I believe that the theory of alternative production in vast areas of the country simply will not work. If one does not want those areas to become derelict they have to be given support.
Some farmers living near urban areas have diversified into other activities which are possible because they are near urban areas. For example, they sell farm produce or open small restaurants attached to their farms so that people from the towns can buy fruit or vegetables or have a meal. However, that will pay only if the farmer is near to customers, and that is not always the case.
Nothing can be done without some financial aid. Financial support will keep down the price of food to the consumer, save the countryside from dereliction and help the preservation of country areas to the benefit of everyone, not only farmers. I hope very much that the Government will appreciate that and develop an agricultural policy which will really help farmers.
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, the Select Committee report and many of the speeches this afternoon have referred to the changing face of agriculture. One of the problems is that we do not really know to what extent agriculture is changing. We know that it is changing but the implications are not clear. The Select Committee report points to conflicting evidence about the acreage that will go out of production in this country.
The opportunity that a changing situation provides to influence the change in ways which are seen to be favourable to wider interests than agriculture alone also provides the opportunity to consider the objectives that government or CAP support should be trying to achieve. One of the problems is that in the past five to 10 years, since the times of surpluses, we have assumed much of the very real progress made since 1947 and the enlightened Agriculture Act. We have tended to underestimate the great advantages and take them for granted. As a result, there have been criticisms of the technological advances which have made that possible. It reminds me of the analogy of the internal combustion engine: we see it as something that we could not manage without and yet we are all too quick to criticise its implications for our society at large.
Clearly the technological developments which have made that dramatic improvement in the ability not just of this country or of Western Europe but of the world as a whole to feed itself have also resulted in damage to the environment and landscape which we now have the opportunity to address. I regard that as almost fine tuning compared with the great objectives of the Agriculture Act 1947 and of the common agricultural policy, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke.
Damage to wildlife habitats, pollution of waterways, overgrazing of uplands and the appearance of prairies are some of the subjects mentioned in the evidence to the Select Committee. I believe that the Government's attempts to give such support as remains—clearly there will be much less support than we have been used to—to achieve some environmental advantage in these respects are wholly to be welcomed. But there is a danger that we may be carried away by what I consider to be peripheral issues. Extensification is no doubt highly desirable for a number of farms. Management agreements for conservation for leisure will also be desirable in many instances to help meet and redress the balance of demands on the countryside.
Nevertheless, agriculture, which in many areas may not employ a great number of people, has the largest influence on the appearance of the landscape. The core business of agriculture is food production. It must not be forgotten that if one is to have the landscape and a rural community which is reasonably balanced, one simply cannot afford to allow the core business of food production to be put dramatically at risk.
From these Benches at least it is clear that we must accept that in the future we shall not receive the
500
generous support given by the Agriculture Act 1947 nor that of the common agricultural policy. The intervention of my noble friend Lady Trumpington, when she asked the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, whether he had taken note of Australia and New Zealand, reminds us that those are countries which, for better or worse, have experienced dramatic withdrawal of support from their agricultural producers. They have to manage, sometimes better and sometimes worse, in a very harsh economic climate. I fear that we shall be expected to live in that climate if we are to continue with agriculture in this country. We shall not like it but we shall not receive a very sympathetic response from either the Government or much of urban society if we bleat too loudly about it.
I do not think that the implications for the countryside are entirely understood by society as a whole. But it must at least be understood that if this country is to have a dynamic agricultural industry which can continue to do its core business of providing safe food at economic cost and agricultural systems which are environmentally friendly, as well as take due account of the landscape and animal welfare considerations, it will all amount to a new definition of efficient farming, which presupposes that the food can be produced in competition with other sources of supply.
If the hypothesis is accepted that we shall not receive the support for which we might otherwise have hoped, we shall have to implement new technology, exactly as we have done in the past. Our industry is technology driven. It is extremely responsive to new technology. I emphatically deny that new technology implies desecration of the landscape or the submersion of valid rural interests at the price of unacceptable farming practices. Indeed, much new technology is seen to be extremely friendly and clean; for example, the implementation of biotechnology to reduce the use of chemical pesticides and nitrogen fixing plants for reducing nitrates which leach into the water supplies.
Society, which has such a large say in planning regulation, should understand that if it requires a well-balanced rural economy, in which balance food production will remain an important part, that industry cannot be fossilised. One cannot do as the commission suggested in one part of its support system; namely, to give income aid to the family farm because it consists of family farmers. That is simply to deny the basis of dynamic growth in the industry and competitive agriculture. I do not say that family farms are not desirable. Indeed they are; but I find unacceptable the basis of giving income support to the family as opposed to giving income support to food production.
I turn to a subject that has been widely touched upon by other speakers in this debate; namely, rural housing. I participated in a rural housing scheme in our village of Selborne in Hampshire. No doubt the House will accept that both reports recognise that low-cost housing in rural areas is in many ways the key to achieving the balance for which we all strive. I have experience of a village which has a very high

501
proportion of expensive houses and a population which feels that the next generation will find it extremely difficult to remain in the area. We were able to identify a piece of land which was on the edge of the village but outside the village structure plan and therefore had agricultural value and little else. By use of the Section 52 agreement restricting use of any housing on that site to people who lived or worked in the parish, or failing that in the neighbouring parishes, and by canvassing widely (a poll was conducted by the parish council), we were able to obtain support from the very people who otherwise might have been expected to be hostile to the proposal. I must add that there was strong support from the district and parish councils, which in many ways led the project.
We took a brief from the National Agriculture Centre Housing Trust. The pioneering work of the Rank Foundation in starting that organisation at Stoneleigh and nursing it through to the present day deserves some recognition. East Hampshire District Council was extremely supportive, not just in its role as planning authority but also, when it came to the rented accommodation which consisted of about half the houses provided, by making the funding possible. Accepting that this is one method of helping—and clearly rented accommodation is something which will always need funding support from some source—I add my plea to those of others to the effect that where there are balances held by housing authorities, those housing authorities should be allowed to spend a larger proportion of them on social housing.
I leave that subject aside and turn to owner-occupier shared ownership housing. I should like to point out that it is not necessary to have any government support at all in financial terms. Obviously it does not provide the cheapest low income family support. Nevertheless, it provides support for families who might have a joint income of, say, £10,000. On such an income one can raise a mortgage of £35,000 to £40,000. That is the cost in the South East of building a house when the land comes in at either a low or nil value. It is possible to find such land. It is already held within the community by local authorities, landowners (who will perhaps accept nomination rights as a contribution rather than funding), charities and other organisations.
Perhaps we may all agree that the key to so many problems in rural communities may be found by identifying the way in which one can provide low-cost housing. Very often the key may already be in those communities. I believe that if each parish council took upon itself first of all to canvass for need and then to try to identify the simple pieces of land, it might itself be able to solve the problem.
6.50 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak after the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. We all know his contribution to agriculture over the years. There is no point in labouring the points that he made, which I had intended to raise as well. This is the first time that he has spoken in this House since he recently received his nice award. I am sure that the House will
502
want to congratulate him on it. I am sorry that an accident prevented me from being present at the award.
Like other noble Lords, I must compliment the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his committee as well as the staff who produced this report. If the size of it is anything to go by, they deserve tremendous praise.
When I consider a report that is to be debated I pick out one or two of a small number of conclusions and speak on those. However, I met the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in the corridor late last night. We discussed the report for a minute or two. We both agreed that with 33 conclusions there were a little too many for us to speak on them all.
I must apologise to the Church. I did not know —I somehow missed the reference in the Order Paper —that we are also discussing the report of the Archbishops' commission. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, reminded me of that. I obtained the report and found that there were 47 conclusions. I have thumbed through the report. It is first class. It contains a tremendous amount of information. I believe that it is worthy of a debate on its own, not taken together with the other report, a point that I believe my noble kinsman made earlier.
I wish to deal with three aspects: housing, diversification and taking land out of production. I refer to housing first. I should like to continue the quotation from Rural Voice, to which the noble Duke referred. It states:
"in which people with roots, and in particular with jobs, in their locality can find housing there whatever their income".
That is very true. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has emphasised the point, as have many other speakers. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop also emphasised housing.
Over a long period I have lived or worked in five different areas of the country—in two parishes in my native county of Aberdeenshire, in Kincardineshire, in Lincolnshire, where I now live which is 20 miles from where we sit in this House. In the first four areas the picture is roughly the same. The mobility of the population by car, bus, train and so on, has made surrounding villages and small towns available to live in. In some cases new and different populations have taken over, much to the detriment of the local people with regard to housing.
The village of Tarves, 16 miles from Aberdeen, is now three to four times bigger than it was when I was a boy some 70 years ago. That is a tremendous difference. It is due to the development of the oil industry at Aberdeen. The village has become accessible for those working in Aberdeen, although it is 16 miles away. There is a good road to travel back and forth to work in Aberdeen. In addition, the amalgamation of farms and the selling off of farm cottages and farm houses means that one has a totally different community than the original rural set-up.
I farm in Lincolnshire. People are moving into houses at prices way beyond the rural population's income. I was interested in what the noble Earl, Lord

503
Selborne, said about housing associations and the obtaining of land at an agricultural price. I am sure that we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Prior, on that subject. In some areas, in particular where I live now, the price of the land is almost equal to the price of the cost of building a house on it.
Nazeing, where I live, is a different story. Nazeing was a village straggling along the border of Hertfordshire almost up to the new town of Harlow. The area next to Hertfordshire has developed into a small town with well over 5,000 inhabitants in the past 35 years since I came down here. However, it has left a rural area to the east with a small hamlet at its centre. It rejoices in the name of Bumble's Green. (I suggested to the gentleman who deals with titles that I should rather like to be the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Bumble's Green, but he did not think it suitable. However, that is by the way). In this area there is no question of farms being amalgamated. Any land with a reasonable house, or a house that can be developed, which comes on to the market, is bought by the yuppies, about whom we spoke a little yesterday.
Council houses are bought, done up and sold at ridiculous prices. That is happening too much. Other than the few remaining council houses, there is hardly any low-cost housing in the village. The demand is quite extraordinary. At the bottom of our farm road, well off the public main road, is an old house in a very nice position, facing west. It is far enough off the road to be private. An elderly widow lives there. She is nearly 100. One would hardly believe the number of people who make inquiries about the house. It is a nice house for someone like that lady. Without a shadow of doubt it will be bought for some ridiculous price.
To illustrate the point about the increase in the value of houses, my two neighbouring farmers have managed to raise £3 million and are building a golf course. I am not against that, but nonetheless I am not sure that many farmers could attain such diversification.
Before my farming career, I built 16 new houses and renovated 17. I counted those from memory a few moments ago; I believe the figures are about right. I should be very annoyed if I saw many of those houses being knocked together to make a four-bedroomed, two-bathroomed detached house—as someone described earlier—completely out of the reach of ordinary people.
Like other noble Lords, I can see no solution to the problem. I prefer the building of council housing. I cannot envisage ordinary developers coming into the market and producing low-cost houses, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned. I very much agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, that 1,500 houses is a fleabite when considering the demand. I believe that we should stop selling council houses. Far too many such arrangements are being made. I know of two families who have bought houses for their parents. I do not like to say that they are waiting for their parents to die, but there is no question that, as soon as the parents go, the houses will be renovated to a standard beyond council housing and sold at a fantastic price. I know others
504
who have done that. A house that was bought for less then £10,000 fetched £120,000 to £130,000 the other day. The selling of council houses should cease.
I turn to diversification. That can bye done only by people who live in areas which are largely populated. We have diversified into a riding school and, as we are in a green belt area, after much persuasion we have been allowed by the council to let buildings to small industries. We have two sets of joiners and one set of gardeners occupying buildings that we no longer need. Diversification must be watched carefully and too good a gloss should not be put on it because farmers may enter into projects which will lose money. Frankly, there is a good deal of money to be made in merely letting buildings to small businesses, as we have done, rather than diversifying into something when you know nothing about the job.
I wish to raise the issue of taking land out of production; that is set-aside, and so forth. Today there are 1,000 million people out of the world's population of 6,000 million who have a very poor diet. According to FAO figures, about 400 million people are starving. I have seen reliable figures which show that population control has failed, and it is estimated that by 2030 the world's population will be between 8,000 million and 10,000 million. Those people must be fed properly. Sir Kenneth Blaxter, Director of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, wrote an article which I have quoted to the House previously. It was published in The Lancet. He pointed out that in order to feed that number of people properly, every present unit of agricultural production must be increased two and a half times. That should make the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, think about what he will do in the future in order to achieve that figure. We must be careful not to take too much land out of agriculture because the future may hold different needs, and in any event the surpluses are a flea bite.
At present we have the RDC, the HIDB and the DBRW. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, read a long list of committees, and so forth, and some form of co-ordination is necessary if we are to save the countryside. I cannot say how it should be done; but there are far too many bodies and some form of co-ordination should be tried.
I wish to comment upon what was said by my two friends on the Liberal Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Walston. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made a strong plea for agriculture, and I think he overdid it a little. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, went the other way, and he overdid it a little, too. On the whole, I favour the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and I hope that the Government will take note of his comments.
7.4 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Middleton and the right reverend Primate for introducing these two interesting reports. Perhaps I may wear my Countryside Commission hat in order to thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for repeating the announcement made by her right

505
honourable and honourable friends about the extra expenditure being allowed for the Countryside Commission. That has been most gratefully received.
Having listened to the debate, I come down on the side of a prosperous agriculture. I do not say that it is the only activity in the country but a great deal in rural areas depends on the prosperity of agriculture. Of course we must have various forms of industry and diversification, but perhaps there is one issue about which we can all agree: have we not reached saturation point with craft shops?
A great deal of comment has been made this afternoon about rural housing. Some of the people who must take the blame are the planners. I recently had some land which was available for housing. I decided that I did not want maximum profits but wanted the land to be made available for low-cost starter housing. The matter went before the planning committee, and the next thing I saw were headlines in the local paper stating, "Greedy Earl wishes to build maximum number of houses on acreage"; and "Lord out to screw maximum profits by putting up jerry-built houses". Quite honestly, that is a bit annoying. Perhaps I feel a little bitter but even before then I believed that some of the restrictions which the planners put on areas that were right for development were unnecessary. I am sure that some areas of the country could be opened up for low-cost housing.
I wish to comment on education. That has hardly been mentioned in the debate. I was glad to see that Faith in the Countryside does not fall into what I see as a trap by stating that the decline in the English village is due to the fact that the school has been closed. We hear a great deal of that. The report made some good points about the size of a school not necessarily influencing the quality of education. I agree with that. However, a great deal has been said about village society collapsing because the primary school has been closed.
During the late 1960s and early 1970s I was involved with the old North Riding County Council in a plan to try to improve village schools by closing some, enlarging others and combining schools. After about five years we carried out a survey to discover the effect that had had on village populations. We found that there had been no effect whatever. We found that in some villages where we had closed the primary school numbers had increased. We found that often where we had erected a newer and better primary school numbers had dropped. We found that in villages which allegedly had good primary schools numbers had not increased. In one village where we closed the primary school there was later so much housing development that after five years we had to build a brand new school. Therefore, the suggestion is a red herring, and I was glad to see that it had been avoided in the report.
I shall be brief because virtually everything I wished to say has been mentioned. However, there is a point I wish to make because I could find no reference to it in Faith in the Countryside. It is the part which is played in the countryside by traditional field sports. I
506
hope that the reason why the issue was not dealt with in the report was because there was no room for it. I hope that the Church of England is not following the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury down the road of banning hunting in National Trust areas. If the Church of England were to take that line, it would find that already dwindling populations in truly rural areas would trickle away virtually to nothing. I hope that is not the reason why the issue was not dealt with in the report.
Traditional field sports play an enormous part in agricultural areas. At home we found that whereas the children of our tenant farmers used to come out beating for pocket money, now the farmers and their wives are doing so because they rely on the income. I found no reference to the matter in the report of the EC committee, although I found an excellent written submission by the Game Conservancy on page 366. In dealing with tourism it stated:
"We are encouraged to think that the Commission would recognise within this context the value of (properly conducted) game shooting and other field sports, particularly in view of their additional benefit as a stimulus to conservation.
In Brussels on 20th November 1989, staff of DGVI told us that shooting game was to be recognised in the interpretation of Regulation 2052 of 24/6/88, in the less favoured rural areas. Game shooting was specifically favoured as promoting employment, additional farm income, the hotel industry, etc."
What encouraged me most was the final paragraph:
"Rather than providing game shooting simply by releasing reared birds, as envisaged in Spain and parts of France, we would prefer inducements to habitat management and a relaxation of the CAP policies which have reduced wild game populations to the point where they cannot realistically be harvested. The end results would be the same economically but with our approach the environment would benefit".
I thought that that was most encouraging and I was sorry to see that the committee of my noble friend came up with no references on that.
I was delighted that the Government have sent back to the European Commission their ridiculous ideas that wood pigeons and corvidae should have a protected season. This discouraged me a bit because, if that is the sort of nonsense that they send over in the first place, I do not have a lot of faith in them doing very well for our rural areas.
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I sat on the committee and, as others did, I should like to compliment my noble friend Lord Middleton on the careful way he steered us through an immensely complex subject. I should also like to congratulate the Church on, I would almost say, its novel. It is a complex subject. That is borne out, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said, by the immense amount of conclusions there are when you add the two reports together, although there is a tremendous cross-over. It shows clearly that there is no straight answer to any of the problems that are upon us. It also shows, as my noble friend Lord Selborne said, that there is no way of quantifying matters such as how much land will go out of cultivation and what effect that will have.
Having said that, I must take to task the noble Baroness, Lady White—I am sorry that she is not in

