Sitting of 4 December 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    CITY OF EDINBURGH DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
      STRATHCLYDE REGIONAL COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
      Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Homelessness
    Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the number of people registered homeless in Liverpool.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): The information available to me, provided by Liverpool city council, is that it accepted 397 households as homeless in the second quarter of this year.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Is the Minister aware that since 1988 in the city of Liverpool there has been a 48 per cent. increase in the number of homeless families? We have had the smallest number of new home completions in the city since 1982–83. In addition, nationally in the first six months of 1991 there was a 53 per cent. increase in the number of mortgage repossession orders. In this year, the 25th anniversary of Shelter, does the Minister agree that the time is right for him to give effect to the Prime Minister's boast in his letter of support to Shelter that the Government would employ public expenditure where necessary? Or does he concur with the view of the Minister for Housing and Planning that the homeless are merely the people whom one steps over on the way out of the opera?
    Mr. Yeo: I share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman for homeless people in Liverpool. It is because I share it that I must draw attention to the scandalous mismanagement of the housing stock in Liverpool. There are 5,733 empty council houses, almost 2,000 of which have been empty for more than a year. There is £16 million of uncollected rent, more than a quarter of the total rent roll. Those resources in property and money could be put to good use to top up the £23 million housing improvement programme allocation this year, the £12·5 million of estate action money, the £71 million of Housing Corporation money and the £15 million for the
    244
    vacant dwellings initiative. Those are huge resources which taxpayers are making available to Liverpool. If the city council was doing its job, it would put those resources to good use on behalf of the tenants.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Minister aware that in addition to the 5,700 empty council-owned properties, there are a further 7,000 empty properties in the private sector, bringing to over 12,000 the number of empty properties in the city of Liverpool? Although I agree with the Minister that empty properties could be used to house homeless people, is not it the case that until capital receipts are released from the sale of council properties, councils will not have the resources to put properties back into use for people who need them?
    Mr. Yeo: I have already listed the extensive resources that are available to the council. In addition, the vacant dwellings initiative, which provides £15 million of public money, topped up by £17 million of private investment, is designed to bring privately owned empty properties back into use. There is even more good news on the horizon for Liverpool in the form of a housing action trust. Despite the unremitting hostility of the Opposition Front-Bench team, I am glad to say that the majority group on the present Liverpool city council, in contrast to its predecessor, is showing interest in a housing action trust and my Department is discussing the matter with it.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has so far received on his White Paper about reform of local government.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): A list of the respondents to the consultation paper, "The Structure of Local Government in England" and copies of the responses were placed in the Library of the House on 14 October. There were 1,893 responses.
    Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the draft guidance issued by his Department does not require local authorities to be of any particular size to deliver an effective and efficient service? Does he agree that, generally speaking, smaller authorities are closer to local people and better able to reflect their needs and aspirations? Therefore, will he do what he can to encourage a response from small authorities to adopt the new powers?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that in our draft guidance we have left considerable room for the discretion of the Local Government Commission. We are looking for authorities that can deliver efficient and effective services. Certainly there will be every opportunity for authorities of any potential size to put forward their views.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State accept that if local government is to be local, it is essential that we do not repeat the mistakes of the 1973–74 reorganisation and that any reorganisation must be acceptable to local people?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has obviously followed the Government's proposals, which are designed carefully to consult local people and to find out whether we can create local authorities that reflect a genuine sense of local community.
    Mr. Channon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his proposals are welcome, but that the sooner the uncertainty is removed the better? By what date does he believe that the reform of local government will be complete? Will he do his utmost to ensure that it is as quick as possible?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. We expect that the first of the new authorities will be in place by April 1994. We have not set a date for the completion of the exercise, but I shall bear what he said very much in mind.

    Local Authority Housing
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his funding of local authority new build.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): The building of new social housing is now mainly the responsibility of housing associations, with local authorities assuming an enabling role.
    Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency, because of Government policy, little house building has taken place? As a result, people can expect to be on the waiting list for about seven years whereas under the Labour Government it was about one year. Is not that a disgrace? Will the Minister confirm or deny that his Department is now threatening local authorities that plan new builds, by saying that it will take away discretionary housing grants?
    Sir George Young: I can deny that. No departmental official of mine has told a local authority not to build new. In one case—I think it was in Warwickshire—a local authority, on reflection, revised its bid and decided to develop its relationship with housing associations rather than commit its allocation to its own project.
    I notice that the housing investment programme allocations to the city of Durham rose from £1·8 million in 1988–89 to nearly £3 million in the current year. On top of that, £358,000 was allocated to housing associations. I urge the local authority in Durham to develop a relationship with housing associations so that it can make faster progress in meeting the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. David Nicholson: In answer to an earlier question the Under-Secretary of State mentioned the vast resources given to the city of Liverpool, and by definition to other inner city authorities, which have not used housing resources sensibly and have not proceeded far with the right to buy. Is my hon. Friend aware that many authorities in the south-west have not only used housing resources sensibly, but have sold about 25 per cent. or more of their stock? In making HIP allocations, will he take those matters into account as well as the efficiency with which those authorities use their stock and their willingness to co-operate with the private sector? That will be good for the building industry and for meeting housing need.
    Sir George Young: Local authorities that use their resources sensibly, develop an enabling role and co-operate with the private sector and housing associations will benefit from the new regime being introduced this year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State,
    246
    whereby HIP allocations take account of the use to which resources are put to give an added incentive to local authorities to improve their performance and the standard of service for their tenants.
    Mr. Soley: Is not the Minister dodging the question yet again? Only the other day on "Panorama" Conservative councillors in Worcester said that they could not build new council houses without losing money. Is not the truth of the matter that the way in which the Government have skewed the finances means that councils cannot provide that housing? How much more bad publicity do the Government have to get on the failure of their housing programme from the Duke of Edinburgh, Conservative councillors and their supporters around the country before they do what we are all asking them to do and undertake a planned release of the capital receipts? That is money from the sale of council houses and the Government should invest it again in housing.
    Sir George Young: Much of the bad publicity on housing accrues to Labour-controlled local authorities that have mismanaged their resources, let down their tenants, do not implement the right to buy, have been short-sighted about the role of the housing associations and have not developed the enabling role. The Government are making £8 billion of housing resources available next year and £24 billion over three years. We believe that that is a square deal for the housing movement.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is often precisely those authorities that complain most about not being able to use capital receipts which have used the most in the past few years? My local authority, sadly Labour-controlled, has been able to use £16 million of capital receipts in the past five years. Many of those authorities also have land available which they are able to use with housing associations to provide new build, but they would not have been able to do so had not this Government been in power.
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have talked with housing authorities throughout the country in the past few weeks and we have been interested to find out that many local authorities have land banks which they are not prepared to make available to housing associations. They are not adopting the broader role that we envisaged. I hope that any local authority that has land available will develop a dialogue quickly with the housing association movement, whose resources are increasing substantially, to see whether it can make faster progress than would otherwise be the case in meeting housing needs in its area.

    River Quality
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the condition of Britain's rivers following the 1990 river quality survey conducted by the National Rivers Authority.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I understand that the National Rivers Authority intends to publish the results from its 1990 river quality survey shortly.
    Mr. Williams: When the Minister reads that report, which has already been widely leaked, he will discover that 11 per cent. of Britain's rivers have improved in quality since 1985, but that 15 per cent. have deteriorated. From 1958 there was a steady improvement in the quality of Britain's rivers, but since 1980 there has been a net deterioration of 6 per cent. Is not that an appalling commentary on the Government's record of caring for the environment?
    Mr. Trippier: No, it is not. First, the hon. Gentleman has suggested that the report, which he says has been leaked, is accurate, but I suggest to him and to the House that it is not. That will be revealed by the time the report is published by the NRA. Secondly, the fact that 90 per cent. of river water in the United Kingdom is judged to be of a good or very high standard is something of which I am enormously proud. That contrasts with the rest of the European Community. where 75 per cent. of river water is judged to be of good quality. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that our record is the best in the European Community.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my hon. Friend aware that large sections of the River Darent, which runs through the constituency of Dartford—hence the name Dartford—have largely disappeared? Will my hon. Friend therefore give me an undertaking that he will visit Dartford early in the new year, or on Christmas day if need be, to see for himself the damage that has been done to our river and how much has been lost? My hon. Friend should bring with him members of the NRA so that they can provide best advice on how we can give our river back to the people of Dartford.
    Mr. Trippier: I am happy to give an undertaking to my hon. Friend that I would be only too delighted to visit his constituency, but I should be grateful if he would release me on Christmas day.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister realise that his attitude on river quality is incredibly complacent and that the condition of Britain's rivers is causing great concern to many people, from anglers and recreational users of rivers to the chief scientist of the NRA? Why has there been a downturn in river water quality under the Government which has reversed the trend since the mid-1950s? That downturn is all the more remarkable considering the damage that the Government have done by reducing British industry.
    Mr. Trippier: It is brass cheek for the hon. Lady to refer to the Government's record on river quality and water in general when one remembers that the Labour Government cut investment in water quality by 30 per cent. It would have taken a considerable amount of time for any Government taking over their shambolic performance to improve the quality of just about everything in the environment, as we have been doing. I remind the hon. Lady who set up the National Rivers Authority. She at least praises the National Rivers Authority on every conceivable occasion. We invented it and set it up—the Labour party did not.