507
her place—who I think treated my noble friend a little unfairly by suggesting that we did not take too much notice of Wales. Now that she knows that I am not Welsh I am sure that she would not mind my saying this. In point of fact we had a mass of written evidence. I remember particularly that the Welsh idea for dealing with these mountainous areas which are obviously going to be in trouble, the sheep farming areas, was different from the Scots idea. The Welsh had this theory of sub-poles, whereby everyone was within distance of somewhere where work might be found. Of course I say all this advisedly.
I felt at the time, and I still feel, that it is immensely important that some of these smaller farmers should become part-time farmers, and in this might lie some of the answers for Wales. Because of the way they are thinking of doing it, I can see farmers finding work off the farm, perhaps getting less favoured area grants and keeping their farms in their ownership at the same time.
I was also immensely pleased to see in the first words of the preface of the Church's document a suggestion made of what Cobbett would see if he came down to earth again. It happens that Cobbett, though a radical, was a great friend of one of my forebears. In my garden and park there are still the trees that Cobbett brought back from America and gave to him because he preferred the American trees and thought them much more beautiful than the English ones.
This is not just a passing remark, as my noble friend Lady Trumpington will realise. I am not sure of Cobbett's dates, but it will impress upon her once more that it takes an extraordinarily long time to grow a tree. As a number of people have said already, it will take a long time to get the money. Therefore, as an alternative to farming—and I have always felt that it would be the best alternative—there must be more funding than there is now, notwithstanding the maintenance grants that come in in 1992 and notwithstanding the prolificacy of grants, which confuses a number of us, that are in force now. Actually the funding is not quite enough. If more is not forthcoming a great opportunity to employ people in the country and to help to deal with this downturn in farming will be missed, and that would be a pity.
I should like to touch on the GATT round. It puts the fear of God into everyone. Whether that is because it apparently takes place in Uruguay or not I do not know. But from the point of view of farming, if they accept what has been agreed within the Community I think that a large number of farmers will not find unattainable what they are expected to do. The feeling that I get in the country, admittedly among the larger and better farmers—and I am not talking about Wales or the Highlands: I am talking about what I call more orthodox farming land—is that if it does not get much worse than that, then a surprising number of people will be able to go on farming probably more extensively. I see nothing wrong in that, and the priority of my noble friend Lord Swinton might in a large part be satisfied throughout the country.
On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham insinuated yesterday in the economics
508
debate, it is quite probable that what we have accomplished and are so proud of in Europe at the moment, this 30 per cent. over 10 years, some of which has been eroded already, will certainly not please the Cairns group and will not please America, although they have a lot of subsidies hidden away themselves.
If things go against the farming world there will be two major surpluses. One will be land and the other will be unemployed people—not a huge number, but people who will probably be quite difficult to relocate. It is worth thinking for a moment or two of what would happen to those two resources if they were, so to speak, shot out onto the market.
I have covered diversification. I do not think that anything except trees is of vast importance. I would not think that tourism could be taken any further than it has been, and certainly I agree that we do not want any more farm shops. There is one thing that has not been mentioned a great deal, and that is that farmers, either through the ELMS idea of the Country Landowners' Association or from Government, should be paid to keep the countryside beautiful. I think that is probably the right way to put it.
Here, may I be allowed to be the Devil's advocate and tell a tale? Who in the world is going to decide on the priorities, and who in the world is going to decide on what is beautiful, let alone what the payment for it should be? A farmer who is paid to beautify his farm will probably do it in a year. If you plant a tree you do not do any more than just watch it grow up inside its arbour-guard, and a lot of nature is most beautiful if you just leave it alone.
I have a fear too that, if it is not the ELMS idea but is essentially funded as grants or funded from the Community, it might well become a bureaucratic nightmare, and I have two anecdotes to recount. The first is connected with planting trees. They are personal experiences. I should probably declare my interest, as should many other noble Lords; we all have a stake in the countryside in some way or other.
I felled some oak trees which were useless. They were what we call shaken, and were unsaleable and no good. I cleared it with the powers-that-be to be allowed to plant a species that were suitable for the soil. That species was Scots pine, because the land is silver sand. That set the cat among the pigeons. A number of quite highly paid people from the Forestry Commission came down and we discussed the matter in the office. There were three of them. We then went to the site and looked at it. The answer came back, "No. You must go on as we said before". We objected and that was passed on to some other committee. That committee met on the site and no doubt off the site. I expect letters have been flying to and fro, but nothing whatever has happened.
That bit of wood is three acres in size. It is sunk in the middle of another bit of wood. Almost nobody goes by or sees it. If that scenario can happen on that small scale, what will happen when grants are given to people to beautify their farms and keep them nice? I believe it will be an absolute nightmare.

509
Before I conclude I should like to mention the people. I live in Salisbury, in the South of England. The people in the village are now quite different from those who were there even just after the war. The so-called incomers have come in and settled. Agricultural workers are also there, but in much smaller numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has had to leave. He pointed out why people came from the towns to the country. The only point on which I disagree with him is that he said it was to avoid the smell. In my experience, when they arrive in the country—I live in a district where stock rearing is common—they do not much like the smell there either.
When one tries to organise alternative employment —workshops, small factories, and so on—there tends to be considerable resistance. That is precisely what those people left the towns to avoid. My noble kinsman, Lord Shuttleworth, who spoke so ably and whose offices are in Salisbury, must work tremendously hard. He has not yet knocked on my door and asked for lunch or anything like that.
I sold, subject to planning permission, a small workshop which could probably accommodate only three people. The sale fell through. It was to be a fishing-rod maker, a nice rural pastime. As far as I know, the Rural Development Commission was delighted with the purchase. I felt I was to receive my pound of flesh. But the planners said, "That cannot be". The reason they said no was that people who were not concerned with agriculture, who went to Salisbury, Bournemouth and Southampton to work, had organised a petition. They delivered it to the planners and the planners capitulated, as they did with the trees. We appealed, and we hope for the best.
I have spoken long enough. My sincere hope is that agriculture will persist. If it does not, we shall be in trouble. We shall be left behind in every way. In the event, people who feel that farmers are ruining the country will regret that feeling. They will see that, perhaps by accident or because they want to make money, farmers have enhanced it vastly more than they have spoilt it.
7.25
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury most kindly asked me to serve on the Commission on Rural Areas. Sadly, I had to decline. At that time I was helping with a member of my family who was seriously ill, and who has since died. Also, I was very involved with the health service and other commitments. I should have been most interested, and if I had been able to accept there would perhaps have been more mention of some of the needs of disabled people living in the countryside.
On page 110 the report Faith in the Countryside, when discussing transport, says:
"For those who are physically handicapped the problem of mobility is a double burden".
The report states that 11 per cent. of the population has some form of immobilising disability. However, a
510
very high percentage has some form of arthritis—nearly half the population. There is no doubt that Dial-a-Ride schemes would be of great help to disabled people living in the country. That is just one of the many problems facing disabled people.
In the report The Future of Rural Society, I do not believe disability is mentioned at all. I shall therefore take the opportunity in this important debate to mention a few of the needs. I was born and spent a great deal of my childhood in the beautiful countryside of Caithness in the far north of Scotland. There was an abundance of wild flowers such as harebells, scabious and wild orchids. The hedgerows were full of birds such as yellow-hammers. One did not see the use of sprays and artificial fertilisers in those days. When I married and went to live in North Yorkshire I noticed the difference. Farming was far more intense and there was a lack of wild flowers in the hedgerows.
The countryside is not always the peaceful safe haven that people believe it to be. Around Mashamshire, the area where I live, there is a high incidence of leukaemia. No one appears to know the reason. Often one hears a suspicion that it may come from sprays used for weeds, and artificial fertilisers. Also, with the recent mild winters there has been an increase in the rat population, and Weil's disease —which is caught from rats' urine—is a risk to farmers and vets, and perhaps anyone living in the countryside. The recent death of a farmer in North Yorkshire was attributed to Weil's disease, and farmers are advised to carry cards so that doctors recognise the risk. The disease starts with symptoms like flu.
Living as a disabled person in a rural area involves without doubt additional costs. Costs to the general population in the countryside increase the more isolated people are. The main reasons are the long distance people must travel to shops, doctors, hospitals, schools, entertainment and railway stations, and the limited choice. A disabled person who does not own a car and may not have good family support can become extremely isolated. For one who owns a car and has problems getting in and out, opening and shutting the gates on gated roads is a great difficulty. In recent years shops which once had a delivery service no longer provide that, making even the essentials of life such as food difficult to obtain. It may not be possible to obtain a daily newspaper if there is no delivery service.
There are many severely disabled people who only receive one visit per week from the district nurse and one visit from a home help if they are lucky. In some towns there are wonderful schemes such as the Cross Roads care attendant scheme. These do not exist in rural areas. People from towns may go to the country for a peaceful retirement but one of the partners may die, leaving the other disabled and still a newcomer not knowing the locals. It can take a long time to be accepted in a country area.
It is a great pity that we do not have legislation making access to public buildings for disabled people compulsory. Such countries as New Zealand,

511
Australia, Canada and some states of America have such legislation, making life so much easier for disabled people. I live in a rural district and many elderly and disabled people come down from the hill farms to live in the small country town of Masham. Access is very bad. The library is on the first floor, with no lift. The post office is up several steps with no ramp. The bank has steps. The Anglican church, which I sometimes attend with my noble kinsman on ecumenical occasions, is only accessible when there is a funeral and a ramp is put down for the coffin to be brought in. The town hall, where nearly all the entertainment takes place, is on the first floor and there is no lift.
Later this evening we are to have a debate on hospices, which deal with the care of the dying. Why should not there be some quality of life for the living in rural areas? With two important reports before us, I hope that some of your Lordships who are interested in rural matters will realise how easy it is to leave out and forget the needs of the growing population of disabled people.
Both reports mention housing. I have at home many letters that I have received over the years from people who live in rural areas and who have become disabled but who have been refused permission to build extensions to their houses, perhaps because they are in a green belt or a national park. I ask your Lordships to place yourselves in that position for a moment. What would you do if your house was not suitable, having broken your back in an accident on your farm, or had multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, severe arthritis, a stroke, or any other disabling condition? It is frustrating to know how many people suffer when they come up against red tape and such opposition when they need suitable housing, because they are disabled and live in a rural area.
The position can also be difficult for children who have a disability and have to choose a secondary school. Again, in a city such as Leeds there are integrated secondary schools. That is not so in a rural setting. Children might have to travel a long distance or go to a special school.
Faith in the Countryside took on board the arguments about the dispensing services. The report reached the conclusion that doctors in rural practices would normally be permitted to dispense medicines. I appreciate the concern of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. On the whole, pharmacists give a very important service, especially with their independence and ability to check prescriptions to ensure that there are no errors. That is a safeguard for the public. Further, they often give advice to patients on the side effects of drugs. In rural areas, where distances can be great, both the doctor and the pharmacist should be able to cover this service for patients. I serve on the Family Health Service Authority for North Yorkshire and I expect this important matter will be watched with care.
In my home village both doctors and pharmacists dispense and they seem to have a good working
512
relationship. I hope that co-operation will be worked out in other parts of rural Britain so that the best possible solution for patients is found,
I was pleased to read in The Times yesterday the headline:
"Rural GPs will get pay boost".
They have to travel great distances if some areas if they are to visit patients in their own homes. I hope the pay boost will give them the incentive to carry out such visits. For ill, disabled patients it is difficult to make long journeys, or sometimes even short journeys. I am pleased that Mrs. Virginia Bottomley has recognised the needs of rural GPs because they are most important to rural patients.
I now move on to another topic altogether. Here I declare an interest. It is important to give the growing number of people who visit the country something constructive to do which will enable them to enjoy the countryside and learn about it. I have a stud of highland ponies. These ponies are very versatile and adaptable. Because of their delightful temperaments they are ideal for beginners and disabled people. They are strong, with substantial bones, so they can carry adults or young people. As well as stud I run a trekking centre. This gives a service to people who are visiting or living in the countryside.
The breeders of native ponies are trying hard to preserve part of our heritage—the national breeds. It is impossible to make money out of such an activity but our native breeds should be preserved at all costs. On page 20 of The Future of Rural Society, the Countryside Commission sums up its major concerns:
"We are all aware that the changing face of agriculture has led to questions about the future of agriculture, and the future use of rural land".
The commission says that we must move to some new mix of activities in rural areas which sustains the correct level of agricultural production. On page 25, in discussing environmental objectives, the report states that care should be taken to ensure that most land-use changes in the countryside are not irreversible. To give help to pony breeders who run riding establishments for the community's benefit would, I suggest, be a beneficial use of land not now needed for other types of farming.
All people in the country who love and respect horses and ponies have been horrified by the thought that in 1992 the present regulations on equines going to Europe for slaughter may be lifted. Existing regulations are frequently flouted and animals, not only equines but sheep and cattle, may suffer terrible cruelty. If we are to be part of Europe, as we are, we must protect all animals in the community. The best solution would be for live animals not to travel overseas at all but to be killed as near home as possible. We have some cruel people in this country as well as in Europe and there should be very strict regulations in all European countries, overseen by the RSPCA inspectors. The regulations should be so foolproof that they cannot be flouted.
I end on what I hope is a positive note. Recently there have been some good projects in the countryside

513
to make country trails accessible for disabled people. A short while ago I opened one organised by the Countryside Commission. When developing projects everyone should ask the question, "Can disabled people go where you go?" Perhaps more could be done to make the countryside accessible for disabled people by using community orders as an alternative to prison. That would benefit all concerned in many different ways.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Prior: My Lords, it can certainly be said that your Lordships' House is an oasis of calm discussing rural society at a time when the Lower House might be discussing more frenetic activities. I do not wish to disturb that oasis of calm, but I wish to thank those noble Lords who have been kind enough to say that the commission's report, Faith in the Countryside, was a useful document. I shall leave to the end of my speech my riposte to the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury.
On the whole these are two excellent documents. I can say that about my own document. I cannot really claim parentage of it because a great many other people did a lot of work and they should take credit for it. The document produced by the Select Committee is very good. There is an abundance of information which I hope that the departments will look at carefully. I always get the impression in your Lordships' House that on the whole the departments tend to fob us off with a lot of waffle. It is time that they took these reports seriously. There is a great deal of good sense talked in this House and I do not think that the departments pay anything like enough attention to it. I hope that that message will get through.
I have one or two other critical remarks to make later on. They will not be addressed to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who I think does a remarkably good job with very little help from the departments. I know that because in the Lower House we always regarded noble Lords who had to speak from the Front Bench as lesser beings who were left until last in the pecking order of the departments. We all know that that has happened. I do not like to see it happen. I want to give my noble friends on the Front Bench some support. They can do with it on occasions.
Both these reports bring out the fact that there are remarkable changes taking place in the countryside. Of recent years there has been a very considerable change in the make-up of the rural population. That has undoubtedly resulted in a number of tensions between those who regard the countryside as their place of work and their farms as places to make their living and those who believe that they have just as much right to the countryside as a place of leisure where they can enjoy its beauty in all its forms. There is that tension and it is well documented in these reports.
I shall take two items from the report. There is no need to go through all of them, but they are worth reading. Housing has been touched on by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth in what I thought was an
514
excellent contribution. We much admire the work that the Rural Development Commission is doing. Undoubtedly there is an absolute need for low-cost rented accommodation and low-cost housing for sale in the countryside. That need has been there for some while. It is not a matter about which my Government have done enough. Even now they are not doing enough though we very much welcome the infusion of capital announced on Friday.
The Housing Corporation intended to fund a programme this year of 1,100 units against an estimated requirement of at least 5,000 which the ACORA report mentions. ACRE has mentioned 25,000 units. We shall get nothing like 1,100 units this year. It is all very well to say that by 1992 the figure will have been made up. It has never been made up yet as far as I am aware. Some really tough talking needs to be done now in order to make certain that this situation is put right. It is no longer good enough to have a great number of excuses to the effect that the money is not there. The money must be put there, and kept there this time. I hope that it will be.
Everything hangs on this. All the debate this afternoon has been about the need for employment, small industries in the countryside, better transport, the pub, the village shop and the church. All that ties in with the needs of young people and others who at the moment are being forced out of their homes either because they are too expensive or because there are no longer houses to rent. They cannot be housed in their villages. That situation is changing the whole social structure of rural England. It is a very important matter.
I now turn to the subject of agriculture, which was mentioned by my noble friends Lord Plumb and Lord Selborne. They both have enormous experience and recognise, as we all do, that agriculture is only one of a number of pursuits now being followed in the countryside. But it is a very important pursuit. If agriculture were not there not only would we be very short of food but we would have a countryside that looked pretty dreadful. Agriculture is still practised on about 90 per cent. of rural land. In my noble friend's own words, it is a core business in rural England and a very important one.
There is deep despondency in the agriculture industry. There always is. I declare an interest as a farmer. I know to my cost over the years that there has always been deep despondency. It is prominent at the moment. We should not be in any doubt at all that agriculture is about to go through, if it is not doing so already, perhaps the most serious problems that it has faced since the mid-1930s. This may be a tragedy because an impoverished countryside would be dreadful. It is no answer to the problems of rural England.
Since the war governments have invested vast sums of money in British agriculture. It would be a tragedy and a total waste of that investment if it were now allowed to decay. Therefore, even on the economic side there is a strong case to be made. As my noble friend Lord Plumb pointed out, the problem with the common agricultural policy is that such a large

515
proportion of the subsidy goes to fund the surpluses which are stored and which then have to be sold at knockdown prices and thereby heavily subsidised at the same time. Very little of that money actually goes into the pockets of the agricultural community. That is what the Uruguay round is all about. It is the objection that the Cairns group and the United States have. These subsidies enable the surplus production to be sold on world markets at a very cheap price and therefore very largely destroy the normal patterns of world trade.
Somehow or other we have to get over the problem. One of the ways to do that involves the arable side. We shall have to move to what I should like to call quotas, but perhaps "standard quantities" would be another way of expressing it. I urge the Ministry of Agriculture to take this matter seriously. I have a feeling that in Brussels they are already beginning to look at quotas. They will never dare to say anything about them because the moment one talks about quotas there is trouble. People start to grow more in order to get a bigger quota. But it is important that we should take this position seriously.
I so much agree with what the committee said on the subject. The report states at paragraph 192:
"What is important, however, is to ensure that the entirely legitimate social aims of minimising hardship do not become reasons for inhibiting the development of more efficient agricultural structures; and that reductions in price support are not undermined by alternative agricultural subsidies of ever-increasing complexity and economic dubiety".
I do not want to see that happen either but I can see it happening already. There is a great move at the moment to grow linseed. If one cannot grow anything else one grows linseed. There is an enormous subsidy on linseed. It is no answer to the agricultural problems of this country or of the Community. If it is not a total waste of money, it is almost a total waste of money. On the arable side we shall have to move quotas. Farmers will get a better price for a smaller quantity. That is a better way of dealing with the matter.
I consider the small upland farm to be a marvellous asset to this country. The people are first-class and the beauty of upland farms and upland countryside is unrivalled practically anywhere in the world. We must keep them going. But we shall make an enormous mistake if we think we can do so through agricultural methods alone. If we do so through agricultural support we shall find that the Bavarian Alps, the south of Italy and other places within the Community will eat up the money far quicker than we can. We have the best farm structure in Europe, and we should regard the social problems as something different from the agricultural problems. I beg my noble friends to look very carefully at those points.
I shall conclude on the subject of the Church itself. I am very grateful to the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York for staying so long in this debate to hear me speak. They have stayed, I know, only out of politeness, but I am very grateful to them for all that. The Church is immensely important in rural England. If I had not thought so I would not have chaired this commission. It has an enormous part to play in the countryside in terms of
516
social welfare, leadership and cohesion. I hope that we are not going to be defeatist about asking in the report for more money to be raised. I believe that the Church can raise more money if it says what it is raising the money for. We want more and better clergy and we must have better paid clergy. They will never be well paid—we know that —but they need to be better paid and better looked after. That can be done only by a certain decentralisation away from the Church Commissioners and by an absolute determination to push responsibility down to the parish and to get the parishes to provide more money. We can raise money for many things in this country. I believe that we could raise it to provide additional clergy and better facilities for them.
Whether or not the Church is right to become involved in these affairs—the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, believes that it is not—I feel that the Church has rendered a useful service by setting up the commission and producing this report. But it is more than that. I should like to quote a little passage from Sir Laurens van der Post when he came to give evidence to the commission. He said:
"That feeling of 'wholeness' and 'healing' bestowed by contact with nature in the countryside is for many close to religious experience and is frequently expressed in religious language".
I believe that one cannot separate what is best practice in rural England, with all its beauty, character and history, from what a modern Church is seeking to do.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Prior. I received the report Faith in the Countryside only yesterday morning. I foolishly thought that it would be a 20-page booklet that I could read in the aeroplane on the way here. I ought to have known better. Knowing the assiduity of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I should have known that it would be 400 pages long and that I would not get them read. But what I have seen of it so far is extremely interesting.
What I have heard of this debate so far has been more about the countryside than about faith. I am extremely glad to see his Grace the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in his place at the moment. There is much to be said about faith not only in the countryside but in the urban situation as well. I salute his Grace for his forthright manner in dealing with rather difficult passages of scripture. Perhaps his language has been a little more cautious than that of right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham whom I salute also. We have to accept that Faith in the Countryside or Faith in the City to an educated, literate and fairly sophisticated society is not easily assimilable in the way that it is presented. We have to face up to the fact that many people have not moved on from 18th century theology—the unquestioning theology. They have not even moved on to the questioning that took place in the 19th century, let alone to Karl Barth and, more recently, to Tillich, Bultmann and Bonhoeffer. If faith is to be intellectually acceptable and assimilable to a

517
sophisticated and educated society, these difficult matters must be addressed. I salute his Grace for being sufficiently courageous to have done that.
The trouble is that many of us have reached middle age. We have perhaps matured in our political attitude, in our attitude towards society and in our attitude towards the arts and the sciences; but theologically we have not matured to the same extent. Until such time as we can present people, irrespective of whether they are from the countryside or from the cities, with a theology which is intellectually acceptable and of integrity to their level of education, I do not think that the Christian faith will be credible. That may be a hard thing to say, but it must be said.
In the light of that, it is not surprising that society has become more secular and that support for the Churches has declined. I believe that the onus is on the leaders of the Churches, especially as regards the Anglican Church, to make the message real and relevant to present day life as people see it. That may not be comfortable. But our Lord Jesus Christ and Saint Paul never pretended that their message would be comfortable, relaxing or soothing; it was going to be disturbing and challenging. That is what the message of the Church must be today so as to alert people to what it is all about.
The age of reason was not confined to the 18th century; in my view, this is also the age of reason. People must have a reasonable belief such as that expressed in the book written by the Rev. Dr. R. P. C. Hanson from Nottingham, whom the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York probably remembers. It is a most convincing book. As I said, a reasonable belief is what is needed; otherwise we shall be faced with a secular society which does not regard the Christian faith as credible. Faith in the countryside, faith in the City, yes, but we must make it reasonable and credible.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and the Select Committee for producing a most excellent report. I very much support all the recommendations. A similar report was made by the Board of Agriculture in 1790. It appointed two gentlemen, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Wedge, to travel the country and report on the state of agriculture. They produced a report which was called The Report on the Rural Economy. The part covering Cheshire deals with horticultural crops, cows and milk production, beef cattle, cheese making, pig feeding, mineral extraction, salt extraction and mining, the chemical industry, implement making, woodland management, reclaiming lands, road canals and canal construction and fuel production of wood and coal. Therefore, 200 years ago it was accepted that the rural economy covered a whole range of activities.
There are now many people who advocate returning to what they see as some rural idyll, where they look over the field gate and see nothing but a few cows. It was not like that in the past. Those who
518
advocate that we should return to the sort of agricultural system which we had a long time ago would actually be doing a great disservice to the environment that they say they want to see.
Many people are very concerned with the environment, and concerned with it in a practical and sensible way. They wish to see a retention of our wildlife, our flowers, our plants and our various crops. However, there is another group of people within our society which I see as trying to prevent the development of opportunities in the countryside from a purely selfish point of view. To an extent they are the face of apartheid in this country. They have the view that they should be protected and deny others the very advantages which they have sought for themselves. Those points are clearly made in Faith in the Countryside. I very much support the most reverend Primates in what is put forward in that respect.
In the report reference is made to the pressure groups which seek to prevent the development which is needed in the countryside. I should have thought that the Church could take a very much more positive and practical role in combating those points when they are presented in respect of planning decisions before planning committees. The view of the Church, which far outnumbers in membership many of those pressure groups, should have a much wider and more practical voice in such decisions.
The report clearly shows that a decline will take place in agriculture. There are those this afternoon who have said that we should do all we can to avoid that outcome. However, it will happen. The agricultural economy of this country will decline over the next few years. It will probably recover as we move into the next century, but the next 10 years will be a very difficult time for all of us. We must appreciate that that is not necessarily a problem; it is in fact a great opportunity. It could mean that 5 million hectares over the next 10 years may become available for other purposes and another 150,000 people who are now employed in agriculture may become available for other employment. On many occasions in your Lordships' House I have heard people complain about the crowding in urban communities and the problems of health because of pressures in such communities. Why should we not see the opportunity to make much more land available for the whole of the population as an advantage and not as a restriction on what we do?
Surely the key is to see the rural economy in the same way as it was seen 200 years ago; that is, with a whole range of economic activities taking place throughout the country. I strongly commend the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, on its decision to support the idea of off-farm economic activity. It is not a solution to expect farming activities, however diverse they may become, to generate more wealth in the countryside. There must be a much greater range of all kinds of economic activity within the rural community, and that means that planning applications must be dealt with in a much more relaxed manner. We must help and support those counties which are now developing a

519
rural policy. Certainly my county of Cheshire recently put forward a very sound and positive rural policy which will go a long way towards stimulating the whole economy in the area. However, at present it is being more hindered than encouraged in putting it into effect. In that regard, I believe that much could still be done.
Mention was made of the new technologies which are available. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in Denmark recently considerable difficulties were experienced because of the pollution caused by fish farming. As a result, two or three years ago many restrictions were placed upon fish farmers which would have virtually cut their businesses in half and put many people out of work. However, the matter was considered by a leading technology company in the fish farming area. In two years it came forward with a solution which meant that the pollution problem was solved and the environmental difficulties reduced by well over half. It also meant that the fish farming activities continued to be profitable at the same level as before and that there was employment. Therefore, the problem was solved. We know from our own experience that it is better when such a problem is looked at not from the point of view of the only way to solve it is to stop it, but from the point of view of, "Well, what we must do with this particular exercise which is seen as environmentally unacceptable is to make it environmentally acceptable".
Farming has cleaned up its act, as it were, enormously in the years that I have been farming. The economic pressures that force people to take such decisions can be effective. When tackling the problems we must ensure that we solve them in a practical way. We should not take the view that if we do not like something we should stop it. I again thank the committee for producing what is undoubtedly an excellent report.
I have been a farmer all my life. My family has farmed in Cheshire for several generations. During that time the changes in methods and systems have been enormous. We are now going through another period of change. When given the freedom to do so, the agricultural community can change dramatically. Its ability to move its businesses from one system to another is always effective. The key is to give farmers the freedom and opportunity to do so. We will then see the vast changes in the countryside which will allow more people to use it. It can then be a benefit to the whole of society, which is what it should be.
I hope we do not see extensification techniques, something with which I completely disagree. I should prefer to see less land farmed, but the land that is farmed must be farmed efficiently because our business is competitively to produce good quality food, from the farm to the table. That cannot be done if everything is being run at an uneconomic level. If we must cut production, the answer is to farm less land but to farm that land efficiently. The land that then becomes available can be used to increase facilities and amenities for the rest of society.
520
My little bit of the rural economy needs my attention tomorrow morning urgently. If I leave now to catch the train I hope that your Lordships will forgive me.
8.12 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too should like to thank the most reverend Primate and my noble friend Lord Prior for producing their report and also my noble friend Lord Middleton and all the Members of the Select Committee for producing such a comprehensive and enlightening report. It has been said—I must say that I agree—that it is a pity that the two reports are being discussed together. Since they are being so discussed, perhaps I may suggest that a better term for the debate would be "The future of rural society, and do we have faith in the countryside?". That may be one of the major points with which we shall have to come to terms over the next decade or so.
I am ashamed to say that I have not looked at the report produced by my noble friend Lord Prior, but I have looked comprehensively at that produced by my noble friend Lord Middleton. That is not to say that I in any way under-estimate the role of the clergy in the countryside. Far from it. I regard the role of the local vicar very much the same as that of the local policeman. He is an integral part of society and a man who can do a great deal of good.
As has already been said, rural society covers a magnitude of extremes. Many people's idea of the countryside is that those who make their lives there should be able to seek employment in any way that is available to them. There are those who believe that the countryside should be cocooned and preserved for posterity. As has been said, the rural economy and environment have always been, and always will be, dynamic, responding to the conditions of the free market and direct and indirect government grants. The rural population, while changing in character, is in many regions no longer declining.
Whereas many of us would like to see the survival of the traditional communities with their histories and skills, I am afraid that we must accept that changes will continue to take place. I am sure that farm amalgamations will continue, but we may also see an increase in part-time farmers. I do not regard that as bad, because if it helps to keep people on the land, then so be it. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, described his trip to Germany and talked about a prosperous rural economy. I suspect that many of the people to whom he referred were part-time farmers.
I applaud the efforts that are being made to mitigate the demise of traditional communities, but those efforts must be kept within sensible economic limits. They must be for sound environmental or social reasons. It is important to sustain employment because, as has again been pointed out by many noble Lords, that is what bonds the fabric of rural society. If there is no fabric, there is no service; if there is no service, there are no standards, and everything will fall about. On that point I should like to join with other noble Lords in applauding the efforts of my noble

521
friend Lord Shuttleworth and the Rural Development Commission. His contribution to the debate was outstanding. I very much enjoyed what he had to say.
Whatever society we shall see in the countryside in the future, what interests many of us is how that countryside will be managed. It is likely to be managed by a smaller population, and, I suspect, by a population that, in many cases will not have had its roots in the land. The present recession makes it impossible for many farmers to consider their environmental responsibilities. There are many farmers who have never considered their environmental responsibilities, but there are many who would like to but who cannot at the moment because of the financial difficulties they face.
Against the difficulties of over-production, there are enormous opportunities to redress the imbalance between what I call hard farming and environmental care. I go so far as to say that we may never have a better chance of devising a policy of sustainable methods of food production and land management for the wellbeing of nature and for ourselves.
I in no way wish to undermine the need to farm profitably and efficiently. That is fundamental. Nor would I wish to cast any doubts—I now declare my interest as a member of the NCC—on our system of site designations, SSSIs, NNRs and the work of the county nature trusts in maintaining their reserves. They are core features of nature conservation both in themselves and as a means of monitoring change in the countryside, which is of course of equal importance.
We must move towards the greater integration of farming and conservation in the wider countryside. Above all, we must resolve the problem where agricultural support mechanisms are promoting damaging countryside management. That, I am sorry to say, continues. It is something to which we must address ourselves as quickly as possible. That is not to say that support and incentives of a kind are not important. Without support many farming communities would not survive. The ill-effect on the infrastructure and wellbeing of the countryside would be profound, with severe social consequences.
As again has been said, the incomes of hill farms have dropped by 50 per cent. in the past two years. I had a meeting the other day with a number of my hill farming tenants. There is no doubt that their plight is serious as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said. I believe that she said there is now real fear. She is not exaggerating the situation. Urgent action is undoubtedly needed.
Production-related subsidies are a nonsense at this time and support must relate more closely to specific environmental aims and objectives or where good reason can be shown that without that community or that system the countryside would suffer. I appreciate that, as has already been said, there is enormous diversity within the economic community and this again stresses the need for decisions to be made at a
522
local level. To illustrate this, I simply draw noble Lords' attention to page 198 of volume II of the report of my noble friend Lord Middleton. It says:
"Dr. Berkeley Hill's recent report shows that the bulk of public support for the countryside comes through agricultural support and, in particular, through market regulation of agricultural commodities under the Common Agricultural Policy. In contrast, only about 2 per cent. of the total goes to meet objectives which are specific to conservation of wildlife or landscape and only about 1 per cent. on rural services".
I believe that those statistics are extremely important. I wish to see them redressed as soon as possible. To this end I believe that the wider use of the ESA principle is desirable, though I believe it is important to link the visual attractions of an area with the nature conservation objectives and to ensure where possible that rural development policies are based on properly researched conclusions. I think particularly now of set-aside. I am bound to say that I do not find it a particularly attractive way forward. I do not believe that it is good for farming and I know that it is not good for conservation.
Positive management payments and not simply payments for profits forgone must be the right way forward. I am much attracted to the idea of the environmental menu proposed by the Countryside Commission where farmers can choose from a range of items which would benefit the environment. I see no reason at all why that could not be worked in conjunction with ELMS. My noble friend Lord Radnor was to some degree sceptical about how that would work. I agree that it would take some thought, but I believe that as a principle we should consider it more than we have. There could be great opportunities in this direction. Furthermore, it would help in establishing a market value for environmental management. That again is perhaps taken too much for granted at the moment and we should be able to see it in financial terms.
I wish to add a word of caution on the Countryside Commission proposals. Whereas public access objectives are desirable and opportunities to expand access are considerable, they should not become an obsession. When that access threatens the management of wildlife, I believe it obviously becomes counter-productive. When it adversely affects the management of land, occupiers will be less inclined to take up those environmental payments.
However, among all the discussions and deliberations on means of securing incentives for a better environment, one activity has been given scant attention. My noble friend Lord Swinton mentioned it. I am talking about the effect of field sports on the countryside. Statistics have been given to show us the effects of farming, forestry, etc. Forestry itself covers 10 per cent. of the land surface in Great Britain. Field sports are carried out in one way or another on approximately 60 per cent. of the land. That means that the habitat of that land is being managed to a greater or lesser extent for the benefit of wildlife.
It has been shown on numerous occasions that that management is not only beneficial to the quarry species but to a wealth of other species besides. Recently, the BASC, in conjunction with the Scottish