    Poll Tax
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to abolish the poll tax 20 per cent. contribution rule for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I do not propose to make any change in the existing basis of liability or the benefit arrangements for the remaining period of the community charge.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister now accept that the 20 per cent. contribution is perhaps the cruellest feature of the poll tax fiasco, placing a significant burden on those with the lowest incomes, including many pensioners, in places such as Bradford? It costs local authorities more to collect than it raises in revenue. Is not the Minister deeply ashamed that he intends to carry on with that cruel and stupid tax instead of scrapping it, as he should have done a long time ago?
    Mr. Key: There is nothing cruel or stupid about providing a benefit system which more than compensates for the 20 per cent. that those people are asked to pay. As for it costing more to collect, the average 20 per cent. charge is about £50, whereas the average cost of collection is about £12.
    Mr. Janman: Was not extra money given to those on income support specifically to pay the 20 per cent. contribution? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are being amazingly generous with taxpayers' money from 1993 onwards, when although the minimum 20 per cent. contribution will have been abolished, those on income support will still receive that extra money, which they started to receive two years ago?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wonder what advice Opposition Members give to their constituents who are liable to pay that 20 per cent. when they discover that they are not paying more than the 20 per cent. that they receive from the rest of the taxpayers.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Under-Secretary of State read the Audit Commission's evidence about the cost of collecting the 20 per cent. contribution, the havoc that it is causing in terms of non-collection rates and the administrative difficulties that it is causing in magistrates courts? Does he agree that the announcement last Thursday by the Secretary of State for Social Security is nothing short of a scandal? It suggested that when the 20 per cent. is abolished the taper will be changed so that, instead of people over social security levels losing 15p in the £1, they will lose 20p, thereby penalising people who are struggling to lift themselves out of poverty, provide pensions for themselves and do what the Conservative party always preaches—stand on their own two feet. Is not it a scandal that, in so doing, their feet will be kicked out from under them?
    Mr. Key: Before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his announcement, Opposition Members accused us of creating a situation where there would be no taper, but a cut-off and said how cruel that would be. Now that there is a taper, they complain just as loudly. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

    249
    Social Security for providing a generous new benefit system for the council tax, from which there will be no clawback of the uprated benefit.

    Oxleas Wood
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he will be putting forward to protect the environment of Oxleas wood in south-east London.
    Mr. Yeo: English Nature is discussing with the London borough of Greenwich the adoption of a management plan for the wood.
    Mr. Townsend: As the wood is an 8,000-year-old oak wood only eight miles from the centre of London on a site of special scientific interest, could not the Department have done more to insist that the important new road going close to my constituency was cut-and-cover? Following the thought of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), may I invite the Minister to come there for a walk with his dog on Christmas day to envisage the damage that the new road will cause?
    Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation. I was brought up until the age of seven near Oxleas wood and I do not recall so much publicity about the value of that 8,000-year-old wood 40 years ago. A cut-and-cover tunnel would involve slicing a great swathe through the wood to construct the tunnel, quite apart from the £10 million that it would cost. In addition, such a tunnel would involve the closure of the south-facing slip roads at Shooters Hill and would increase traffic on local roads. English Nature is discussing the management plan and proposes the readoption of the practice of coppicing. It also proposes more exploitation of the wood for educational purposes. The local borough has proposed that the wood should be declared a local nature reserve.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Are not the Government missing an opportunity to be both good Europeans and good environmentalists at the same time? Would not it be easy to accede to the commissioner's request to change the three points in the regulation which the Commission says are defective and deal with Crown immune areas, reduce the latitude given to authorities and ensure that environmental assessments are recorded in writing so that we have proper regulations and proper environmental impact assessments? That would test whether Oxleas wood, Twyford down and other such places would survive if there were proper implementation of European law.
    Mr. Yeo: As I have made clear, the disagreement between the Government and the Commission does not involve the merits of the case, but the procedures. I do not think that many people are fully aware of that. The Government intend to comply with the Commission's directive and have an exceptionally good record of compliance with directives on environmental assessments. In this case, we followed the procedures in operation at the time. We are good Europeans. For the reasons that I gave in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), I believe that we are looking after the interests and future of the wood as thoroughly as any reasonable person could.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the change is that there is now a proposal to cut a road through the wood whereas 40 years ago there was not? Would not it be legally wise and politically sensible not to go ahead with the compulsory order to bring in bulldozers until difficulties with the European Commission and local people have been resolved? I can tell my hon. Friend that local people would not mind losing the south-facing slip roads.
    Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his offer to defend increasing traffic in his immediate neighbourhood. A cut-and-cover tunnel involves cutting, so considerable damage would be inflicted on the wood if that alternative were chosen. In addition, I do not believe that it would necessarily be the most cost-effective use of resources in terms of environmental output to spend such a substantial sum on that project.

    Council Tax
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what method he will use to value domestic properties for council tax purposes.
    Mr. Heseltine: The principles and assumptions to be used for valuations were set out in regulations laid on 2 September.
    Mr. Evans: How long does the Secretary of State expect that it will take to complete the valuations and how long will it take to deal with householders' objections to those valuations? Will not local authorities, which will still be wrestling with the poll tax in 1992, be in a state of total chaos in April 1993? Will those householders whose properties are valued through the use of aerial photographs be informed of that?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that responsibility for the detailed exercise of the valuation measurements is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that we believe that we are on schedule for the introduction of the council tax in April 1993.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has listened to hon. Members and representatives of people with disabilities who are worried that the additional room or larger property that they need to accommodate their disabilities might take them into a higher band and that he has decided that any such people should fall within one band lower than would otherwise be the case?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of our special announcements to ensure that special features of properties adapted for the disabled should be disregarded.

    Local Authority Services
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the efficiency of local authority professional and technical services.
    Mr. Key: The Government believe that competition is the best guarantee of efficiency. That is why we are consulting on our proposals for extending compulsory competitive tendering to professional and technical

    251
    services carried out by local authorities. These are set out in "Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services", published on 5 November.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of professional and technical officers in local authorities are providing a devoted, decent and efficient service for the benefit of local communities? Does he recognise that his proposals are a kick in the teeth for that devoted service and an invitation not to services that are democratically accountable to the local community, but to the spivs of the free enterprise service sector such as Mr. J. G. L. Poulson, the well-known Tory who demonstrated what sort of corruption can be applied to private enterprise competitive local authority services?
    Mr. Key: It is always a pleasure to reply to the beguiling and dulcet tones of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (M r. Cryer). I seem to recall that a gentleman called T. Dan Smith was also involved at that time and that he was not a Conservative.
    As I said in Chester to the Society of Chief Architects of Local Authorities, I greatly admire the work carried out by local authority professionals. It is precisely because the best is very good that we want to make it apply to everyone.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that in many authorities the work being carried out by professional and technical officers is of a high standard and very cost-effective? However, that is not universally the case. Do we not owe it to community charge payers in each of those areas to ensure that the best value is obtained for their money and that they get the most efficient service? The only way to do that is to make sure that they have the fresh air of competitive tendering.
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. I would add just one other factor. On performance standards, under our proposals in the Local Government Bill which is going through another place, the Audit Commission will issue directions whose effect will be to define yardsticks against which local authorities will report their performance. That is not a retrospective or prescriptive but a descriptive process and will allow the citizens of this country to measure the standards of service that they receive from their local authorities.
    Mr. Gould: Now that the extension of compulsory competitive tendering has been rejected by the professional bodies, by the whole of the local government world and, most recently, by their Lordships, why will the Minister not admit that the game is up, that the consultation paper will have to be withdrawn, and that the Government must abandon their dogma-driven obsession with privatisation in favour of our insistence that quality and value for money must be the sole criteria?
    Mr. Key: Like the hon. Gentleman, I read the Association of Metropolitan Authorities press release calling for withdrawal of the consultation paper. It is astonishing that the Opposition should ask us to legislate without consulting on this very important issue.