523
Development Agency, produced a report which estimated that £78 million was spent by field sports interests in Scotland alone. It is fair to say that much of that money went into the less favoured areas where, as we know, it is sorely needed.
From the maintenance and management of the heather moorland to the retention of small copses and the creation of hardwoods and to the establishment and conservation of wetlands, I believe that field sports have been responsible more than any other single factor for the well-being of the countryside, largely without any form of subsidy. The grey partridge, once so prolific in the English countryside, has now been reduced to dramatically small numbers by modern agriculture. It can only be found in reasonable numbers where the shooting interests encourage it.
My noble friend Lord Swinton referred to the Game Conservancy. Again, I have to declare an interest. I am chairman of the research planning committee and a vice-chairman. I believe that the research that the Game Conservancy has done into determining the best method of creating and managing habitats and food supply for game birds and the advice that it offers is of national importance. In fact, I go so far as to say that it is of international importance, bearing in mind the number of requests now being received from European countries. The specialist knowledge that the conservancy has built up over the years should never be underestimated. I believe that it is of huge importance to the countryside.
Anything which will undermine field sports threatens the well-being of the countryside itself. That is why I wish to take this opportunity of thanking my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for his recent decision not to implement the 1979 bird directive. It was a bold move which will undoubtedly benefit our countryside greatly.
We have great opportunities for the future of the countryside. We must take them now while we have the chance. Above all, the objectives must be clear and those owning and managing the land must know what is expected of them. Equally important, they must know what is available to them.
I end on a note of sadness, if I may use that word. I am disappointed that my noble friend's committee did not accept the principle of a ministry of rural affairs. I personally believe that we must draw together in a way that has not been done all the various interests in the countryside. I believe that is one action that would go some way towards achieving that aim.
8.28 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I add my voice to those who have heaped praise on the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for his excellent and learned committee's report on this matter. It has an enormous breadth of common sense and statistical information and I warmly welcome it. I wish to associate myself with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, who gave
524
us an insight into the role of the Rural Development Commission. From personal experience perhaps I may say what an excellent organisation it is.
I shall concentrate principally on the report of the Select Committee but I wish also to say how much I appreciated and was touched by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, in his dissertation on the religious dimension applied to rural affairs. I agreed with everything he said.
I must declare an interest. Not only am I a chartered surveyor dealing with a commercial activity in a rural base; I am also a farmer. My wife and I farm in West Somerset on Exmoor. I wish to dwell for a moment on the problems of the severely less favoured upland areas. There are problems of infrastructure. One is a very poor road system. There is the problem of the vast seasonal increase of visitors every summer. That produces a peculiarly awkward imbalance in the management of that rural environment and a corresponding over-dependency on tourism as an alternative economy, if it is not the main economy before agriculture. There are the climatic and geographic disadvantages that make agriculture particularly difficult in certain parts of the national park. Those factors also make the tourist season perilously short.
As with all national parks, there is a fixation of the collective mind on environmental matters. It is right that that should exist, but not to the total exclusion of all other aspects as seems to have been the case in the past. There is the imbalance in the population and few opportunities for young people to start on the farming ladder and to have any prospect of conducting a business in the area where they have been brought up. There is the problem of an ageing population and the presence of a large number of retired people. Exmoor has problems which make it in many ways a microcosm of the rest of the country. However, Exmoor also contains acute examples of the problems that occur elsewhere in the country.
I echo the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, when he said that there has been a lack of cohesive policy and a lack of a cohesive body to guide policy in rural areas. I shall give noble Lords a few examples of the kind of official bodies that I have to deal with. There is the Exmoor National Park; the Somerset County Council; the West Somerset District Council; the Nature Conservancy Council and the various offshoots funded by that council; the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, English Heritage and the National Rivers Authority. There are also innumerable semi-official or unofficial bodies that all have a say in rural affairs. It is extremely difficult for an individual to perform his functions of stewardship on the land when he has to deal with so many different organisations, not all of which agree with the policies of the others.
Some noble Lords touched earlier in the debate on particular economic problems such as the inherent unprofitability of the agricultural industry for upland farmers. I echo the comment that was made that there are serious problems as regards the financial future of many of the traditional farmers who have been the

525
warp and weft of Exmoor society. Great difficulties abound as regards opportunities for diversification. Those difficulties arise through planning constraints, the nature of the landscape, the geography and the remoteness of the region. There are also pressures from all kinds of bodies for designations which severely impair the opportunities for growth and expansion of rural businesses on agricultural and forestry land.
Further, there are climatic problems which affect forestry and the type of crop and husbandry which can be conducted in the area. As I have said, the tourist season is extremely short and there is little opportunity for spreading that season over a longer period when the weather is heavily against such a course of action. In addition, there are pressures to formulate policies for environmentally acceptable approaches to land management. However, that approach costs something. Present returns on the kind of arrangements that are commonly offered by way of management agreements generally represent no more than an average income expectancy as applied to a wide basket of different holdings. I should add that not all of those options are particularly attractive in terms of the perceived loss of control and the fact that they may tie up the use of land for long periods of time.
Nevertheless, I envisage a real opportunity arising from the fact that we need to consider the public interest element in land use. I pick up again on a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in that connection. We need to look at the public interest element as another crop. That concept must be farmed as a crop, and we must view it as that nature of animal rather than something which is wholly different from the rest of the agricultural operation.
I wish to say a few words about the Government's policy. I must refer to a perceived discrepancy between the real anxieties that are apparent in the Select Committee's report and the comments made by the Minister earlier in the debate. I am not sure that I agree that the Government are doing all they can to support the rural economy. That is certainly not the case through the medium of agriculture. I could refer to many examples of contorted and difficult forms that need to be completed and the instances where arbitrary cash limits seem to have been introduced on grant aid. I could mention scheme revisions and scheme duration and the exclusivity of the schemes that qualify for agricultural grant aid as opposed to other schemes.
I wish to point my finger slightly at forestry policy. I believe it is generally accepted that the Government's policy has successfully got rid of a number of pop stars who wish to invest in large tracts of forestry land in order to obtain tax breaks for doing so. However, at the same time the policy has severely prejudiced many other people who do not make a profit out of forestry but who try to do it because they feel that is their public duty. The present level of grant aid, particularly for hardwoods, goes nowhere near recognising the public interest element of forestry.
526
Particular problems exist for hill farmers who are heavily dependent on cattle and sheep rearing. I shall have to wait to see what final decision is reached in this matter and whether we shall have to suffer a one-third cut in the sheep premium. If that is the case, what will replace the premium, if anything? When will an alternative measure be introduced?
Reforms on rural policies generally are long overdue. It was said earlier in the debate that too much of an urban view is being taken. It is quite proper that urban society and those who dwell in towns should have and express a view on rural affairs. Nevertheless, I feel that there is an imbalance now between urban and rural prosperity. That imbalance runs against rural prosperity and has certainly not been arrested. Meanwhile, urban congestion and deprivation continue apace.
I should like to see more of an effort made to secure adequate sources of funding. If that means decoupling agriculture from other rural operations, then so be it. I am not worried at the concept of supporting operations other than agricultural operations. Collectively the nation's commitment to rural affairs is not self-evident. In spite of intense public interest, I see no evidence of forward planning or other necessary resources being put into this extremely important matter. Indeed I see public interest being chiefly aimed at green issues. They butter no parsnips. At the end of the day it is rather like someone standing on the touchline cheering but not getting his hands dirty. Many supporters of green policies are quite happy to see lots of things being done provided that it is always at someone else's expense. That is an unsustainable method of going about things.
The specific needs of the rural area that I know best are as follows. There is a need for a unified body to deal with the many issues. It may well be that a national park is an exceptional case and not typical of other rural areas. There certainly needs to be forward planning and a cohesive strategy. There should be a concept of the value-added element of land use. Whether or not that value-added element takes the form of recognition in financial terms of the public interest is not for me to say.
I believe that the special interest groups and those who lobby so hard against farmers and others who have responsibility for the stewardship of our countryside would do better if they did not simply stand by and tell everybody else what to do but put their hands in their pockets and started making a contribution. If more of those groups contributed in the same way as organisations such as Greenpeace and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers a great deal more could be achieved. There must be a partnership. We cannot do it alone and we cannot do it without those groups. They should have a say, but let us formulate a solution that is fair to all parties. There is an economic solution and a balance to be drawn.
I warmly welcome the report of the Select Committee. I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who referred to the fact that in creating the environment that we all want in the

527
countryside we shall in some way draw the spiritual element out of the closet and into the open. We can build a better world, but we cannot do so on an adversarial basis. The reports of the Select Committee and the Archbishops' Commission could well have been debated separately to greater effect, but they provide a valuable touchstone. It would be well if both reports were much more widely publicised.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I welcome the Select Committee's report. There can be no doubt that the issues it addresses are important and need urgent action, not least from the Government. Both agriculture and planning policies for the countryside are coming under active review. New initiatives are needed to protect the landscape and the social balance of our rural areas from the threat of excessive or unbalanced development. The report covers many important aspects but, like many other speakers, I shall concentrate on the vital issue of affordable rural housing.
We do not need research to identify the problems of rural housing. The urgent need for a substantial increase in the supply of homes for those unable to compete in the open market ought not to be questionable. It is one of the most serious social problems facing rural areas. By whatever method we employ to measure rural housing needs, the Select Committee is right in concluding that the available supply falls far short of demand.
We hear a great deal about the importance of having a living countryside—a countryside with a balanced population which spans the social spectrum and through its different activities helps to retain social cohesion and the landscape of our rural areas. An adequate supply of housing to meet the needs of the young, the elderly, the retiring farm worker and others whose families by tradition have lived in villages for generations is essential if any sense of rural community is to be retained. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York emphasised the vital need for affordable housing to retain that sense of rural community.
Much attention has focused on the financial difficulties being faced by housing associations and local authorities in providing affordable houses in the countryside. Both the Select Committee and the Archbishops' Commission on Rural Areas have implored the Government to increase substantially the allocation of public money for the construction of affordable homes and to ensure that the houses provided are not sold on but are retained at an affordable price in perpetuity.
Too many affordable houses are being built only for them to be sold on at full market price by the first occupier—a transaction now known as "staircasing". I can give the example of my own county of Berkshire, where the West Berkshire Housing Association has expressed great concern that over 55 per cent. of its social housing stock in the Newbury area has been or
528
is about to be sold. In some areas of Berkshire such as Aldermaston and Welford over 80 per cent. of the stock has gone.
A permanent pool of affordable rural houses must be retained in the countryside to meet the needs of future generations without allowing unnecessary additional development. Placing a ceiling on shared ownership schemes to prevent staircasing beyond a 50 per cent. equity would also ensure better use of the limited resources available for building affordable homes, thereby allowing housing associations and others to concentrate on building new houses instead of on the expensive repurchase of the old ones.
I also urge the House to recognise the continuing role of local authorities as providers of affordable rural housing. The undoubted success of the right-to-buy policy in rural areas has had an unfortunate side effect in reducing the supply of affordable local authority homes available to new generations. The houses sold have not been replaced by local authorities, housing associations or the private sector. I hope that ways can be found to enable local authorities to use more of the income they receive from the sale of their own affordable housing stock to replace it elsewhere and meet the housing needs of the future. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher.
I now turn to the thorny issue of housing land supply and the planning system. Many commentators have suggested that the land issue lies at the heart of the rural housing problem. I suggest that the problem is not one of land itself but one of land capable of being developed for affordable houses.
Let us examine the facts. In reality there is no shortage of land for house building as a result of planning controls. Even in the South East where development pressures have been at their highest the capacity of land identified for new housing development over the next five years stands at the record level of nearly 300,000 dwellings, no less than 58 per cent. above the requirements of the county structure plans approved by the Secretary of State. The problem is that little of that land is used for building affordable homes.
Even more worrying is the paradox that sees high and accelerating amounts of development in all parts of the country coinciding with record levels of homelessness and the problems of access to housing. Between 1981 and 1988 over 1,140,000 houses were built in the shire counties of England and there was an accelerating rate of growth in every region. Yet in the same period there was a disturbing 64 per cent. increase in homelessness. The increase was 179 per cent. in Buckinghamshire. Last year fewer than one in three households could afford to purchase a three-bedroomed house on the open market in England. The equation is a simple one. There is a great deal of development going on and a great deal of land being made available by the planning system but neither the development nor the land is going to the people who most need it.

529
I must express grave reservations about the Select Committee's criticism of the planning system and its plea for a relaxation of controls to provide more land. I do not believe that that would provide the answers. Relaxing the planning controls would not reduce house prices or provide many new affordable homes. It would place the countryside under even more pressure, turning a social problem into an environmental one.
The Government have already gone down the relaxation road with their policy of releasing land on the village edge as an exception to normal planning restraints. I share the reservations of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the local authorities about that approach. Only 60 schemes are thought to have started under the exception policy, while it has been estimated that about 185,000 affordable houses are needed by 1994. The major flaw in that approach is that it steers development to the sensitive boundary between villages and the countryside which for decades has frequently been protected by the planning system.
We have a duty to protect the countryside, and the public expect us to uphold it. What is needed is a mechanism to safeguard some of the land that is to be developed in any case to make sure that some of it is used to meet social housing needs. By adjusting planning policy we could tackle rural housing shortages as part of the normal process of development.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, told us this afternoon that the Government will shortly issue a new policy planning guidance note to local authorities on the release of land for low cost housing. That covers small sites which would not ordinarily be released for housing. That may be reasonable in the short term but I believe that in the long term the guidance should go further. Local authorities could be given limited powers to specify in development plans a proportion of the land that was to be developed specifically for affordable housing.
We should want to consider carefully the conditions under which councils could exercise those powers and consider the level and type of lower-cost housing which would be reasonable. I have reservations about the extent to which the housing market should be interfered with. We need to avoid any measures which effectively would give councils wide powers to dictate the levels of house prices.
I welcome the Government's recent announcement of an extra £50 million to support a low-cost housing programme in rural areas of most need. Together with a different planning emphasis, this boost in public funding will provide the beginnings of an answer to what has become an urgent social problem.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure we all agree that we have had a wide ranging debate over the whole field of rural policy. Like other noble Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, on his expert chairmanship of the Select Committee and
530
presentation of the report. His skill in the chair ensured that what might have become a rather discursive and ill-targeted study has in fact resulted in an authoritative and tightly argued report. I should also like to congratulate the Archbishops' Commission on its Report. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, and his commissioners have produced an invaluable report which both supplements and underlines a number of the recommendations of the Select Committee's report. Indeed, it is significant that two reports which come from different standpoints—one of them is secular and the other theological—have reached broadly the same conclusions.
There are many strands of argument which have developed in what has been a fascinating debate. In the time available it obviously will not be possible to cover them all. I should like to concentrate on agricultural policy and some aspects of rural services, particularly housing.
The reports of the Select Committee and the Archbishops' Commission emphasise the central importance of a prosperous agriculture in a prosperous countryside. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, pointed out that we could not rely on a prosperous agriculture alone. It is certainly a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition.
The report of the Archbishops' Commission points out that agriculture provides some 15 per cent. of direct employment in the rural areas and up to 30 per cent. in some areas. The Select Committee report bears that out, and we should not overlook the wide range of industries and services ancillary to agriculture which are not included in those figures. With an output of some £12.5 billion, agriculture is and will remain a major economic interest of the countryside. That is why the prosperity of the industry is so crucially important in securing a prosperous countryside.
But the reality is that it is an industry whose net income has more than halved in real terms in the 1980s. The number of those engaged in the industry—both farmers and farm workers—has decreased by nearly 100,000 (some 12 per cent.) in the same period. It is an industry where low morale and deep uncertainty about the future are now endemic. That point was made most strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Prior.
The problem is that agriculture, as a major industry and as an essential component of rural policy, does not know what is required of it. I am not at all sure that the policy makers know either. Indeed, considering the present confusion over policy one is reminded of Lloyd George's famous dictum that it is very hard to cross a chasm in two leaps.
Only 10 years ago a book entitled Britain's Future in Farming, which had 14 expert contributors, concluded that:
"Britain now needs to increase agricultural production".
A reasoned case for agricultural expansion must continue to be pressed widely and with vigour. White