    Council Tax
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the proposed council tax.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): My Department received more than 800 representations in response to the consultation paper, "A New Tax for Local Government", most of which welcomed its principles.
    Mr. Greenway: What changes does my hon. Friend envisage in the assessment of local authority spending needs and in the distribution of Government grant under the council tax? Is he aware that the spending assessment for Ryedale district council, which is in my constituency, is some 20 per cent. lower than that for neighbouring Hambledon, part of which is also in my constituency, even though the two districts have similar characteristics? Does he agree that if the distribution of Government grant were seen to be fair, local residents would not only be able to assess the performance of local authorities but would begin to see that our new council tax is a far better deal than the uncosted return to the rates—or, even worse. the uncosted local income tax—proposed by the Opposition parties?
    Mr. Portillo: Our distribution is fair. The reason why Hambledon and Ryedale get different standard spending assessments is not that they are similar but that in some ways they are dissimilar. For example, Hambledon scores much higher on the sparsity valuation, and sparsity was one of the factors that we took into account and put into the process precisely because the Association of District Councils thought that it was a relevant factor. The association is right: it is more expensive to provide services in an area of sparsity than in an area which suffers less from that.
    Mr. Bellotti: Will the Minister confirm that he has received representations from Age Concern and others about the income of single pensioners being 60 per cent. of the average income of a retired couple? In the light of those representations will he reconsider the Government's attitude towards the 25 per cent. discount with a view to increasing it?
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that 25 per cent. is the right logical discount for single people. The tax is a 50 per cent. property tax and a 50 per cent. personal tax, so the full tax is payable if there are two or more people in the household, while half the tax is payable if the property is empty or is not a sole residence. Therefore, 75 per cent. of the tax is payable if a single person lives there.
    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that there should be a discount for single people—I am only sorry that the Labour party continues to insist that we should return to a rating system in which single people would have to pay through the nose, as they did before.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: In view of the forthcoming reform of the common agricultural policy, farmers are naturally concerned about downward pressure on incomes. Will my hon. Friend confirm that under the council tax farms will be identified as working farms and thus avoid an unnecessarily high banding?
    Mr. Portillo: Valuers will have to take account of what properties are really worth. If they are tied into a working farm, or if there are legal agreements that constrain the ways in which they can be used, clearly that will be a material factor in determining whether the properties have a market value and what it is. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that of course those are relevant considerations for valuers to take into account.
    Mr. Gould: In response to the statement by the Birmingham city treasurer that he would have to keep a register to administer the council tax, the Minister asserted that the keeping of such a register would be unlawful. Does he adhere to that assertion and, if so, what was the basis for it?
    Mr. Portillo: The basis is that there is no power in the Local Government Finance Bill now in Committee for councils to keep a register. Nor is there any power for them either to require details from people in order to keep a register or to require people to continue to notify them of changes in any register. Therefore, I believe that my comments were valid.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will my hon. Friend commend as compulsory reading part of our proceedings in Committee when for the first time hon. Members listened for two or two and a half hours to—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to talk about what is going on in Standing Committee.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: If people cared to read that record, they would know that for two and a half hours the Liberal Democrats proved beyond—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right to say that the local income tax is not an alternative to council tax which commends itself to Conservative Members—or even to most Opposition Members, and he is right to say that anybody interested in knowing why local income tax will not work could do no better than to read the report of our proceedings in Committee.

    Poll Tax
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people he estimates will be liable to pay the 20 per cent. contribution to the poll tax in Calderdale for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: The number of people liable to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge in Calderdale next year will depend on a number of factors, including the number of people on incomes at or below the income support level.
    Mrs. Mahon: My local authority informs me that the proportion of the population will be 12 per cent. In this season of goodwill, will the Minister promise to listen to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Audit Commission and every other organisation, including the charities, which say that the 20 per cent. tax is unfair, and that it is a bad tax which works against the poor, or is he content to support the Ebenezer Scrooge of the Department of the Environment? That miserable gentleman repented. May we have an assurance that the Minister will do the same?
    Mr. Key: I do not think that anyone has ever accused me of being Ebenezer Scrooge. I am informed that Calderdale tells us that about 11 per cent. of its payers are at the 20 per cent. community charge level—which means about 16,200 people this year, 600 of whom are students. I have explained to the House that we shall not change the benefit system or the 20 per cent. system until we introduce the council tax, but of course I will listen with care to any representations that are made, as I always do.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that because we have introduced up to 100 per cent. rebates on the new council tax, my constituents in Littleborough and Saddleworth, on the border of Calderdale, will gain quite significantly if they are on income support?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. Those people will benefit in a number of ways. When the next Conservative Government are re-elected, we shall have a growing and buoyant economy, and everyone will be better off.
    Mr. Nellist rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I know that Coventry is nowhere near Calderdale, but let us see what the hon. Gentleman can do.
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister still tell people in Calderdale that no one who cannot afford to pay the poll tax will go to prison for that inability? If so, what are they to make of the case last week of Maria Jones, a 22-year-old woman who was 31 weeks pregnant? She offered £5 per week out of her £42 per week benefit, but was sentenced to 60 days in prison by magistrates in Stroud. Will the people in Calderdale still believe him?
    Mr. Key: I do not know the details of the individual case; that is a question for the magistrates. My advice to the hon. Gentleman's constituents is not to listen to the advice of someone who does not pay the tax himself and who advises others not to pay.

    Planning and Compensation Act 1991
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement as to the progress he is making in implementation of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend has already brought some provisions of the Act into force and intends to bring all its provisions into force progressively within about one year of enactment.
    Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that directors of planning all over the country and hon. Members of all parties are concerned that the number of unauthorised developments has risen from 60,000 in 1988 to more than 90,000 in 1990? Will he assure the House that the new planning practice guidance that he is to issue will give planners teeth, and not just false teeth, to deal with the unauthorised developments being built all over the country? Planners must be given powers to stop that happening before such developments cover the countryside.
    Sir George Young: The particular provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 in the consideration of which my hon. Friend played such a distinguished part do not come into force until next month, so directors of planning will not yet have had the benefit of the

    255
    provisions. They come into effect next month and we shall issue planning policy guidance later this month. I hope that when planning directors have the new powers available to them they will be able to take faster and more effective action against unauthorised development.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister intend to bring the concept of sustainable development right into planning guidance as a primary role? Will he confirm that the primary role of the plan will take precedence over all other considerations? Will he beef up the public consultation procedures which his Department are currently casting aside like autumn leaves shrivelling on the ground, or do we have to wait for a Labour Government in the full flush of a green spring and summer to bring sense back into our planning system?
    Sir George Young: No, that delay will not be necessary. We had a long debate in Committee on sustainable development. There was a lot of sympathy for the concept, but we saw real difficulties about enshrining it in the planning machinery without far more information about how one would take the concept of sustainable development forward in district plans. We are moving towards a plan-led system in which, other things being equal, what is in the plan will happen.
    There is a balance between getting the plans up and running quickly and a protracted consultation procedure. We do not want to diminish the opportunities of local people to consult on the plans, and I do not believe that we have cut corners in the way that the hon. Gentleman implied.

    Business Rates
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of how much more businesses would have paid in rates during 1990–91 and 1991–92 if uniform business rate had not been in operation.
    Mr. Portillo: Taking account of actual levels of local government spending for the two years, we estimate that without the uniform business rate businesses would have paid £1 billion more in 1990–91 and £850 million more in 1991–92.
    Mr. Squire: Those figures are significant. Given that the Labour party has pledged to abolish the UBR, will not the consequence inevitably be higher business rates for many businesses, which Labour says it is concerned about, leading a number of those businesses to the very edge of bankruptcy and liquidation and increasing unemployment as a consequence?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. In so far as I can make out the policy of the Labour party, it is to give the business rate back to local authorities. We know what the experience has been over the years. Local authorities increased their spending much faster than inflation, which meant that business rates had increased faster than inflation. Under the uniform business rate, the rate in the pound that businesses pay stays in line with inflation and never rises faster than inflation. That is a major gain for business.
    Mr. James Lamond: While we are on the subject of the amount paid in business rates, can the Minister tell us whether shops whose rates have been assessed on the basis
    256
    of six-day or even five-and-a-half-day trading will have their rateable values reassessed on the basis of seven-day trading?
    Mr. Portillo: The next revaluation will be carried out in 1993. It will come into effect in 1995.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the need to keep the business rate down, has my hon. Friend had time to glance at a pamphlet entitled "The Citizens' Charter", written in 1921 by one Herbert Morrison, then secretary of the London Labour party, which states that the best way to improve local services is to increase competition? Does that not illustrate that no amount of tacky red plastic roses or glossy image-making can disguise the fact that, far from progressing, Labour policy is regressing?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It seems that only the modern Labour party is opposed to competition. I have not read that pamphlet. Perhaps during the next hour-long speech by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in Committee I will find an opportunity to do so.