531
Papers and exhortations from successive governments, which the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, will remember very well, said much the same thing.
Ten years is quite a short time in farming. It is perhaps only a couple of rotations for those who continue to use such old-fashioned practices. But now we are told that there is a surplus of land. Estimates range from 6 million hectares to 16 million hectares. I have no wish to fall out with the terminology of the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, but there is no such thing as a surplus of land. The phrase is a logical nonsense. We know that surpluses can be burnt, tipped into the sea, given away or dumped overseas with or without export restitution. So far as I am aware, there is no possibility of land being made available for any of those activities.
What does exist from time to time in some parts of the world is a surplus of agricultural production accompanied by severe shortages (in some cases amounting to famine), in other parts of the world, with no effective economic mechanism to match the surpluses and shortages. That is a point that was very well made by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie.
If effective demand is defined as need accompanied by the ability to pay, there is clearly a major deficit in demand but certainly not in need. We have to consider whether we wish to produce the same amount of food from a smaller area or less food production from the same area when we talk—I think incorrectly—about a surplus of land.
The direction of agricultural policy in the European Community now seems to be based on a gradual move away from price support towards direct income aid, with payments to farmers progressively decoupled from the quantities which they produce, and towards dealing with their perceived impoverishment. The policy is further confused by the imponderables of the GATT Round and its implications.
We must remember that such a shift in policy has major implications, which are mostly unfavourable, for British agriculture and thereby the prosperity of the British countryside. The Select Committee could find nobody prepared to define the family farm but everybody agreed that the United Kingdom has fewer of them than anybody else. We have already seen the first signs of a shift in policy: limitations of headage payments which will be based on flock or herd size; extra help for small cereal producers; and the reallocation of milk quotas towards smaller farms. None of those policies is necessarily wrong in itself but they all result in a comparative disadvantage for UK agriculture. The same thing may well happen when we come to renegotiate the operation of milk quotas after 1992.
Our efficient farming structure (incidentally, advanced as one of our strengths when we joined the Community) now puts us at a serious disadvantage compared with most other members of the European Community. The Select Committee report deals briskly but effectively with the European Commission's proposed mechanisms: the modulation of prices support; direct income aids; special
532
payments to farmers in the least favoured areas and support for diversification. But both the Select Committee report and the Archbishops' Commission report mention another policy mechanism—support for less intensive farming. The argument is summarised very well at the end of paragraph 228 of the Select Committee report:
"If farming in a certain way produces environmental goods which the public wants the Committee consider that farmers should be paid for providing them".
It seems to me that the benefit of such an approach to policy for UK agriculture and the British countryside is not just its obvious environmental attractions. It is a policy which, of its nature, if it is to be effective, must be implemented irrespective of farm size. Indeed, it could be argued that it would be most effective in terms of reducing agricultural surpluses if it were applied particularly generously to the 30 per cent. of farms which produce three-quarters of the total output.
When we think about the possibilities of less intensive farming we have to consider the social effect. It has been calculated that every 750 acres in set-aside means one job lost. That is a prospect, incidentally, which I am not sure the National Farmers Union has taken fully into account in its proposals for compulsory set-aside.
The potential redundancy of farm workers is expressed extremely well in the report of the Archbishops' Commission at page 50 when comparing the closure of a coalmine or steel works. Nonetheless, no attempt has been made to increase the compensation to help redundant farm workers to reach a training centre to prepare for other employment. Because they have been scattered they have been unable to bring political pressure to bear. However, they have a case which we feel needs closer examination and an imaginative response.
An agricultural policy which improves the physical environment of the countryside and reduces surplus production but which is easily reversible if extra production is needed, and which keeps people—farmers, farm workers and those in the ancillary industries—employed in the countryside must be worthy of serious consideration.
The facile comment is sometimes made: why are farmers or farm workers any different from coalminers, steel workers or any other people who have been made redundant in the past 11 years? It is possible to close a coalmine, a steel works or a factory. It is very hard to close down half a county.
I believe that the environmental approach to agricultural policy is clearly a concept whose time has arrived. In the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we heard that the Government intend to maintain and develop their environmental policies. The Labour Party has worked out the idea of a green premium for environmental management. The Country Landowners' Association has the environmental land management (ELM) scheme. In the past few days we have had the joint report of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the World

533
Wildlife Fund, entitled Future Harvests. They also refer to the idea of payments for environmental management.
Those are all different approaches but they have a common theme. I do not suggest that support should be based wholly on environmental payments. Indeed, any successful agricultural policy in the future will be based on a sophisticated mix of tariff protection, supply management, some price support, environmental payments and direct income aids. However, if we consider that 65 per cent. of the cost of the CAP does not go to farmers but into the cost of storage and export restitutions, it appears that a sensible policy could see a substantial reduction in cost but increase the amount that ends up in farmers' pockets.
The reports of the Select Committee and of the Archbishops' Commission deal with the importance of rural services, with transport, education, shops, post offices, health provision and above all housing. I do not apologise for concentrating on housing. The reports state in terms that the lack of affordable homes to rent or buy is the single most serious social problem in the countryside. The Select Committee report states at paragraph 217:
"The Committee were struck by the weight of evidence suggesting that the largest, and in some ways the most intractable problem affecting rural areas in the United Kingdom is the provision of adequate affordable housing for local communities".
The report of the Archbishops' Commission says almost exactly the same at page 95. It states:
"One issue above all others—housing—has been at the centre of the evidence which we have received, especially on our regional and diocesan visits".
A report produced for the Rural Development Commission by Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) which has been mentioned reveals that there are approximately 377,000 households in rural England in need of housing, either immediately or over the next five years. Perhaps the Minister will respond to this question when she replies: what is the Government's estimate of the total housing need in the rural areas? Do the Government agree with the estimate that has been made in the ACRE report?
Every member of the Select Committee received a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which gave the response of the Department of the Environment to the report of the Select Committee. The letter contains a long paragraph which summarises various government initiatives in rural housing. They were mentioned again today in the speech with which the noble Baroness opened the debate. However, in both the letter and the speech there was a significant omission. There was not a single figure in either for the number of housing units in rural areas which the Government expect to result from those initiatives. Will the Minister tell the House how many houses it is expected will be built in rural areas as a result of all the plans which were set out in the letter received from the noble Baroness and in her speech today? I advised her before the debate that I should be asking that question.
534
We know that the Housing Corporation, before its current financial problem, devoted only 2 per cent. of its funds to the rural areas, although we know that 20 per cent. of the population live in the rural areas. The report of the Archbishops' Commission refers at page 99 to the work of the Wiltshire Rural Housing Association. I was pleased to see that reference because I had the pleasure of opening some of the units only a few weeks ago. The work of the Wiltshire Rural Housing Association meets only 1 per cent. of the known need for housing for local people in Wiltshire villages.
It is no exaggeration to say that we are facing a major crisis in rural housing. In my view, and in that of my party, there is only one way to meet the need quickly. It is to use the local authorities as the main providers, either directly or indirectly. I know that the Government will have to swallow their ideology to accept that, but the main cause of the crisis is the direct result of government policy: the introduction of the right to buy policy for local authority housing and refusing the local authorities permission to use the receipts from the right to buy sales to replace stocks. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Now that the days of government by prime ministerial obsession seem to be drawing somewhat less than peacefully to their close, perhaps I may urge the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, to impress on their ministerial colleagues the urgency of the situation. We know that the local authorities have received billions from council house sales. Surely they should now be required to replace the stock that they have lost. Those houses are virtually the only source of affordable homes to rent in the countryside. I know that the Government place great reliance on the housing association movement and the voluntary sector. They certainly have an important part to play. However, for the past four years I have tried to put up low-cost housing on farmland, and I know exactly how long that takes.
As regards the provision for low-cost rural housing we know that a number of schemes are based on landowners virtually giving away the land. The planners grant permission for low-cost housing where permission would not be given for full-price housing. In other words, the planners decide to allocate housing according to income. I find it a little ironic that this Government, which believe so strongly in the free market, seem to be relying on a combination of private philanthropy and quasi-Marxist social engineering to solve the rural housing problem. Indeed, it is nice to know that Ebenezer Howard and Karl Marx are apparently alive and well and helping to formulate the Government's rural housing policy.
Of course we welcome the recent announcement of £50 million allocated to councils where the rural housing need is greatest. Can the Minister confirm that that is not new money added to the housing investment programme but an expression of the higher priority to be given to rural housing in the programme

535
compared with other demands on it? It is a one-off shift in one year's programme. What is the Government's estimate of the number of houses that will result from the £50 million allocation?
The rural housing association movement finds it difficult to plan properly when it does not know from one year to the next what priority the Government intend to give to rural housing. Frankly, the stop-go attitude to funding is causing nothing less than chaos to small rural housing associations. What is needed is a proper, rolling five-year rural housing plan setting out targets for local authorities and the voluntary sector. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House whether the Government intend to have such a plan.
We have had a fascinating debate on a vitally important topic. The two reports that we have considered make an invaluable contribution to policy making. We must hope that their conclusions and recommendations are heeded in Westminster and in Brussels.
9.10 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, having listened with interest—the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, please note—to Monday's debate on the environment and transport, I have listened with even greater interest to today's deliberations. I am delighted to be playing a part at the end of the day. I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Middleton and the most reverend Primate for the two reports.
Before I reply to specific points made by your Lordships perhaps you would bear with me while I make some general points which I believe are relevant to the matters in hand. Agriculture may account for only 1·4 per cent. of GDP and 2·2 per cent. of the national workforce but it is much more important than those figures suggest to the rural economy. Agricultural policies are, therefore, of vital importance to rural areas. I believe that the Select Committee and the Archbishops' Commission recognise this.
I was delighted to hear the stress laid by my noble friend Lord Selborne on the importance of food production. Farmers have always had two jobs—producing food, thereby forming the landscape, and looking after the countryside. After the war it was as food producers that the nation looked to them and they responded to great effect. But no one in this life is allowed to rest on their laurels. Farmers' very success brought with it the seeds of the current difficulties—surplus production and the need to restrain it and concern about some of the effects of farming on the environment.
Farmers are well aware that people expect them to balance and reduce their output as against spending more time on the needs of the environment. At the same time, they must earn enough to provide for their daily bread. That is a difficult dichotomy and one which the Government well understand. Of course I agree with my noble friends Lord Plumb and Lord
536
Swinton, and let me make one thing crystal clear—we remain committed to supporting efficient and productive farming.
The new balance that farmers have to strike is mirrored in government. Agriculture Ministers have a statutory duty to seek a reasonable balance between the needs of agriculture and other interests in the countryside, including conservation. I should, therefore, like to underline our commitment to integrating environmental objectives fully into agricultural support measures. The White Paper This Common Inheritance describes both past achievements and the future approach to agricultural support. We are doing a great deal. We have been pioneers in Europe on this. Increasingly our approach is featuring in community measures.
The most reverend Primate picked up the point that I am about to make. As my right honourable friend the Minister said at the General Synod yesterday, our agriculture is interlocked with Europe: 80 per cent. of the decisions are made in Brussels. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that the GATT round will no doubt bring forth new developments. The GATT round is indeed moving into its final phase. The concluding ministerial meeting is due to open on 3rd December. The EC agriculture proposal is a major challenge for our agricultural industry and the rural economy. That is of course why the internal EC negotiations were so difficult. It is not clear what the final outcome in GATT will be. However, it will be vital to get agreement. All parties will need to compromise. All stand to benefit from a wide-ranging agreement.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is not here, but following his remarks—I am paraphrasing—that France and Germany were right to oppose the Community offer on GATT, I must reply and get on the record that if the EC had not been able to agree a negotiating position on agriculture, the whole GATT round would have been put at risk. That would have been highly irresponsible. The EC and the UK economies stand to benefit greatly from a GATT agreement on freer trade.
I must assure the noble Baroness, Lady White, that there is no question of agreement on agriculture at any price; and no question of dismantling the CAP or of completely abandoning particular policies. Freer market conditions will not mean complete exposure to market forces. As my noble friend Lady Blatch made clear, one important element which is of particular relevance to your Lordships' debate today is that we are seeking to maintain and develop environmental and conservation policies which are likely to play an increasingly important role in the years ahead.
The scene is a fast-changing one, and inevitably hand in hand with the actual farming of the land rural housing is an important part of that scene. My noble friend Lady Blatch devoted much of her excellent speech to that aspect. Let me pick up further queries raised by your Lordships. So many noble Lords spoke on the question of low-cost housing, starting with my noble friend Lord Middleton, that I really cannot name them all. However, I must begin by saying on

537
this subject that we share noble Lords' concern that affordable housing needs to be available for those who live and work in rural areas if we are to maintain the viability of rural communities.
We are determined to boost the supply of low-cost homes in rural areas, and we have introduced a number of measures since we announced our rural housing initiative in July 1988. As my right honourable friend explained, these include, first, changes to the planning rules allowing local authorities exceptionally to release small sites not previously designated for housing to meet local needs for low-cost housing; secondly, increased investment for housing associations in rural areas; and thirdly a new scheme announced last week to promote low-cost rural housing through local authorities.
The Housing Corporation's capital investment programme is set to double between 1989–90 and 1993–94, topping the £2 billion mark for the first time, providing for a sustained increase in output of new subsidised housing for rent by housing associations. A big and increasing slice of this programme is going to rural areas.
The £50 million of local authority credit approvals available next year will be targeted on the rural areas with the greatest needs to support a new programme for low-cost housing for rent. We would expect councils to use these resources mainly to support housing association activity in rural areas. This programme will act as a welcome spur to this urgently needed type of housing provision.
May I just say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving me one of his questions before. As a matter of fact the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, also mentioned the number of rural houses. It is only just over two years since the special rural house building programme in England was announced. Housing corporation provision is building up steadily from modest beginnings to reach 1,500 per annum by 1992–93. We have no means of measuring the number of houses that might be in the pipeline under the off plan land concession but we are hearing encouraging reports. We have also heard of a number of shared ownership schemes being delivered without public subsidy.
The Rural Development Commission suggests that a fixed equity shared ownership scheme should be allowed in rural areas. We understand its view, but on balance we disagree. Most people want eventually to become full owners. We believe that people who have taken the first step into shared ownership should not be obliged to move in order to own their own home. We recognise that especially in small villages there is a need to preserve the limited stock of houses available for shared ownership. Therefore we have introduced the scheme enabling housing associations to buy those houses back when the first owner moves on.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked whether money from council house sales could be used for low-cost housing. That plea, which comes from all quarters, to allow local authorities to use more of their
538
capital receipts is based on a complete misunderstanding. The new capital finance system allows us to distribute resources much more sensibly among authorities according to their needs. Under the old system spending powers concentrated in the areas which had high receipts because they had sold large numbers of council houses. The new system, by requiring authorities to repay debts, enables us to give more money to authorities in need. Many of those will be in inner cities. But some will be in rural areas. That is surely fairer. We are able to allocate two-thirds of the total housing capital spending on the basis of assessed need compared with one-third previously. We make exceptions to the debt redemption rules where a good case exists, including help for low-cost home ownership.
My noble friend Lord Shuttleworth suggested new initiatives on rural housing and housing corporation funding. As I said, the housing corporation capital investment programme is set to double between 1989–90 and 1993–94, topping the £2 billion mark for the first time and providing for a sustained increase in output of newly subsidised housing for rent by housing associations. A large and increasing slice of that programme will go to rural areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the assessment of rural housing needs. Earlier this month Housing for Wales published results of two research projects on the nature of need for housing in rural Wales. We shall shortly be commissioning research into the need for housing in rural areas in England.
My noble friend Lord Selborne mentioned house building on land not previously designated for housing. I was delighted to hear that he has made good use of the change to the planning rules to encourage the construction of houses to meet local needs. I was also delighted that he found that the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust, which is funded by the Rural Development Commission, gave him good and useful advice.
My noble friend Lord Middleton spoke of the extension of environmentally sensitive areas and bringing LFA payments closer to the environment. My noble friend Lady Blatch referred to the shift taking place within the CAP. In 1991 we shall be reviewing the ESA scheme when the results for the initial environmental and economic monitoring are available. That review will be important in guiding us on the approach we should build on for ESAs in future. Regarding payments in LFAs and what my noble friend Lord Prior said, we are examining whether existing environmental benefits afforded by HLCAs should be made more specific.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and others referred to health service access. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masharn, for her recognition that special arrangements are made to encourage general practitioner doctors and pharmacists to provide services in rural areas. On 13th November the Government announced that rural GPs are to be better paid in recognition of the special demands of general practice in country areas. Small pharmacies in England which are at least 2 kilometres