    National Parks
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the work of the Edwards committee on national parks for England and Wales.
    Mr. Trippier: We welcome the general thrust of the report of the Edwards panel and the recommendations for the future of the national parks put to us by the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales. We have already announced our intention to establish independent authorities for the eight national parks currently run as county council committees. We are considering very carefully the other recommendations from the countryside agencies.
    Mr. McFall: Given that the Government have broken two of their manifesto pledges—the implementation of the Common Land Forum and increased protection for national parks—will the Minister give an assurance now that he will implement the recommendations of the Edwards committee in full? Given the comments of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, that national parks were the jewels in the crown, does the Minister not think it fair that that should apply to the entire United Kingdom, not least to my constituency which contains Loch Lomond which is facing ecological disaster as a result of the political intransigence of the blockheads in the Scottish Office in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Trippier: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks that I will agree with everything that the Edwards committee has recommended, but I can certainly assure him and the House that I will respond positively to the recommendations. On the precise matter that he raised regarding Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has set up working parties to advise on the need for early action on the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. My right hon. Friend has asked Scottish Natural Heritage to consider how to protect Scotland's special areas more effectively in the future.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend assure the House and my many constituents in the North Yorks moors national park that whatever new structure he puts in place to manage the parks, the planning policy guidance given to the park authorities will give the social and economic needs of the people who live in the parks a high priority in the considerations for planning permissions?
    Mr. Trippier: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

    Public Sector Housebuilding
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for housebuilding in the public sector; and what are the comparable figures for 1979.
    Mr. Yeo: The public sector, mainly local authorities, completed 9,000 dwellings in England in the year to September 1991 compared with 75,000 in 1979. Housing associations, which are in the private sector, are now the main providers of new social rented housing. They completed nearly 16,000 newly-built dwellings in the year to September 1991, and together with acquisition and renovation of houses for letting, building for shared ownership sale, and other activities, the total output of housing associations was almost 22,000 units in 1990–91, compared with only 16,000 in 1979. Under our public expenditure plans, housing association output is due to rise substantially to at least 40,000 by 1993–94.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it any wonder that every one of my hon. Friends is now inundated with more complaints about housing matters than at any time since we have been in the House? Is the Minister aware that eight times as many houses were built under the previous Labour Government than those doctored figures show for the last financial year? It is high time that we got rid of the Government who have characterised the 1980s with cardboard city and got a Government for the 1990s who will start using bricks and mortar again.
    Mr. Yeo: It is no surprise that hon. Members are inundated with complaints because the problem with housing policy in Britain is that, although it is made by the Government, it is delivered by the local authorities, far too many of which are Labour controlled. There are two real housing scandals in Britain today. The first is the appalling mismanagement and waste of resources. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Bolsover no less than 5·3 per cent. of rent remains uncollected. That puts it in the worst quarter of local authorities. More than 120 authorities do twice as well as that with uncollected rent less than half the level in Bolsover. The other scandal is the doctrinaire attitude of Labour-controlled councils such as Plymouth city council which, when Labour took control in May this year, halted for several months the previous Conservative policy of selling land to housing associations at concessionary prices, enabling rents to be kept down and output to be increased.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: With regard to complaints about housing, of which I have many from my constituents, will my hon. Friend confirm that if Labour-controlled Norwich city council were to adopt a more up-to-date approach to housing, co-operate properly with housing associations and take advantage of the
    258
    various initiatives that have come from the Department of the Environment, it would be better for housing in my constituency and better for my constituents?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently visited my hon. Friend's constituency and delivered a few home truths to the city council about its housing policy failures. If Norwich were to adopt a proper enabling role and take advantage of the huge opportunities that the Government have made available to local authorities for delivering increased housing output, particularly in co-operation with the private housing sector and the housing associations, the people of Norwich would be much better served.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is it not a fact that due to Government policy local authorities will be building no new houses next year and housing associations will achieve only what they achieved in the mid-1970s? Is it not also a fact that waiting lists for houses to rent are increasing and have more than trebled since the Conservatives took office? When shall we have the affordable rented houses that people need? The Government's housing policy is abysmal. When shall we have some policies to provide affordable homes for rent?
    Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening to my answer. Housing association output will soon be running at three times the level that it was in the 1970s. In addition, Britain's total housing stock has increased by 2 million units in the past 12 years—a far higher rate of increase than that of the population as a whole. But the fact remains that while local authorities demonstrate their continued inability to use the resources that are already at their disposal, when so many Labour-controlled authorities cannot even be bothered to collect the huge sums in uncollected rent, I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman should be concerned about the level of rents.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that in constituencies such as mine in the south-east there are problems in providing houses for those most in need and I welcome the additional figures that he has announced for housing associations? One of my boroughs, Elmbridge, tried it, but there were objections from Labour groups connected with housing and now my tenants are in a much worse position than they otherwise would have been.
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has made a most important point. Those authorities that transferred their stock, under the large-scale voluntary transfer policy, have received a substantial capital receipt, a quarter of which they are able to use. In addition, independent research shows that tenants in those areas where transfers to housing associations have taken place have been extremely satisfied with the service that they get and the improved repairs. Moreover, the rent guarantees that they were given have been honoured. I would also draw my hon. Friend's attention to our planning circular 7/91 in which we have encouraged local authorities to identify housing need in their areas and then, when private developers bring forward proposals for new housing, to negotiate with them an element of affordable housing in their developments.

    Sand Extraction, Druridge Bay
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will undertake an environmental assessment of the effect of sand extraction at Druridge bay, Northumberland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The extraction activities began at Druridge bay many years ago and my right hon. Friend does not have powers to initiate environmental assessments in such circumstances.
    Mr. Beith: How can it be acceptable for this beautiful beach to be shipped away in unlimited quantities under planning permissions granted by Ministers on appeal 30 years ago? That would never be acceptable today. Since it was central Government, not the local communities, who made the decision to allow that to happen, the Minister surely recognises that central Government must play some part in bringing this disgraceful practice to an end.
    Mr. Baldry: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that in the first instance it is for the mineral planning authority to decide whether to revoke the planning consent for extractions and whether such action is warranted.

    Eco-labelling
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received recently regarding an eco-labelling scheme for environmentally benign products; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: The Environment Committee published its report on eco-labelling in September and the Government responded in November.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Do the Government intend to implement an eco-labelling scheme? Can the Minister say whether the Government will agree to a Europewide eco-labelling scheme, to try to eliminate some of the misleading claims that are made on behalf of some products, which prejudice products that are environmentally safe? For example, glass products are completely recyclable. Will the Minister ensure that a life cycle analysis is built into the scheme to ensure that a product is judged from the time it is produced until it is recycled or destroyed?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A number of misleading claims are made by companies suggesting that their products are environmentally friendly when clearly they are not. In many cases, that can be a rip-off for the consumer. We should prefer to go along with the European Communitywide scheme so that British industry is not put at a disadvantage. I hope that the Environment Council of Ministers that I shall attend next week in Brussels will decide on a directive.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer lies in early amendment of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 so that the misleading claims to which he has referred can be squashed?
    Mr. Trippier: Such an amendment might well be needed, but it is more important that we get the European eco-labelling scheme up and running. I am anxious that we should play an active part not only in setting it up but in ensuring that it is in operation in the United Kingdom by the end of 1992.
    Mr. Turner: Does the Minister recognise that the people of Wolverhampton do not regard the Secretary of State for the Environment as environmentally benign, certainly over the problems that they face with the new standard spending assessment announced in the past few days—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a bit wide of the question.
    Mr. Turner: It affects the people of Wolverhampton.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, I know, but the hon. Gentleman must keep to the question.
    Mr. Turner: How can the Secretary of State for the Environment be environmentally benign when he is introducing the Heseltax, as it is known in Wolverhampton, and disastrous standard spending assessment being inflicted on Wolverhampton?
    Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend is not environmentally benign but environmentally friendly. His friendliness is made clear in Wolverhampton's settlement. Although the hon. Gentleman may be concerned about it, I prefer the view of his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), who is extremely pleased with my right hon. Friend's settlement.

    Local Government (Competitive Tendering)
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the savings to local authorities from competitive tendering.
    Mr. Key: Research into compulsory competitive tendering under the Local Government Act 1988 has shown average savings of 6 per cent. in the annual value of contracts for all services subject to competition. Average savings of between 10 and 15 per cent. of annual value have been achieved on services such as refuse collection and building cleaning. Standards of services have generally been maintained or improved.
    Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but does he share my concern that certain Labour authorities, such as the city of Birmingham, carry out the letter but not necessarily the spirit of the law on competitive tendering? What proposals has he to ensure that local authorities, particularly Labour councils, achieve the full benefits of competitive tendering for poll tax payers?
    Mr. Key: We are introducing our proposals in the other place. Contrary to some of the comments of Opposition Members, the Opposition amendment made in the other place this week makes no difference to our determination to encourage compulsory competitive tendering in the interests of the taxpayer.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on public expenditure in Scotland.
In his autumn statement on 6 November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his public expenditure plans. I should now like to tell the House how I have decided to allocate the £12·4 billion available for Scotland among the various spending programmes. As usual, a table summarising my decisions is available in the Vote Office and will be published in the Official Report. Full details will be included in my departmental report, which will be published in February.
Overall net spending plans for the Scottish Office and associated Departments total £12·4 billion in 1992–93. In addition, there is £0·1 billion for the Forestry Commission. Those are significant sums. Of that, £7·2 billion will be spent directly by my departments or as capital expenditure by local authorities. That provision is 9·2 per cent. higher than was planned for 1991–92, and the increase is twice as high as inflation. The remainder comprises grants to local authorities totalling £5·2 billion in 1992–93 and the external financing limits of the nationalised industries.
Earlier this year, I announced that local authorities would receive aggregate external finance of £5·13 billion. After allowing for the community charge grant, which is now part of aggregate external finance, that is almost £300 million more than this year—an increase of 6·1 per cent. In the light of our success in containing inflation, it is a very fair settlement. It is £50 million more than the formula consequences of the England settlement, with the result that I have that much less available for other programmes.
My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for industry and local government announced last week a further reduction of £60 million in business rates next year. That is £14 million more than previously planned, reflecting the importance that I attach to this policy. Again, that reduction will make a call on the resources that I have available to increase our programmes.
I shall announce shortly details of rate poundages and the level of industrial derating for next year, but this reduction will ensure a cash decrease in the average poundage in Scotland, compared with an increase of 4·1 per cent. in the national non-domestic rate for England and Wales.
I have increased resources for local authority non-housing capital expenditure to £620 million next year —an increase of more than 18 per cent. on this year's planned figure. Total resources available to Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies will be £531 million in 1992–93, compared with this year's planned total of £489 million. That is an increase of 8·6 per cent.
Of that total, the Scottish Enterprise network will be able to spend £453 million and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise network £78 million. These figures include £21·4 million for the employment action programme, which will be operated by the local enterprise companies in Scotland.
The total includes additional resources for Scottish Enterprise of up to £25 million to help deal with the industrial problems of Lanarkshire. I intend that Lanarkshire Development Agency should continue to
262
receive special additional funding in subsequent years. I am also providing additional funding to Highlands and Islands Enterprise specifically to tackle the effects of the winding down of the Holy Loch naval base. This level of provision represents a very substantial commitment of resources to the enterprise bodies and it should be sufficient to enable them to carry through the wide range of tasks expected of them and to build on their excellent first year of operation.
I have been able to give particular priority to spending on the health programme. Next year the programme will amount in gross terms to more than £3·7 billion. This is more than 10 per cent. higher than the plans for the current year and will provide for further expansion in health services. It will also mean that gross expenditure on the national health service in Scotland in 1992–93 will be as much as 44 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979–80. Within the total health figures, recurrent expenditure on hospital and community health services in 1992–93 is planned to increase by £230 million over this year. When planned savings from increased efficiency are taken into account, the year-on-year increase in resources will be 11 per cent. Further increases in health expenditure, to over £4 billion, are planned by 1994–95.
The resources devoted to my law and order programme will be substantially increased. Provision will rise to £406 million in 1992–93, an increase of 17 per cent. over planned expenditure in the current financial year. This increase underlines my commitment to improvements across the whole range of law and order programmes, consistent with the undertakings outlined in the recently published "Justice Charter for Scotland".
I have also been able to make significant extra resources available to safeguard the environment, on which expenditure is planned to increase by more than 27 per cent. next year compared with this year's plans. I intend to launch Scottish Natural Heritage, which will combine and enhance the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland, with a starting budget of £34·6 million, an increase of more than 28 per cent. over the combined budgets of its predecessor bodies this year. I also secured a special addition to the block to help fund improved water quality and sewage treatment standards. Planned provision in 1992–93 will be £221 million, 33 per cent. higher than that for the current year.
I have substantially increased the roads and transport programme by nearly £40 million or 10 per cent. next year compared to this and made further increases which will bring the programme to over £450 million in 1994–95. Our investment level next year will be 50 per cent. greater than it was four years ago. I have been able to boost the Scottish roads programme at both the national and local level. This will be welcomed by all those who are concerned to see an improvement in Scotland's infrastructure. It enables continued good progress on the A74 and further improvements to the M8 and other trunk roads and local roads.
My plans for 1992–93 provide for an overall increase in my education programme of some 15 per cent. over that for 1991–92. I announced in the House on 26 November my plans for recurrent and capital expenditure on grant-aided colleges. These measures will allow for almost one in three of all young Scots to enter universities and colleges next year. My plans also allow for an additional

263
£30 million to be spent over the next three years on improving our school buildings, an increase of 17 per cent. over previous plans for these years.
On housing, I have increased Scottish Homes' grant in aid next year by £27 million compared with 1991–92 planned expenditure—excluding repayments to the national loans fund—more than double the rate of inflation. I have also made available to local authorities resources to enable the level of expenditure per council house to be maintained and to enable further measures to be taken to tackle the problems of homelessness and dampness in council housing. Local authorities will also be able to sustain their expenditure on improvement grants this year in real terms.
The provisions I have announced today will allow us to continue the progress we have made in our important public services. Public spending has to be at the level the taxpayer can afford, but through our prudent management, we are able to increase spending for 1992–93 by more than the rate of inflation, allowing significant improvements in health, education, law and order, transport and the environment, amongst others. I look to those responsible, including local authorities, to use these resources wisely and to improve the value for money in the services they buy. I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. Donald Dewar: When the Secretary of State made the equivalent announcement a year ago, I congratulated him on his promotion to the Cabinet. I remember welcoming in particular his pledge to "dialogue and accord" in Scotland. A year on, I cannot repeat that courtesy. Dialogue and accord have been translated into government by diktat. Dialogue with the Scottish Office is dialogue with the deaf, as yesterday's statement on the health service underlined.
Planned public expenditure for the next financial year is up by 7 per cent. in cash terms over this year's estimated outturn. In real terms, that represents an increase of 2·4 per cent. Does the Secretary of State accept that the real-terms increase across the United Kingdom on the same basis in the next year is 3·5 per cent., which is a considerably higher figure? Is that not the real measure of the Secretary of State's influence in the Cabinet?
There is apparently some good news. [Laughter.] always give clue credit. The Scottish Natural Heritage figure is up over the grant in aid for 1991–92 for the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Scottish Countryside Commission by 21 per cent. in real terms. However, as the Secretary of State will understand, there are substantial start-up costs, and conservation interests will be disappointed because of the enhanced responsibilities that they are taking on board and the increased staffing to which they are committed.
Will the Secretary of State specifically consider protecting the new body's budget against the extraordinary awards made recently to landowners for not planting trees on sites of special scientific interest? That has reached the proportions of a scandal and those non-trees give a new meaning to the term "invisible assets".
Does the Secretary of State accept that, if the special measures designed to help Lanarkshire and the Cowal peninsula are discounted, there is in real terms a cut of £7·6 million—or 1·6 per cent.—in the budgets of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It is little
264
wonder that Crawford Beveridge, the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, when searching his heart for charity, described his network's provision for next year as
"broadly the same level of resources as this year."
It is at best a standstill and does not measure up to the problems of dereliction and rising unemployment.
With regard to the industry budget as a whole, there is a cash cut of £16 million in real terms between the net planned outturn and planned spending for the coming year. In real terms, that is a cut of £40 million, or 7·2 per cent. A further cut is planned for 1993–94.
The Secretary of State surely cannot justify a cut in the industry budget when, in the past year, unemployment has risen by almost 30,000. This is bad news for the Scottish economy. Does the Secretary of State agree that the individual totals announced today do not in all cases stand up to comparison with real-terms increases south of the border?
The Secretary of State made a particular point about the health service budget. Looking at the figures, I understand that the increase in real terms in England is 4·8 per cent. between the net outturn and planned expenditure. In Scotland, it is only 4·2 per cent. From what the Secretary of State has implied about the performance of opting-out hospitals, I take it that there is likely to be a weighting in their favour. If that is true, those figures bring little consolation to the national health service as a whole.
Yet again, housing is the main sacrificial victim. The cut in cash terms is £65 million on the same basis of comparison that I have used throughout my comments. In real terms, it is £93·1 million, or 13 per cent. Even allowing for the technical adjustment for repayments to the national loans fund that is mentioned in the footnote, that is a depressing story.
The Secretary of State rather coyly referred to the increase in Scottish Homes' total funding, but not to the overall position. I am not surprised by that. Does not the right hon. Gentleman have any appreciation of the problems of dampness, the reduction in choice and the spiralling and ever-increasing tragedy of homelessness? A total of 34,521 families and single people have applied to the local authorities under the homelessness legislation in 1990–91. There is no hope for them in today's announcement. The only good news and the only real cheer that I can take from today's events is that this is the last occasion on which such an announcement will be made by this Secretary of State or by a Conservative Government.
Mr. Lang: We have just heard the usual mixture of muddle, confusion and gloom to which we have become accustomed from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who tries every year to prove that more equals less. Year after year, he tries to compare like with unlike. He should be comparing planned expenditure last year with planned expenditure this year. If we look back at what was spent in 1978–79 under the last Labour Government, we find that it was £3·7 billion, but we are now talking about a budget for next year of approaching £.12·5 billion, which is a real increase of 19 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of specific questions. The Scottish Natural Heritage budget is being increased by 28 per cent. over the combined budgets of its two component parts. By anybody's standards, and even