539
from the next pharmacy have special support arrangements which guarantee a minimum level of income.
Several noble Lords also mentioned post offices and village shops. The Government and the Post Office remain committed to the maintenance of the network of rural post offices. To meet part of that commitment the Post Office has introduced a new type of office—the community office, which is a part-time office often run from a local residence. A recent report on village shops prepared for the Rural Development Commission suggests that in England the rate of loss of village shops and rural sub-post offices has slowed down in recent years. The commission provides advice and training for village shopkeepers.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to county councils being responsible for rural areas. County structure plans take account of the rural economy. My noble friend Lady Blatch also referred to the proposed new guidance on the countryside and the rural economy. Both the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord John-Mackie, spoke about the need to keep agricultural land available in case there is need for extra food production. I agree that there is still a need to protect the best agricultural land from development. That is a clear part of our objectives and we look to planning authorities to provide that protection.
My noble friend Lord Radnor referred to the difficulties involved in paying farmers to keep the countryside beautiful, but our ESA scheme has been extremely successful. I appreciate the points that he made and we continue to make efforts to minimise the bureaucracy of such schemes.
The most reverend Primate, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and my noble friend Lord Swinton all mentioned schools. The Government recognise the degree of support that rural schools may command in the local community. Many small schools continue to be retained because of the geographical isolation of the communities that they serve and their value to those communities. In England and Wales where the closure of a school is proposed because, for example, its disproportionate level of resources cannot compensate sufficiently for the small size of the school, the proposal is treated on its individual merits. Factors such as the length of journey to the new school are taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, confined his remarks to the report, Faith in the Countryside and it must be for the Church to respond to what he said. However, I am sure that those associated with the Church have followed with interest what has been said by your Lordships today. It is clear that the noble Lord sees a vital role for the Church in our rural communities, both now and into the foreseeable future.
My noble friend Lord Plumb spoke about the difficulties of tracing pollution in water in some farms. I agree with my noble friend that the problems related to water are complex. That is why the Government place great emphasis on sound scientific research. For
540
example, on nitrate we have introduced our pilot nitrate-sensitive area scheme with compensation to farmers in order to begin tackling the problem and apply our research results in real conditions.
My noble friend Lord Plumb also spoke about the sympathetic conversion of redundant farm buildings. I certainly recognise the anxiety that has been expressed about some of the conversions of redundant farm buildings. Our old farm buildings are a familiar part of the countryside heritage and they add much to what we know and love of our rural areas. The Government are keen to ensure that the environment is taken into consideration when development takes place, be it new buildings or the conversion of old ones.
My noble friend Lord Shuttleworth spoke about the upland sheep farmers, identified in both reports as an endangered species. I was sorry to hear that my noble friend regards himself as an endangered species. I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady White, associated herself with those remarks; but perhaps I can reassure them both, and also my noble friend Lord Prior, that we recognise the difficulties facing sheep farmers in the hills and uplands. These problems will be taken into account in the current review of the HLCAs. The Government remain fully committed to supporting the livestock industry in less favoured areas. That is demonstrated by the expected payment of £125 million in HLCAs alone in 1990.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, spoke of her anxiety about livestock farming in Wales. With my recent change of responsibilities, I shall be taking even greater interest in Welsh affairs. I can understand the anxiety which she expressed. I pay tribute to the work of the development agencies and particularly that of the Welsh Development Agency which was mentioned by the noble Baroness. It is responsible for the development of rural areas other than those in mid-Wales which is the responsibility of the Development Board for Rural Wales. The schemes take the form of workshop development programmes and other enterprise promotion activities, including the promotion and marketing of Welsh foods and crafts. I am sure that there are not enough craft shops in Wales.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, asked whether set-aside will reduce cereal production. The set-aside scheme was introduced in 1988 as part of a package of measures designed to curb overproduction and to bring the costs of the common agricultural policy under better control. The main aim of the scheme is to complement the overal1 price policy—in particular, the operation of the agricultural stabiliser mechanism. It offers farmers most affected by support reductions an alternative income and also an opportunity to rethink their current farming practices as well as diversifying into new uses for their land. It was not designed to be a panacea for all the problems of cereal overproduction.
My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood said that diversification would have a limited impact in less favoured areas. The Government have never pretended that on-farm diversification will solve all

541
farmers' problems or those of rural society more generally. Some farmers will not have the resources or the ability to diversify. Some will be too remote from markets though many will have the opportunity. It is important that they should be encouraged. More farmers have diversified than might have been thought likely. A recent study conducted by Exeter University has shown that nearly 23 per cent. of farmers in England and Wales have already diversified into non-agricultural businesses.
My noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Peel spoke about the importance of habitat management for game. I endorse my noble friend's views. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Game Conservancy. It is work that we commend and support. My noble friend Lord Peel referred to ELMS. That is a very worthwhile initiative. It follows a theme which is part of the Government's own thinking—that is to say, that farmers should go out and look for markets for their environmental goods. I wish the CLA very well with it. We shall also look with interest at the development of the Countryside Commission's national countryside initiative.
I found the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, very moving. I do not have a great deal to say on the problems of the disabled in the countryside. She will know that indirectly I have understood and been part of them in a way. One or two of the points she raised worry me very much. Grants for livery enterprises are available under the farm diversification grant scheme. Livery enterprises have proved to be among the most numerous recipients of these grants. I am not at all sure that she knew about that. It is about time that she did!
The noble Baroness referred to the minimum value scheme now operating in this country with regard to the non-exportation of live horses and ponies. I can assure her that I am entirely on her side. What we all have to do is to convince our partners in Europe that our present scheme is the right one.
I could make a great many other points but I hope that I have given everyone at least one bite of the cherry. I shall write to anyone who feels left out or aggrieved. It has been a great pleasure to take part in this debate. It has given me the chance to underline the importance the Government attach to a healthy rural economy. After three years in MAFF I know of the enormous willingness of farmers to play their part and to get right the balance about which I spoke at the beginning of my speech. I know how difficult the situation is for them. It is a hell of a thing to see one's world turned upside down. Of course farming is not the only industry to have faced major upheavals, but the situation is made no easier by saying that. The future of the industry is bound to be different from the past but fossilisation is not a recipe for the health and vitality we seek in the rural economy.
My noble friend Lady Elliot spoke of the need to protect the countryside for people's entertainment and enjoyment. The Government are fully committed to protecting the countryside for its own sake. They remain committed to upholding the policies on
542
national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. There will be opportunities to make things better than they were and we must all look for those opportunities and exploit them for all they are worth.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken in the debate and I am grateful to them for their general acceptance of the recommendations in the report. If the report has merit then, as I have said when moving debates on similar reports in the past, it is due in great part to the assiduity of members of Sub-Committee D in obtaining relevant information from our excellent witnesses; it is due to the many individuals and bodies who tendered written evidence; and it is due, as I said earlier, to the skill and hard work of our clerk, his specialist assistant and our specialist adviser.
I should like to thank the Government for their response to the report which was embodied in the most helpful speeches of the two noble Baronesses. I listened to what they said about the Government's policy in regard to rural housing, a matter of great concern to nearly every speaker. I shall read with enormous attention what they have said.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington for the great trouble she has taken to answer the many points raised. I should like to say how grateful I am to her for confirming that the prime objective of rural policy is to maintain the potential of the countryside to produce food and to ensure that that production is effective.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

"Faith in the Countryside": Archbishops' Commission Report.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, Motion not moved.

Census (Confidentiality) Bill [H.L.]
9.39 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Perhaps I may start by reminding your Lordships that the next census of population will be held in just over five months' time, on 21st April 1991. In Great Britain it will be carried out by the Registrar General for England and Wales and the Registrar General for Scotland, assisted by their respective offices: the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the General Register Office (Scotland). When I moved for approval of the draft census order on 21st December last year, I referred to the determination of the census offices to maintain their excellent record in preserving the confidentiality of personal census information. This Bill bears witness to that determination.
In the light of the repeal of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, the registrars general have reviewed the legislation safeguarding census information. The current Bill, if enacted, will replace the second half of

543
Section 8 of the Census Act 1920—the part which provides penalties for the unlawful disclosure of information by census staff. Section 8(2) as it stands covers staff employed in taking a census. It does not cover other staff of the two offices who need to have access to census information for statistical purposes; nor does it protect information collected in census tests and census-related surveys. This Bill is intended to close these gaps where hitherto reliance has been placed on Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. As well as the census next spring, a number of voluntary surveys associated with it are planned or under consideration. Hence the early introduction of the Bill at the start of this Session.
Clause 1 would substitute six new subsections—namely, subsections (2) to (7)—for the existing subsection 8(2). The existing offence occurs where a person employed in taking a census discloses census information otherwise than in the ordinary course of his employment and has no lawful authority to do so. That is the primary offence. It also catches people who pass on information they have acquired as a result of unlawful disclosure; we may call this the processional offence. Offences under Section 8(2) carry a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment and a fine.
The changes in Clause 1 only affect the primary offence. Most of the changes are contained in the proposed new subsection (2), which extends the compass of the primary offence to disclosure by either registrar general or any member of his staff, not just by a person employed in actually taking a census. That will provide protection for the use of census data in statistical and medical studies and in surveys carried out by staff of the census offices under the authority of Section 5 of the Census Act.
The proposed subsection (2) also brings in any supplier of services to either registrar general and the employees of those who supply such services. The information protected by subsection (2) is personal census information. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that definitions are given at subsection (7). Subsection (7)(i) refers to Sections 2 and 4 of the Census Act. The information acquired under Section 2 is so defined in the Bill as to include not only information collected on the census forms but also information acquired incidentally; for example, by a census field worker while visiting someone's home. This also brings in information collected in the voluntary census tests conducted in advance of the census as part of the duty of the registrars general to make such arrangements as may be necessary for taking a census.
Under Section 4 of the Census Act, information is collected in surveys to help the registrars general report on the census returns. We now propose to follow previous practice by holding a voluntary sample survey after the census to check the accuracy of the census information. We also plan to collect census information from households whose members may be away from home over the census period but who agree to fill in a form when they return home.
Therefore, the proposed subsection (7) also covers surveys to collect further information on samples of
544
people or households identified from the census returns. That is the purpose of the definition in paragraph (ii) in subsection (7) referring to Section 5 of the Act. As I said last December, the data collected in these surveys will be handled entirely within the census offices and treated in strict confidence. The Bill will reinforce, with legal sanctions, the administrative protection given to all the further information collected in such census-related surveys.
The proposed subsection (2) refers not just to census information but to personal census information, defined as information relating to an identifiable person or household. Thus it focuses the protection more closely than is done by the Census Act 1920 as it now stands, where the existing Section 8(2) relates to any information obtained in the census. Here we are following the principle behind the recent reform of official secrets legislation by giving statutory protection where, but only where, it is really needed.
We are not trying to make criminals of public servants acting in good faith. The proposed subsection (4) provides defences for people who reasonably and genuinely believe either that they had proper legal authority for disclosing information that they have released or that no one could be identified from the information. However, the registrars general will be issuing instructions to all their staff to ensure that they are under no misapprehension about what they may disclose and to whom.
Subsections (3) and (5) preserve the processional offence, where someone passes on information which has been disclosed illegally.
Northern Ireland has its own registrar general who carries out censuses under the Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. Clause 2 of the Bill will enable provisions corresponding to those for Great Britain in Clause 1 to be applied to Northern Ireland by Order in Council.
Since 1921 there has only been one prosecution for unlawful disclosure of census information and we hope the provisions of this Bill will not have to be invoked, but it is important to put them in place before next year's census. We believe that the Bill will not only close a gap but reassure anyone concerned about the thoroughness of the protection given to personal census information. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hooper.)
9.46
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining this highly technical Bill so well. I shall be brief. The Bill is non-contentious. It is largely technical. I should like to put just two points to the Minister. It has been pointed out to me that some information collected locally could enable individuals or groups to be identified unless there is a minimum level for any such group. Some combination of features, for example in a sparsely populated area, may just enable certain individuals to be identified. Is there any protection against that? If the Minister would like to write to me before the Committee stage,

545
rather than respond now I should be happy. It is a point that has been put forward by one or two organisations, and one which they would like clarified.
My second point is important. I informed the Minister that I would raise it. Can information collected for the census be used in any way in connection with the poll tax to identify potential payers or non-payers or to assist in the compilation of the community charge register? Is the census information specifically excluded from the various sources of information that can be used to assist in the compilation of the community charge register?
9.47 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his participation in this Second Reading debate. On the point that he raised about the community charge, I can give a firm assurance that there is no cause for concern on that score. With or without the Bill, there is no lawful authority for passing to community charge registration officers or anyone else outside census offices personal information given on the completed census returns. Therefore no one in those offices will be entitled to do so. Even under Section 8(2) of the Census Act, it would be an offence for those employed on the census, including the registrars general themselves, to pass the information to any person for purposes other than those of the Census Act.
The Bill will provide legal sanctions should anyone else ever be in a position to act unlawfully in that regard. Anyone will be able to see how many adults have been counted in an area for which census statistics are available and compare that number with a number from another source. But the census will not give community charge officials the names of individuals living at addresses, and in any case by the time census data are published that information may well be somewhat out of date and no longer directly relevant to the people then living in the area concerned.
I can assure your Lordships that the proposals announced last December to include a check on the electoral register as part of the voluntary sample survey which is conducted to validate the census, will provide no basis for focusing on individuals or households. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Hospices: Government Funding
9.50 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when their commitment to pound for pound funding for the hospices will be honoured.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Unstarred Question should be plain to all, including the Minister. I have given her full information about what I propose to say. I hope that by this time she realises the high regard I have for her and perhaps she
546
will convey to the new Minister with responsibility for health how happy I am that he is taking over from his colleague. The new Minister has a brilliant academic record. In some eyes that is perhaps a disadvantage as people at once suspect someone who is immensely clever. However, I believe that it is a plus mark; we need intelligence in this difficult area in which so large a proportion of the public is interested. Let us look forward with hope to the new Minister proving even more successful than his predecessor.
My purpose is plain: to press the Government—having been given notice I do not know how many times—to tell us clearly how and when they propose to honour their commitment to make sure that the hospices receive 50 per cent. of their total spending, pound for pound—that is, £1 from public money for every £1 raised by voluntary subscriptions. There is nothing extraordinary about this commitment; the 50 per cent. arrangement is already operating in Scotland and again and again the Government have indicated their desire to honour it.
As regards this matter there is no party political issue; no party is remotely concerned here. However, before coming to the crucial, practical issue, I wish to say one word about the hospices. I dwelt on the subject at greater length on 31st October last year and I shall not repeat what I said then. I venture the opinion quite confidently that among all the excellent developments of the National Health Service in recent years none has been quite so noble as the development of the hospice service. I say that irrespective of anything done or not done by governments. It has been a wonderful human initiative.
If one asks, "What can hospices offer that is not offered elsewhere?", the answer is a quality of life for those suffering incurable illness or dying. I understand that hospices today are not referred to as places to die but as places to live. There has been a remarkable harmony between what we might call the spiritual and medical initiatives, exemplified perhaps by Dame Cicely Saunders, OBE, more than anybody else, but also by many others. We find in hospices a coming together of the spiritual and medical, which in my experience is something unique. There have been big developments in hospice care but I do not wish to imply that one can only die with dignity when under hospice care. On Sunday I said goodbye to Malcolm Muggeridge, who was then unconscious. His devoted wife and brother were sitting at his bedside. Nothing could have been more inspiring than the serenity and beauty of the whole situation. I do not think one can say there is anything tragic about such a situation, unless one thinks that death is tragic. However, I do not.
I believe a good quality of life can be provided in all kinds of situations. I can say with absolutely no fear of contradiction that in the hospices a great many people are helped to die with dignity. They are also helped to live for quite a long time in a way that makes their lives worth living. Some people achieve that in the hospices who could not achieve it in other places.
There is no doubt that this is, mercifully, a subject where party politics do not come in. The hospices have