265
by the rather disorganised measurements applied by the hon. Gentleman, that is a substantial increase. It includes provision for any obligations that may arise as a result of the management agreements relating to the sites of special scientific interest.
The hon. Member for Garscadden then considered the Scottish Enterprise and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise budgets and, because that was good news, he immediately tried to take the Lanarkshire component out of it. However, to a large extent, the Lanarkshire component is part of that budget, and it would be wrong to take it out. Our proposals for Scottish Enterprise and for Highlands and Islands Enterprise for the next year amount to an increase of £37 million, or 8·8 per cent., above the planned expenditure for a year ago. That is a substantial increase by any criteria. That figure contains substantial provision for the needs of Lanarkshire.
On the industry budget, regional selective assistance, which is led by demand on the part of applicants for assistance, is expected to be down next year, which is only to be expected in the present economic circumstances. However, the budget will increase from £619 million in 1991–92 to £636 million in 1992–93.
The hon. Gentleman made comparisons with south of the border to try to imply that we have somehow done less well in Scotland. However, the fact is that the bulk of the budgetary figures flow from the formula consequentials arising from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As I said at the outset, spending plans in Scotland are 8·1 per cent. higher than a year ago. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that spending per head in Scotland will be 22 per cent. higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to housing, which he regarded as a depressing story. If he wants a depressing story, he should look back to the housing expenditure of the last Labour Government. In 1974–75, the last Labour Government spent £1,425 million in real terms at 1991–92 prices; by 1978–79, that had fallen to £918 million.That means that there was a cut of 35 per cent. in real terms under the last Labour Government, whereas in the past 12 years there has been an increase of more than 19 per cent. in the housing budget.
In addition, we are making provision for an increase of 10 per cent. for Scottish Homes next year to provide more money to cope with dampness and homelessness. We shall be spending more than £1 billion gross on the housing budget. The figures that I have announced today represent very good news for the people of Scotland.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Yesterday, I was able to call all the Scottish Members because there was little pressure on the subsequent debate. That is not the case today. As there is a great deal of pressure on our subsequent debate, I shall allow questions on the statement to continue for half an hour, until 4·20 pm, but we must then move on. I ask hon. Members to ask brief, not multiple, questions, please.
Sir Hector Monro: Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, who made a typically miserable response, the people of Scotland will realise that this is an excellent statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the emphasis that he has given to housing, bearing in mind
266
the homeless problem, and to Scottish Enterprise, will be valuable in terms of employment? The additional money that he has given to health and school building and repairs will also be welcomed by the people of Scotland. I wish my right hon. Friend's plan every success.
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, the reason why we are able to increase those programmes is the efficient way in which the economy has been run. We have reduced inflation and enabled the economy to grow and yield the necessary revenues in taxation, even at the lower level of taxation imposed by the Government. Thus we are able to devote increased resources to various deserving programmes.
Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute): It is a matter of regret, indeed something of a disgrace, that the spending plans have been announced today in the House when there is still no Scottish Select Committee to scrutinise what the Scottish Office is doing.
Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East): And no Scottish Parliament.
Mrs. Michie: Indeed, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) says, the spending plans should be announced in a Scottish Parliament.
May I ask the Secretary of State specifically about the extra resources to compensate for the running down of Holy Loch? I welcome the money that he announced the other day. Could he use his influence with the Secretary of State for Defence to persuade him to hand over the Ministry of Defence buildings so that the money that the Scottish Office has allocated is not used to pay for them? That would be a great help.
I am disappointed—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mrs. Michie: I am disappointed that the statement does not contain a commitment to get rid of the poll tax in Scotland a year earlier, because it was inflicted on Scotland a year before everyone else.
One other point, Mr. Speaker. I am also disappointed at the amount that has been given to Scottish Homes for housing. Perhaps the Secretary of State is not aware of the severe problems, particularly in rural areas and in Rothesay in my constituency.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady suggested that a Scottish Select Committee could scrutinise the figures. During all the years that the Scottish Select Committee existed, I do not recall it undertaking that task. However, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for welcoming the announcement that we have made of increased resources for Holy Loch, following the withdrawal of the American navy. It has not been possible for the American navy to leave behind the assets that it had developed there, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will certainly take note of the point that the hon. Lady raised about Ministry of Defence assets in the area.
On the community charge, the funding for local authorities has been increased by 6.1 per cent. for next year —well above the rate of inflation. That should enable local authorities to maintain sensible spending programmes without any need for a real increase in community charge levels.