547
been strongly supported in all parts of the House. In this area humanity reigns supreme. I must offer a few quotations to the House. They will be familiar to the noble Baroness as I have already supplied her with a copy of them. The House will also remember the quotations as they concern a Starred Question of 31st October. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked a Question on the hospices. The noble Baroness speaks with first-hand authority on hospices. I always listen to her with particular respect for two reasons: first, because she is such a good Christian and, secondly, because she is a nurse. A Christian nurse is the tops, in my opinion.
The noble Baroness asked the Government on 31st October, at col. 1840 of the Official Report, how they intended,
"to fulfil their commitment to achieve matched giving to voluntary hospices".
The noble Baroness stated:
"hospices were encouraged by the Government Statement in December 1989 to plan their strategies on the basis of 50 per cent. funding".
I seldom quote anyone speaking on the other side of the House to this extent, but one has to make a start somewhere.
The noble Baroness further stated:
"There is a real urgency for the situation to be addressed, otherwise hospices already face problems of redundancies and bed closures. That is a great tragedy given the enormously important services that hospices provide and the great dedication of staff who work in them".
I certainly could not express those sentiments better myself.
In reply the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who is to reply to the debate tonight, said:
"I can assure my noble friend that the Government are still working towards that aim".
Those words need to be carefully studied. On the face of it, that is rather like saying that the Government are working towards the reduction of inflation. That may happen at any time but it does not actually happen. However, the Minister made that point more positively in reply to a question that I put later on in that Question Time. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said at col. 1841 of the Official Report:
"We are still working towards that commitment".
I stress the word "commitment". A commitment is not just a good intention; it is a promise and an undertaking. I am bound to ask the Government how they are working towards fulfilling their promise. That is the issue before us and it is worth raising it even at this rather late hour.
At the same Question Time the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, asked:
"is the Minister aware that originally the hospice movement asked for £23 million this year and received £8 million? She spoke of £11 million for next year. Is the Minister aware that to match giving pound for pound £30 million is now required?".
That is reported at col. 1842 of Hansard.
I should explain to anyone who is befuddled by those figures that the £8 million goes up to £11 million if one includes Scotland, where the Government are
548
already matching pound for pound. Therefore, whether one calls it £8 million for England and Wales or £11 million including Scotland the sum in no way approaches the government commitment.
We are all aware of the immense variety in the circumstances of the hospices and in the extent of their public funding. I pointed out last year that some hospices receive no public funds. One example is St. Luke's in Plymouth, where, as some noble Lords know, the medical director is Dr. Sheila Cassidy—and if they do not know they are impoverished. Anyone who wants to hear her preaching on prayer should go to Westminster Abbey in the near future. She is a remarkable woman. Now the hospice will receive a share—although it cannot be a very large share—of the £8 million which has been conferred by the Government. A year ago it received nothing and now it will receive a little.
It is difficult not to take an example if one wants to make a point, but any example in a sense cannot be typical because there are such variations. However, perhaps 1 may take an example from the area where I live, East Sussex. St. Michael's Hospice, Hastings, will spend £600,000 this year. Just under £100,000 will be received from the district health authority. As a result of the provision by the Government of new funds last year St. Michael's will receive more than £50,000 from that source. That is called the Bottomley money after Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, who is the Minister concerned.
As a result, a quarter of the hospice's funding will be provided from public money as compared with half of the funding, to which the Government are committed. I hope that they will not run away from that commitment and that the word "commitment" will not be elided into some phrase about an aim or an objective. I ask what is to be done in that one case about raising the public funding from one-quarter to one-half in accordance with the Government's commitment.
I have tried to pursue the matter locally. Naturally I approached the regional health authority. It says that it has no more money and that if more money were given to the hospices some other vital service would be deprived of the funds. I shall not accept that in detail. It may be possible to squeeze out more money by greater efficiency. However, without going into the question of whether that is 100 per cent. true, it is broadly true that if the Government's commitment is to be fulfilled it cannot be achieved by calling upon the local authorities, the district authorities or the regional authorities to find the money. The money must come from central government or the Government will be betraying their trust. That is the simple issue.
We should like to know whether the Minister agrees—be the proportion a quarter or perhaps a third over the country as a whole—that it should be raised to a half of the funding. I must ask the Minister whether she accepts the commitment for the central government to find the money. That is the simple issue before us tonight.
I shall touch on other topics in a moment but that is the issue in question and we must not run away from it. If the Government are committed to it they should go to the regional authorities and tell them that they should find the means. In fact they know perfectly well that they cannot do so. It is a very simple issue that faces us tonight.
There are one or two other issues which I might mention. In the Minister's statement of 13th July there is a reference to contracts. I shall not discuss that matter tonight. It fills me with disquiet and it has also filled with disquiet a good many people in the office world. There was a reference in the reply that the Minister gave to some system of contracts in the future. However, I shall leave that matter for tonight.
There is also the question, which will always arise in a matter of this kind, of how far this government money is to be distributed. How will it be worked out? Many questions could be raised on that issue. There are other points too. It could be asked whether any authorities will lose under the new arrangements about income support. There are issues of considerable importance. On the face of it, it may be that an authority obtains more money and then the hospice loses it through income support.
Those matters may be raised but I do not want to distract attention from the central issue. Are the Government ready tonight, through the Minister, upon whose word we rely absolutely, to stand firm by their commitment and how soon will it be honoured? If they give an evasive answer I shall view their reply with contempt. That is the last word that I would ever wish to apply to the noble Baroness and so I hope for good news when she comes to speak.
10.7 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk for allowing me to change places with him in the batting order so that I may the sooner relieve my noble colleague on the Woolsack from his responsibilities there.
I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this very timely and important debate on this crucial subject and for introducing it with his customary eloquence, charm, wit and sensitivity. I must declare an interest. I have the great privilege of being a member of the Council of Management of St. Christopher's Hospice. I therefore have in mind the particular concerns of that hospice. But they reflect the wider concerns of the whole hospice movement in this country at the present time. Therefore I trust that what I have to say will have relevance beyond the immediate experience of St. Christopher's.
At the outset I want to join the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in paying tribute to the hospice movement, the ideals on which it is founded and all who work in it. Those ideals have transformed the care of the dying and those who love them. In traditional hospital care the inevitable tendency has been to define those for whom no cure is available and who have entered
550
terminal illness as those for whom "there is nothing more to do" other than to try to control pain and provide as much tender loving care as possible.
But in the inevitable busyness and hurly-burly of a hospital ward, with the best will in the world it is often impossible to provide the most beneficial conditions for the care of the dying and their families. By contrast hospices have been able to specialise in the care of the terminally ill. In so doing they have developed great expertise in palliative care with the control of pain and other unpleasant symptoms. They have also developed a comprehensive service for the support of the families or other loved ones, helping them through the difficult days of seeing the person whom they love, dying and then continuing with the bereavement service, as in due course they have to come to terms with their grief and loss.
That approach to the care of the dying has revolutionised the experience of death itself for countless people. The realistic reassurance of pain and symptom control, combined with the embracing of the family in their distress, means that it is often possible to conceive of a good death, of death as a part of life, and to achieve a well ordered, peaceful farewell to life and loved ones.
The achievement of the ideals and practices of the hospice work entails high personal costs for those who work in the hospice movement either in the hospices themselves, or in outreach work in the community —caring for people dying in their own homes. The personal and emotional demands on staff are very great indeed. For example, St. Christopher's staff recently gave a presentation illustrating not only the experiences of what they described in their presentation as "A family in pain" with the loss of a loved one, but also of "A team in pain" with the pressures and sorrows of working continually with human suffering, grief and death.
Therefore I believe that it is very unfortunate that staff who may already be under great stress, perhaps at the limit of their endurance because of the nature of their work, should also be subjected to acute anxieties about the availability of funding necessary for them to continue to provide their unique ministry.
That brings me to the general question of resources and to the specific question which is the subject of the debate. The extra support that has been given by the Government for 1990 and 1991 of £8 million has been most welcome. However, that does not meet anything like the level of matched giving. Moreover, in some cases the existing district health authority support for voluntary hospices has been reduced in the expectation that that loss would be made up from that £8 million. In the original announcement made on 15th December last year in another place, when stating the Government's commitment to provide matched funding, my honourable friend indicated that it would create a closer partnership between the NHS and the hospice movement. She also stressed that the arrangement would provide a clear basis on which hospices could plan ahead. However, committing hard-pressed health authorities to provide 50 per cent. of hospice funding without giving them the means to

551
do so is not conducive to a closer partnership. Instead it has been in many places divisive and a cause of friction.
Moreover, health authorities are saying that they do not have the means to provide that matched funding and that they are not in a position to do so without more central funding. That means that although hospices were encouraged to plan their services on the basis of matched giving, they now find that they have no idea when that will be available and, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, indicated, many long awaited developments are seriously under threat.
Many hospices are also fearful of the negotiations which have to take place with health authorities over contracts. In the case of St. Christopher's Hospice, contracts will have to be made with nine different health authorities. That will generate a considerable burden of extra work with no guarantee of a reasonable financial outcome. Those responsible for hospice finances therefore consider that it is vital for matched funding to take effect before contracts are entered into and they are very fearful of the consequences if that is not achieved.
In the short debate following the Starred Question that I asked recently, the Minister assured your Lordships that the Government would stand by their commitment to match funding. That was indeed reassuring. However, "standing by" is not the same as fulfilling. While the Government are standing by, the hospice movement is suffering. Some hospices have closed beds. Developments are under threat. The staff too are suffering from the additional burden of financial stress on top of the stress inherent in their professional work.
That really is unacceptable. The hospice movement is highly cost-effective, operating with so much charitable support and voluntary contributions of all kinds. It is also highly care-effective, relieving NHS hospitals of some of the most demanding and difficult cases of palliative and terminal care with their distinctive and ultimately worthwhile ministry.
I wish to ask my noble friend two questions. First, will the Government now give a commitment to achieve matched funding within a clearly specified timescale, say by April 1992? That would enable those working in the hospice movement to plan realistically. They could think ahead and it would give them the much-needed encouragement to continue their valuable work. Secondly, will the Government provide health authorities with the specific additional funding necessary to fulfil the obligations to ensure matched funding so that the money is not lost or dissipated en route?
I conclude with a brief quotation from the book edited by Dame Cicely Saunders called St. Christopher's In Celebration, 21 Years at Britain's First Modern Hospice. She concludes her introduction with these words:
"We celebrate a place where 'the new life rising within us' has had an opportunity to grow".
It would be tragic if the Government's failure to honour their commitment to matched funding
552
resulted in the stifling of that new life which has been growing so magnificently in the hospice movement. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House, and more importantly all those who work with such dedication in the hospice movement, that the new life it embodies will be able to continue to grow.
10.16 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I too declare an interest. Some years ago my wife and I visited St. Joseph's Hospice in Hackney. It is the second oldest hospice in the country and was working in the 19th century. We were so impressed that we founded an appeal and my wife founded a movement called Help the Hospices of which she is chairman. It is of great importance at the present time.
It was in the name of Help the Hospices that my wife met Virginia Bottomley and talked about funding. In December 1989 it was agreed that they would work towards 50–50 funding, as is the case in Scotland. Incidentally, the other day I learnt that Northern Ireland receives two-thirds funding. I ask only for 50–50 funding as was promised by Virginia Bottomley during the meeting last December.
When announcing the extra £8 million funding for England Ministers stated that it would bring the level of NHS support to £20 million. In fact, during the past year only £6 million was allocated to voluntary hospices by regional and district health authorities. That allocation has been very uneven. Charitable funding to meet the running costs of voluntary hospices, excluding Scotland, amounts to more than £50 million a year. It would therefore be necessary for the Government, in allowing for 50–50 funding, to allocate more than £30 million now. That is very different from the £6 million that they have given. Even then health authorities would have to accept that the extra money should be allocated solely to cover the running costs of each voluntary hospice. We are talking only about the running costs. That point is every bit as crucial as the availability of the money required.
In my view, it is unreasonable to expect the Government to predict when the problem can be satisfactorily resolved. It is more realistic to ask how and by what process Ministers will ensure that their intentions and their policy will, through the regional and district health authorities, be fulfilled. Then we might know whether "working towards" means something other than a progressive allocation of more and more money. It should mean working towards a goal which regional health authorities, under some form of direction, earmarking or obligation are actually going to implement.
I believe that there is a second and even more important point that should be made. Health Ministers are presumably looking forward to the time when the provisions of the new health Act will apply —I see the noble Lord, Lord Carter, nodding in agreement—and when health services are provided through contracts with health authorities. Will the Government explain how they see this 50–50 funding applying, or even being worked towards, which is the

553
phrase being used, for the voluntary sector in, say, 1993? Can we look that far ahead? Can they explain how they are going to reach that 50–50, pound for pound, in 1993?
If no such system is planned I have to agree that the Government's intentions in this matter are hollow. The two speakers who spoke before me, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said the same. I have supported the Government and I do still in every way—let me say unequivocally that I support the present Prime Minister—but I say without wanting to needle the Government that we have been let down. Will the Minister please bear that in mind when she replies?
10.22 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, it would be impossible for me to overstress the urgency of the point that has been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The drain on the funds of those charities involved in the care of the sick and the dying is now running at a truly alarming rate. The charity of which I am a founder had to find over £1.5 million last year from central funds to help its homes. This year the sum is expected to rise to over £3 million, and the forecast is that next year it may be in the region of £4 million. That is over and above all the local fund-raising that the homes themselves are able to achieve and takes no account of capital expenditure, which all homes need to make from time to time.
These demands, if not reduced, could bring to a standstill the foundation's plans to expand its badly needed services and could seriously damage the services being provided. I would therefore wholeheartedly agree with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Bearing in mind the thousands of sick and handicapped with whom we have the privilege of working it seems most unfortunate that the foundation I represent, and also the Marie Curie Foundation and the hospices, are obliged to make such hugh efforts to raise funds themselves.
I could quote dozens of examples from the past 40 years among the sick and the dying and those whose families, if they have one, are so distressed because they cannot cope with nursing them, especially at night, if they are not admitted to a hospice, a Marie Curie or Sue Ryder home. For board and lodging we receive an allowance from the Department of Social Security of £260 per week for patients in receipt of, or eligible for, income support. Later, a long claim form has to be completed and signed by a patient when he is so ill and often is dying. Later still, when he has died, the form is normally posted to the next of kin, who may well not post it back to the Sue Ryder home. To be frank, that leaves my foundation the poorer.
If patients are in receipt of an attendance allowance of between £25 and £27 a week on admission, that is normally paid over to the Sue Ryder home. However, a claim made after the patient enters the home is often not allowed due to some contributions made annually by the health authorities. A great improvement could and would be made if board and lodging which dated
554
from the day of admission were payable to the Sue Ryder home. Treatment by DSS offices varies considerably throughout the country, and there is a perpetual struggle to obtain allowances. Meanwhile, the patient is dying, has died or is being discharged.
I appreciate that the government commitment to which the noble Lord referred relates only to hospice care. I shall therefore confine myself to the help received so far from government sources by my foundation's cancer care homes. For every £1 provided for them from charitable sources this year, we received only 45p from health authorities; that included our share of the £8 million. Were the Government's commitments to be honoured this year we could expect health authority grants, including a share of the £8 million, to increase from £775,000 to £1,245,000. That would not resolve the financial problems to which I referred, but it would go a long way towards helping them.
I urge the Government to take steps to ensure that the commitment that they clearly gave that funds which come from government sources will match those from charity sources is honoured without delay. If the present method of distributing the £8 million made available to 1990–91 cannot ensure that all of it reaches the voluntary organisations entitled to it, perhaps some other arrangements can please be made.
There are generous funds made by central government for many other charities. When I inquired and had the opportunity recently to meet the Minister, the right honourable Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, I was told that there were no funds for our charity. How can that be said when such blatant evidence is there for all to see? I refer to a long list in your Lordships' Library.
There has been little or no mention of the necessity of providing funds directly to the charity; that is, the hospice movement, the Marie Curie homes or the Sue Ryder homes, rather than sending funds to the health authorities which can then decide to whom they want the funds distributed. That is quite paradoxical as direct funding works well in Scotland. The Scottish Office gives one-quarter of running costs and health boards give another quarter, which equals 50 per cent.
I can give an illustration of one Sue Ryder home which receives £8,500 per year from two area health authorities towards the £700,000 which must be raised every year to cover the full nursing and caring costs. From 1st January to 30th June 115 patients in that particular home attended a daycare centre; staff made regular bereavement visits; 180 visits were made by domiciliary nurses, and 297 patients were cared for of whom 120 died in peace and without pain.
No other facilities are offered in an area with a population of over 800,000 except for 10 beds in a small hospice. So pressed are the local consultants and doctors who worked with us in the Sue Ryder Foundation that the cobalt unit in the local hospital —again paid for by local funds—has only 30 beds. It admits patients on Mondays for radio therapy. They are discharged on Friday and at the weekend patients

555
are admitted for chemotherapy. As I have already said, there is also a shortage of nurses in that radio therapy centre.
This foundation which I represent tries to absorb some of the patients who are discharged from National Health Service hospitals as well as people from society in general, but it is faced with a vast and appalling increase in VAT and a continuing increase in nurses' salaries. No one knows how the foundation will cope, year in year out, and it is not the practice of the foundation to turn away sick people. I ask the Minister and noble Lords how they think the foundation can cope, now and in the future.
We are always hearing that needy people depend upon the voluntary sector, but this is a blatant example of a situation where little or no help that we can absolutely count upon is given by the government for the very people the government suggest the voluntary sector should care for. This work does not come cheap, either in terms of money or human effort.
10.31 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for having once again raised the matter of hospices. We have both spoken on this subject on previous occasions. I think that what the noble Earl has said in the past, and perhaps something of what I have said in the past, has helped to bring about a situation in Northern Ireland with which he would be satisfied. I am not aware whether the noble Earl is familiar with the way things are at present, but we have had very good treatment compared with Great Britain. I believe that what the noble Earl, and other noble Lords, have said has contributed to that end.
In Northern Ireland direct rule comes in for a certain amount of flak from time to time, but credit where credit is due. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has taken a very personal interest in the Northern Ireland hospice and in the hospice movement. When a tight ship is run in the Northern Ireland Office and Ministers are personally interested in such matters, it is possible to get things done. I am extremely grateful for that. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his support of the hospice movement.
The only reservation we have in Northern Ireland is that with the way things are at the moment it is not possible to plan for more than two years ahead. However, with a hospice or a similar institution clearly one must plan more than two years ahead. While the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is in office I have complete confidence that Northern Ireland will continue to receive sympathetic treatment, but time, like an ever-rolling stream, bears all its sons away and on occasions, unfortunately, bears some of its daughters away, too. Therefore, we cannot be entirely confident as to the future. Nevertheless, I express gratitude to Her Majesty's Government, and particularly to the Minister, for the way in which he has supported the hospice. I hope that it is a
556
foundation which, having been laid, will result in continuing support in future. I thank the noble Lord for his assistance in this matter.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I must respond by saying that that is the first time anyone has said that I did any good in Northern Ireland.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I beg to differ with the noble Earl. I have paid tribute to him on many previous occasions.
10.35 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for bringing to your Lordships' notice the need for funding for hospices. At present we all know that many great changes are taking place in the running of the National Health Service. Recently I attended a seminar of regional, district and family health service authority members. Two members of the King's Fund centre had travelled to Yorkshire to be the main speakers at the seminar which was about the new National Health Service.
At question time at the seminar I asked about the future funding of hospices. It seemed to me that this very important subject had not been included in the brief. That is why I am pleased that the noble Earl has brought up this matter tonight. I look forward to hearing the Answer of the noble Baroness. I hope that she will be able to clear up some of the problems of uncertainty. A long time ago I served on a community health council before going on to serve with the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority. I now serve with the FHSA for North Yorkshire.
I know that hospice support is very patchy. The CHC received a letter from a young man who was dying of cancer and who was a patient in a general hospital ward at the local district hospital. He wrote a most heartrending account of why a general ward was not the best place in which to die. I have visited several hospices. What struck me most was the gratitude of the patients for being in a relaxed atmosphere with people around them who understood their condition, and for the fact that they were able to have their pain controlled.
The other great advantage is the home care support service which treats patients in their own homes but has the hospice as a base. It is wonderful thing and something that we fully appreciate; namely, that everyone who is terminally ill should be able to have the choice of hospice care if he so wishes. One of the hospices that I visited was in Sunderland. I think that I am right in saying that it was, and still is, most likely run entirely by the National Health Service. In that hospice there was some special equipment, such as low air loss beds, to prevent pressure sores. This equipment was of immense benefit to some of the patients.
The nursing staff understood and were trained in the use of these technical aids which can save much suffering. What worries me slightly about the noble Earl's Question concerning pound for pound funding is that some areas may not be as affluent as others —here I speak of the North East—and there might

557
have to be total funding. If a hospice which had been part of the National Health Service suddenly found that it had to find half of the running costs, it might not survive. That would be a serious matter for the community at large.
However, when the money starts to follow the patient, would that not also apply to a patient going into a hospice? Perhaps the Minister can answer these questions. There is no doubt that hospices need security, especially as fund-raising may become more difficult. My hope—which applies to any patient who is ill and who needs good medical care and treatment —is that the patient will get it without having to worry about the money. I hope that all terminally ill patients will have the opportunity to die with dignity if they possibly can.
The first hospice for AIDS patients will shortly be opening in Scotland. I am sure that this is not before time. I should like to ask the Minister what plans the Government have for prisoners who become ill with AIDS and need the correct care when they are dying. Today a Question was asked about a ward for AIDS patients at Hammersmith Hospital not being used for its originally planned purpose. There is also an extra ward at Westminster Hospital unable to open to AIDS patients because of lack of money.
What will happen in a few years' time when many more people will be dying due to infection from contaminated needles used for injecting drugs? I think it is important that there should be some forward planning, with the Home Office and the Department of Health working together and not hiding behind the prison wall saying that prisons have adequate facilities. To have seriously ill patients with AIDS in prison must be very bad for the morale of everyone involved.
The hospice movement has expanded over recent years to include care for children. I feel it should also expand so that all people, including prisoners, who need a hospice place to die with dignity will have it. As your Lordships will, I am sure, agree, it is much easier to raise money for children than it would be for prisoners. Therefore we should have some flexibility.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for giving us a chance to debate this important topic. It is a topic which he has brought to the attention of the House before and on which I know he will continue to harry the Government until he receives a satisfactory answer. Your Lordships will know that once my noble friend takes an interest in something he does not easily give up.
Other speakers in the debate have covered the ground most expertly and adequately, so I will not need to detain the House for very long. It is clear that a good deal of clarification is required concerning the amount of direct government funding for hospices, the amount which health authorities are supplying both in cash and in kind, and the shortfall in the
558
Government's own commitment to pound for pound funding. There is also concern about the reforms in the health service which are due to take effect next April.
To put it simply, how do the Government propose to operate an internal market in terminal care? Will standards of palliative care be written into NHS contracts; and if standards are written in, how will they be monitored? How is the purchase of provider relationships supposed to work for hospice care? How is it expected—this point has been made by other noble Lords—that pound for pound funding will work when the internal market is introduced? Will the funding for hospices be in effect ring fenced so that the funds cannot be raided for other purposes?
The point has also been made that the postponement of the introduction of community care plans until 1993 may have created a major problem for hospices as regards their funding from the Department of Social Security. I should like to know whether the DSS is interpreting the allocation of Department of Health funds to voluntary hospices as a reason for reducing or removing the allocation of the DSS funds for income support and board and lodging. A number of cases have been quoted where hospices are experiencing a net reduction in their total funding from the DSS and the Department of Health together. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on that point.
I hope that she will not mind if I say that her answer to the Starred Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on 31st October was somewhat less than clear on these matters, although I appreciate that her reply was constrained by the need to await the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. However, the Statement has now been made and therefore the noble Baroness can be much more forthcoming in her reply. We are confident that she will be.
There is no need for me to repeat the questions which have already been put to the Minister. She will be aware of the very real anxiety which now exists in the hospice movement. We all hope that she can allay those fears. It is right for us to press the Minister regarding resources, but it would be wrong to concentrate purely on money and not say something about the marvellous work carried out by the hospice movement. There is an American aphorism which says:
"The rest of your life begins today".
In a curious way that maxim seems to be particularly relevant to the work of the hospice movement. Those who work in it are much more concerned with living than with dying. The rest of the life of those for whom they care begins on the day that they come into care. Those of us who have cared for loved ones during their last days, or in some cases their last years, know that every day of that care is a blessing. Those who work in hospices express love for their neighbour in the most selfless terms.
I know that governments have to make harsh choices when allocating scarce resources, but I very

559
much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that they have been able to find the resources to fund the hospice movement properly.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and to all those who have spoken so warmly about the achievements and the worries of the hospice movement. I know that this is a topic of abiding interest and I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's attitude and intentions. I shall certainly convey the noble Earl's remarks to my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State for Health.
As has been said, we debated this question fully last year. Since that time, I have had the opportunity to add to my first-hand knowledge on the subject by visiting the Princess Alice Hospice in Surrey, the Mildmay Mission Hospital and the Hospice Care Trust in North Devon. Even after acquiring this increased first-hand knowledge, I find that it is easier to recognise what the hospice movement is than to describe it.
Hospice care is not about a disease or a building; it is first of all about people. It is a concept of care founded on high technical standards of pain and symptom control and —just as important—on social, emotional and spiritual support for patients and their families, so as to maximise quality of life right up to the end and through into bereavement. Hospice care is essentially a multidisciplinary approach but it is also more than that; it has helped to broaden the concept of teamwork, beyond harnessing the strengths of a range of professionals and voluntary helpers, into the active involvement of the patient himself and his family in the planning and provision of care. As has been said in this debate and in previous debates on the subject, one of the major benefits this concept has brought is a greater openness all round on the subject of death—a more positive emphasis on living fully with disease rather than on dying from it.
Among the important developments of the past 20 years is the relatively recent emergence of specialised training for doctors in palliative medicine. A network of training posts has been established in the National Health Service and in voluntary units which will have a significant impact on maintaining and raising standards as the doctors develop their careers. They can expect to work closely with the national networks that have already been established of Macmillan and Marie Curie nurses, who provide direct care in people's homes and in day centres or highly-valued advice and support to other carers. They may be based in one of the specialist in-patient units in the voluntary sector or in the National Health Service which have brought so much peace and comfort to dying people and their families and which often also fulfil a vital educational role in spreading their principles and practice beyond the physical confines of the hospice unit. They may become part of one of the symptom control teams giving expert back-up wherever it is needed in a hospital setting. They will also need to tap in to the experience of bereavement counsellors and
560
into the rich network of less formal voluntary, pastoral and self-help organisations whose roots strike deep into the community.
The pattern of services 20 years ago, or even 10, was nothing like it is today. It is doubtful whether the raising of standards and expectations on the scale that we have seen in that time could have been achieved without the unstinting efforts of a few pioneers in the voluntary hospice movement and of the public who supported them. We have every reason to be grateful to them today.
The Government for their part are deeply appreciative of what has been achieved. They recognise that the hospice movement has attracted widespread public support. Its hallmark is generosity in the time it gives to patients—time which would not always be available on a normal busy general ward. That means higher ratios of staff, notably nurses, to patients; and that means that hospice care does not come cheap, as we all recognise.
So our policy must, and does, amount to more than one of mere appreciation. We welcome the growing partnership between the NHS and the voluntary sector in this field, and we want to strengthen it. Our clear expectation—for England this was set out just over three years ago in a circular—is that the NHS should take the lead in planning and co-ordinating a comprehensive range of services for people with a terminal illness and their families, in collaboration wherever possible with voluntary organisations. We also expect that where such organisations provide services that form an essential part of its strategy the NHS will make a realistic contribution to the costs.
In 1988–89, the Government contributed £1.3 million towards the cost of pay awards for hospice nurses in England. They also distributed £400,000 via the charitable trust, Help the Hospices, to support voluntary projects in short-term financial difficulty. This year we have moved away from ad hoc interventions of that kind and fortified our commitment to the hospice movement in two ways. First the Government have earmarked substantial resources amounting to over £11 million for health authorities. I remind the noble Earl that health authorities receive all their money from central government, but that £11 million is earmarked additionally to encourage them to increase their contributions to the voluntary hospice movement where that is necessary.
The allocation for 1990–91, the current year, as has been said, comprises £8 million for England. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk mentioned the figure of £6 million. I hope that that was a slip of the tongue. There is £8 million for England, £2.5 million for Scotland and over £500,000 for Northern Ireland. Funding arrangements for Wales remain under consideration; I understand that an announcement is due soon.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I said that of the £8 million only £6 million reached the hospice movement because it was hijacked by the regions. I know that that is a small point, but the money is not getting through.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining what he meant. I shall ensure that his suggestion that part of the £8 million did not arrive where it should have done is investigated thoroughly.
That was the first of the Government's responses. Secondly, we have asked health authorities and boards in England and Northern Ireland to work towards a position in which their contribution to the cost of agreed services matches that raised from voluntary giving. This has been the tenor of most of the contributions to our debate this evening. It is already happening in Scotland where hospices have been eligible since 1st April this year for public funding of at least 50 per cent. of their running costs. As for future funding, for the time being authorities in England have been advised to plan on the assumption that funding will continue in 1991–92 at a similar level to that in 1990–91. In Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said, a further £200,000 will be set aside next year to support hospices. The Scottish scheme is being monitored and will run until at least 1992–93 when a review will be carried out.
The Government are monitoring both the expenditure of the additional sums I have mentioned and health authorities' overall plans in the field of palliative care. We will consider carefully the need for any further action in the light of the information we receive.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Baroness permit me to intervene? Did she say that the amount for England in 1991–92 would be the same as for 1990–91? That means £8 million.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that for the time being we are asking health authorities to plan on that assumption. I understand the wish of many noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lady Cox, to pin me down to a timetable for achieving matching funding, particularly in England. I believe it is worth emphasising that the steps we have already taken have gone a considerable way towards providing a firm basis for future planning and partnership, and to alleviating the financial uncertainty experienced by some voluntary projects, to which reference has been made.
There are wide variations in the distribution of hospices and in the level of support that health authorities have been able to give. Last year we started with a very wide range of between 0 and 80 per cent. contribution to running costs. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to an example. I think she said that in Sunderland a hospice was fully financially supported by the National Health Service. But whatever the average may turn out to be, it must also he remembered that it will not reflect the fact that a number of hospice units which started life as voluntary projects have since become fully integrated into the National Health Service. Exactly the same is true of hundreds of specialist posts within the hospital and community health services which were initially pump-primed from charitable funds.
562
The arrangements I have mentioned are by no means the only reflection of the attention that we pay to the hospice movement. The Government have also decided this year to support the total cost of the development by the Open University of an open learning package on the care of the dying and their families. This is specifically designed to disseminate the principles and good practice accumulated by the hospice movement to a wide audience of professionals and lay people.
Another of this year's changes, for which the hospice movement campaigned very effectively, is the Government's decision to modify the rules on attendance allowance to enable people with a terminal illness to receive this benefit earlier. As from last month, the people affected will be able to receive attendance allowance at the higher rate of £37·50 a week, increasing to £41·65 from next April, without first having to satisfy the normal six months' qualifying period. These provisions will help, we understand an estimated 58,000 people a year, at a cost of £20 million in 1990–91.
Another social security benefit of interest to the hospice movement is income support. The Government are certainly aware of hospices' concerns about their potential loss of income once income support for residents of nursing homes is abolished. Changes in income support arrangements will not now be implemented before 1993–94. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned that. In the meantime, the Government are gathering information on the extent to which hospices benefit from this source of income, and we will consider the position carefully in the light of that information.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, referred to difficulties and delays with current arrangements for income support. I should explain that income support is paid to individuals to help them to meet the costs of residential care, and not to the institutions which provide it. Residents of hospices which do not wish to raise charges for board and care are not eligible. Where a hospice has no contractual arrangements with a health authority and does wish to raise such charges, the individual may claim income support up to a maximum of £260 a week—£283 in Greater London—plus a personal expenses allowance of £10·55. I understand that managers of local social security offices are always pleased to discuss general procedural requirements with organisations which advise claimants. The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, suggested direct Department of Health funding for hospices. However, it would be wholly against the Government's determination to devolve responsibility for all aspects of local services to local districts to make an exception in respect of hospices.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether Department of Social Security funding was being withdrawn because of Department of Health funding. I can assure him that there has been no change in the eligibility for income support of claimants in independent hospices. If an adjudication officer is satisfied that a claimant is not to be regarded as a National Health Service patient, income support will

563
be the amount of the charge subject to the national limit and the personal allowance. However, if the noble Lord can provide details of specific instances where benefit is being withheld as a result of the allocations made by health departments, I shall be most happy to have them investigated.
The hospice movement has also represented that it finds the current arrangements for getting the drugs it needs to be insufficiently flexible. Proposals for a revised scheme have been the subject of wide consultation this year, and, subject to the resolution of some technical queries raised during the process of consultation, an announcement will be made in due course.
I was delighted to hear the appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, of the input of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale in Northern Ireland. I shall ensure that those remarks are brought to the attention of my noble friend. I was not so delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, refer to the Starred Question raised earlier today about the use of the special AIDS unit at Hammersmith Hospital as she omitted to mention my reply, which was that the unit is to be used for the purpose for which it was built; namely, the care of people suffering from AIDS. The noble Baroness also asked about prisoners. I understand that a Home Office inquiry is currently under way. I shall investigate that matter and write to the noble Baroness in due course.
In summary, I believe the Government have acknowledged both the achievements and the concerns of the hospice movement. However, that is not to say that there are not many challenges ahead. The movement has seen a very rapid and often haphazard growth over the past decade; in some cases projects have expanded faster than their ability to generate resources. That is why it is of crucial importance for services to be planned in partnership with the National Health Service. That goes some way to answer the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
564
When districts move into the new area of contracting the intention is that they will have to assess the needs of their districts' populations and enter into contracts to meet those needs. In the National Health Service as a whole that process starts, as we all now know, next April. Although it will not apply to hospices in all districts at that stage, there will inevitably be a move in that direction. If there are more hospice facilities in a particular area than are required as a result of assessment or need by the authorities concerned, I do not believe that those authorities can reasonably be expected to pay even 50 per cent. of the cost. It is therefore time for fundraisers to reflect on whether it is reasonable now, as it may once have been, to hurry into putting up a new building and then expect the health authority to commit itself to the long-term running costs. Everyone concerned to spread the concept of hospice care to all those who can benefit from it—and I reaffirm the commitment of myself and my colleagues in the Department of Health to that aim—must work together to ensure that the total envelope of service, in hospital, hospice and community, is coherent, comprehensive and genuinely matches local needs and priorities.
I believe and hope that I have responded to most of the specific points raised in the course of the debate. I must ask those who were anxious to hear a fixed timetable or a large and fixed figure at the end of it to consider carefully what the Government have done and are continuing to do in this important area of health care, in which so many people give so much of themselves.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I ask whether she will be surprised to know that all those who care for the hospice movement will feel that she has evaded the main issue raised tonight. They will feel profound disappointment and will continue to press her until they receive a much more satisfactory answer.
House adjourned at seven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 12TH NOVEMBER
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 12TH NOVEMBER
  CHILDREN: UN CONVENTION
  CHILDREN: UN CONVENTION
  BATHING WATER QUALITY: SURVEY
  BATHING WATER QUALITY: SURVEY
  STREET CLEANING: TENDERING
  STREET CLEANING: TENDERING