267
The hon. Lady may not have heard what I said about Scottish Homes. I announced an increase of grant in aid of 10 per cent., roughly two and a half times the present rate of inflation. That will be valuable to that body.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. Friend know that I gave up the opportunity of becoming a solicitor like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) because accountants put the losses on the right and the profits on the left? The hon. Gentleman appears not to understand the vast opportunities that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced today and the profits that Scotland is getting. Those of us who are citizens of the United Kingdom who live north of the border have benefited from my right hon. Friend's sagacity and influence in the Cabinet and are vastly privileged by the statement that he has made today.
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Soliciting's loss was clearly advocacy's gain. He was absolutely right to welcome the substantial increases that I have announced today for a range of programmes. My hon. and learned Friend will be glad to welcome the 16·7 per cent. increase for the law and order programme. There has also been a 10·1 per cent. increase in the health programme, a 15 per cent. increase in the education and sport programme, an 18 per cent. increase in the environmental services programme, a 20 per cent. increase in the agriculture programme and an 18 per cent. increase in the local authority capital non-housing programme. Those are examples of some worthwhile increases in the spending programmes in Scotland.
Mr. William McKelvey: How much has Strathclyde regional council asked for to improve the roads programme, how much has the Secretary of State given, and how much has been earmarked or ring-fenced for the extension to the A77 to meet the M8?
Mr. Lang: We have made provision within Strathclyde's budget for funds to enable it to undertake development of the A77 How those resources are apportioned is a matter for the council. Within the increased roads programme that I announced today—a road programme which will have increased by 50 per cent. in a four-year period—I have also included provisions to enable work on the A77 Ayr road route to start within the planning programme period.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the 200 people who will be sleeping out in Glasgow on Friday night to highlight the plight of the homeless? Does he realise that, on every working day last year, 84 Scottish young children became homeless? Would he mind spelling out precisely what he is going to do to help the homeless? He failed to do so in his brief statement from the Dispatch Box. We would all like to hear about a far larger programme than any he has managed to announce since the Government came to office; otherwise, they stand convicted of hypocrisy and bad faith.
Mr. Lang: We made special provision for the homelessness problem last year, and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing will be making a further announcement in the next day or two about the
268
homeless figures for which we are making additional provision in the current year. One has to acknowledge that homelessness is not merely a housing problem but is also a social problem, which requires not merely money but an approach to discourage and prevent young people from becoming homeless.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider a proposition that would increase public spending in Scotland without costing the Government anything? We are a signatory to an EC agreement which Germany, France and Spain have honoured—the grants given by the EC to areas of industrial dereliction, especially mining areas like Midlothian, which would qualify for such grants. There is £100 million available for grants in mining areas. Why does he not convince the Cabinet to be good Europeans and to obey the rules like France, Germany and Spain? Then that money could be made available to areas in Scotland where coal mining has contracted, such as Midlothian.
Mr. Lang: The Government have an unrivalled record of achievement in securing grants for Scotland under the various European Community schemes. If anyone needs to be convinced about the need to release the money for grants, it is the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend, Commissioner Milian, who is now attacking the additionality rules that he defended when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He should face up to the need to release those much-needed funds for Scotland.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Is the Secretary of State aware that, by the admission of his hon. Friend the Minister responsible for Scottish industry, the Paisley postcode area lost 76 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs between 1979 and 1989? Is he also aware that further job losses are in prospect at Coats' in Paisley? In that situation, why is he not taking the chance to make an announcement on a special economic initiative for Renfrewshire? As part of that, the European social fund could have been used to give twice as much money to the area, because that is what Commissioner Millan wants to do, using the additionality provisions.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member will know that Renfrewshire is within Strathclyde and therefore within the Strathclyde integrated development operation, which is the largest single area for assistance identified by the European Community. For a number of years, the Government have secured substantial funds for the area. He will also be aware of the fact that the Inverclyde enterprise zone is within Renfrewshire, and will be aware of the existence and extreme competence of the Renfrewshire enterprise company. All those bodies are able and available to help meet Renfrewshire's problems, using the resources of central Government, which will be substantially increased as a result of my announcement.
Mrs. Irene Adams: The Secretary of State said in his statement that he would maintain the level of spending on council houses and would make extra funds available to combat homelessness and dampness. Is he aware that, in Renfrew district, the council estimates that, during the next five years, it will need £300 million to bring houses up to a tolerable level? Will he put a figure on the amount that he intends to make available to deal with homelessness and dampness?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for housing will make an announcement about that figure shortly. It will be in addition to the £9·5 million that we made available to deal with homelessness and dampness last year. That figure will be part of a programme through which we will spend more than £1 billion on housing next year. We might have been able to put more into housing this year, but we had to put £50 million out of the block into local authority spending. Had I not had to do that, to meet the high spending levels of local authorities, that £50 million could have been available for housing.
Mr. Alex Salmond: When will the Secretary of State wake up to the realities of public finance in the United Kingdom? Is it not the case that his departmental budget is increasing less quickly than that of any other major spending Department? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Department of Transport, whose budget has increased three times the rate of that of the Scottish Office, can find £1·5 billion for additional railway improvements in the south of England, but cannot find £80 million to electrify the Edinburgh-Aberdeen railway line? When will public finance in the United Kingdom stop being a ramp for the subsidy junkies of the south of England?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he seeks to characterise the Scottish budget for next year as somehow lower than the spending increases for other Departments. The increase for the Scottish Office will be 8·1 per cent. higher than the current year, and spending in Scotland will be 22 per cent. higher per head than that in England. If the hon. Gentleman wants a level playing field between Scotland and England, he will have to face up to a substantial drop in spending by central Government in Scotland.
Mr. John Home Robertson: If that sentiment was intended to sound like the deathbed conversion of Scrooge, I am not sure that it was entirely convincing.
The Secretary of State mentioned roads, but he did not refer to the A1. The right hon. Gentleman now has figures available that reveal that the A1 in East Lothian is carrying as much traffic as the A74, so when can he make an announcement about the timetable for dualling the A1?
Mr. Lang: We shall be making an announcement on more of the detail of our roads programme in due course. In the meantime, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the £38 million increase in the roads programme next year—an increase of 10 per cent. Within that programme, it should be possible to make allowances for work at Tranent and on the dualling to Haddington on the Al.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Why did the Secretary of State keep using the qualifying phrase:
"I have … less for other programmes"
in his budget? What is he trying to hide?
On the distribution of moneys, can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that resources for the health service will not be skewed towards the new NHS trusts as a bribe and a reward to those who took the bids?
Mr. Lang: Leaving aside the phrase that the hon. Gentleman attributed to me in the early part of his question, I can reassure him that the budget for the health
270
service will be £3·7 billion, an increase of £342 million, or 10·1 per cent. Earlier this year, his hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) called for a £500 million increase in the health budget. Since then, we have increased it by £225 million and have now raised it by a further £342 million. We are already spending, or propose to spend, more than the Opposition have called for. Those resources are equivalent to a 44 per cent. increase in real terms since 1979; that is why we are able to deliver such improved health care in Scotland.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Secretary of State mentioned school buildings. Is he aware that Western Isles is contemplating the closure of as many as five secondary schools next year because of the revenue shortfall faced by the council? The right hon. Gentleman properly mentioned the difficulties faced by Holy Loch. Is he completely insensitive to the economic, social and financial crisis that now threatens to engulf the Western Isles?
Mr. Lang: Certainly I am not, which is why I gave it consent to borrow such a substantial amount of money. We have committed ourselves to increase the programme on school buildings by 16 per cent. for each of the next three years. I believe that that will be welcomed throughout Scotland.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: What exactly is the Secretary of State doing to redress the increasing problem of homelessness as revealed in the recent Shelter survey, which showed that the number of applications from homeless people throughout Scotland has more than doubled in the past seven years, bringing the Scottish total to a shameful record of more than 34,000? Bearing in mind the fact that, in Falkirk district, for example, the number of homeless applicants is now more than 1,300, the district council has received hardly a penny in housing support grant in the past decade or so, and the capital allocation is so inadequate that council house building is at a standstill, will the Secretary of State take urgent action now to provide the resources to house those homeless people instead of cutting the housing budget by more than £90 million in real terms?
Mr. Lang: Gross provision for housing in 1992–93 will be up by £33 million—as the table to be published in the Official Report will reveal—after making allowance for the repayment to the national loans fund of £170 million. We shall make extra money available next year, on top of the extra money that we have already made available this year, for homelessness, and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for housing will make an announcement about the details very shortly.
Mr. Mike Watson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the real capital spending increase per house allowed in respect of Glasgow city council's stock in the past 10 years has been less than half that permitted in respect of Scottish Homes and its predecessor body? How does the Secretary of State justify that? He must by now have had time to digest the city council's recently published housing plan for 1991. Will he therefore undertake to carry out one of the major recommendations of that plan by increasing the council's housing revenue account spending allocation per year to the £162 million that is vital to begin to redress that imbalance?
Mr. Lang: Individual housing balances are matters for local authorities, and we shall apportion resources to them at the appropriate time. Our record on housing stands good comparison with that of the Labour party. More than 235,000 houses have been built since 1979, the number of sheltered dwellings has almost quadrupled to more than 31,000, and the number of amenity dwellings has more than quadrupled to more than 15,000. That is part of a record of which we are proud.
Mr. John McFall: The Secretary of State will be aware that his cruel statement will be received tragically in my constituency, where £93 million-worth of housing cuts in real terms will affect my constituents and where, in the past seven years, homelessness has increased by 400 per cent., and now stands at the record level of 1,725. What message does the Secretary of State have for the 30 or so constituents with young families who will come to my surgery tomorrow for advice on housing? Is his advice that they should stand on their own two feet? Is the Secretary of State entirely cold about their plight? Is that the Christmas message that I must give families in such tragic circumstances?
Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman should point out to his constituents the dramatic increase that has taken place in housing expenditure in real terms since the Government came into office, compared with what we were left with by the outgoing Labour Government in 1979.
Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State has repeatedly claimed this afternoon that he has made and is making special provision for the homeless. How then does he explain the survey published this week by Shelter, which shows homelessness at record levels in Scotland last year, with up to 35,000 homeless applicants in a single year alone? Against that background, how can he justify this afternoon's statement, slashing millions of pounds from Scotland's housing expenditure? As the homeless can have no hope so long as he holds on to his office, why does he not do the decent thing and resign now?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me point out that the gross provision for housing will rise by £33 million and that the budget for Scottish Homes will rise by 10 per cent. He asked about the increase in homelessness. The answer is that that is a social rather than a housing problem. He may like to know that we intend to increase the social work training budget by 18 per cent.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am sorry to sound parochial, but it was the Secretary of State who mentioned the Inverclyde enterprise zone. Are funds available within those figures to help the conservation and renovation of the Gourock rope works? If that building were renovated and the Land Registry were to set up home there, possibly creating several hundred jobs, that would be a remarkable measure for Inverclyde and might give some substance to the Minister's claim the other night, when he spoke in such glowing terms of Inverclyde's economic prospects. The Land Registry located in the Gourock rope works would be a marvellous Christmas present for my constituents.
Mr. Lang: I certainly know the Gourock rope works building. One cannot avoid seeing it as one drives into Greenock and Port Glasgow—
Dr. Godman: It is a mess.
Mr. Lang: Indeed it is a mess.
There is provision within Scottish Enterprise budget of resources for Renfrew Enterprise, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will wish to put his case to that organisation. I know that the hon. Gentleman is in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the environment.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Having frozen the tourism budget, how can the Secretary of State justify the cut in it of 40 per cent. that he has announced today? Does he not realise the damage that that will do to the promotion of the beautiful districts of Scotland, including its capital city, Edinburgh?
Mr. Lang: The tourism budget is being increased by £300,000 next year and will be up by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Coming from the country that has to foot the bill for this largesse, may I ask my right hon. Friend how I am supposed to justify such expenditure to my constituents in Teignbridge, given the ungracious and grudging attitude with which today's announcement has been received? If we have to spend 23 per cent. more than the United Kingdom average on the people of Scotland, perhaps a balancing adjustment should be made and we should reduce the number of Scottish seats to that of the United Kingdom average.
Mr. Lang: Let me assure my hon. Friend that the current spending levels in Scotland reflect the needs of different categories in that country, which is as true in some parts of England as it is in Scotland. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend identifies a problem that will have to be addressed by those who seek to upset the present financial and constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom as they affect Scotland.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I always welcome additional public expenditure, although it may not be enough, but I am extremely disappointed that the Secretary of State did not mention any additional expenditure to promote and develop the ports at Cairnryan and Stranraer. I deeply regret that he does not appear to have a commitment to maintaining the Larne, Stranraer and Cairnryan corridors as the Euro-route from Northern Ireland to the mainland. Will he give us a commitment and evidence in the near future that he has the same commitment to his constituents as we in Northern Ireland have to ours?
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman and am happy to give that commitment. On Monday of this week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I issued a joint statement underlying the continuing high commitment that we give the Stranraer-Larne route. There has been speculation, fed by scaremongers in other parties, suggesting that that route was being downgraded. That is not the case, and I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman of that.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his excellent financial statement on committing resources to Scotland? I do not take umbrage at the fact that the taxpayers of Scotland are receiving 22 per cent. more per head of population than those of the United Kingdom. I like the Scottish people; they are nice. I am also pleased that I have—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have a question, please.
Mr. Dickens: Oh yes, it is just coming—I have waited so long, Mr. Speaker.
I do not take umbrage at the fact that there are two thirds of Scottish Conservative Members in the House, as opposed to a smaller percentage of Opposition Members. What is all the nonsense about wanting to break up the union, when the resources of United Kingdom taxpayers are being poured into Scotland? Why on earth do the Scottish people want to break away from us when they are doing so jolly well?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point that the people of Scotland should address. It is undoubtedly true that, when 22 per cent. more of public expenditure is spent per head in Scotland than in England, the Scottish people should reflect on whether it is sensible to run the risk of upsetting that unfavourable financial arrangement. I have no doubt that, if they addressed that issue and realised the massive rise in income tax that they would have to pay to a Scottish Parliament or Scottish Assembly, they would decide that the present United Kingdom arrangements were more favourable to them.
Mr. Tony Worthington: When, during the last year, the Secretary of State announced special measures for Lanarkshire and Dunoon and for employment action, it was said that it was extra money, extra funding for the Scottish economy because of need. When one takes out the money for Lanarkshire, Dunoon and employment action, one sees that there has

£ million

1991–92 Estimated Outturn

1991–92 Planned Provision

1992–93 Planned Provision

1993–94 Planned Provision

1994–95 Planned Provision

gross

net

gross

net

gross

net

gross

net

gross

net

Central government's own expenditure (including public corporations other than nationalised industries) and local authority capital expenditure

Agriculture, fisheries and food

258

250

255

250

307

300

310

300

310

300

Industry, energy, trade and employment

629

553

612

527

616

537

620

530

620

580

Tourism

14

14

14

14

14

14

10

10

220

20

Roads and transport

383

379

384

381

423

419

440

440

460

450

Housing

1,246

719

1,162

719

1,029

654

1,050

690

1,110

760

Other environmental services

425

333

415

318

475

375

500

390

500

400

Law, order and protective services

347

331

348

312

406

386

410

380

420

400

Education

545

545

545

545

627

627

670

670

710

710

Arts and libraries

41

41

41

41

49

49

60

60

60

60

Health

3,422

3,321

3,383

3,282

3,725

3,615

3,900

3,780

4,030

3,910

Social Work services

51

51

51

51

61

61

60

60

70

70

Other public services

198

158

196

159

206

164

230

180

230

190

Total central government and local authority capital

7,557

6,695

7,407

6,598

7,937

7,203

8,250

7,510

8,540

7,830

Central government support to local authorities' current expenditure

4,892

4,396

5,203

5,480

5,700

been a cut in real terms in the Highlands and Islands and Scottish Enterprise budget of 1·5 per cent. How can the Secretary of State justify that cut in his industry budget at a time when the needs of the Scottish economy are becoming even more grave?
The Secretary of State said that he intended to increase the amount for capital building on schools. If my calculations are correct, it means that, next year, £80 million or thereabouts will be spent on Scotland's schools. At 1992–93 prices, in 1979 we spent £134 million on Scotland's schools. That is a cut of 40 per cent. over 12 years. How can the Secretary of State justify such a cut in school building?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that there has been a substantial reduction in school rolls. If he compared like with like, he would find that spending per pupil has increased over that period. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Scottish Enterprise. Of course, if part of its budget is taken out and the reduced level compared with something else, a different result is obtained. Scottish Enterprise's budget will be up by £37 million compared with the planned figure a year ago, an increase of 8·8 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lanarkshire. Taking into account trunk roads, local roads and local authority factory building provision, the figure for next year is £29 million, including the Scottish Enterprise figure of up to £25 million for Lanarkshire. The following year, that would increase to £44·4 million, and in the year after that it would increase to £58·9 million. On top of that, there is provision for more expenditure by local authorities, local enterprise companies and other Scottish Office budgets in the Lanarkshire area. Therefore, it can look forward to a continuing commitment of Government funds as we tackle the problems in that area.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I shall take first the application under Standing Order No. 20.
Following is the table:

1991–92 Estimated Outturn

1991–92 Planned Provision

1992–93 Planned Provision

1993–94 Planned Provision

1994–95 Planned Provision

gross

net

gross

net

gross

net

gross

net

gross

net

Nationalised industries financing limits

49

48

32

-10

-20

Total expenditure within the Secretary of States responsibility

11,635

11,042

12,437

12,980

13,510

Forestry Commission

83

83

99

90

90

Total

11,718

11,125

12,536

13,070

13,610

Notes:
1. 1991–92 and 1992–93 rounded to nearest £1 million. 1993–94 and 1994–95 rounded to nearest £10 million.
2. Figures may not add due to rounding.
3. Central government support to local authorities comprises revenue support grant, grants to local authorities for specific purposes, and income from non domestic rates.
4. Housing figures for 1991–92 include repayments to the National Loans Fund of £170 million (gross) and £38 million (net). These are technical adjustments and the amounts were not available for spending on programmes. The comparable figure for the other years is £4 million (gross).

Mirror Group Newspapers (Pension Fund)
4.17 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the safeguarding of contributors to the Mirror Group Newspapers pension fund in view of a statement made by representatives of Mirror Group Newspapers last night that unauthorised loans had been made from the fund to private companies controlled by the late Mr. Robert Maxwell."
This is a specific matter, in that it relates specifically to people who have contributed to the pension fund and who woke up this morning to read reports that £300 million had been spirited out of their fund. In particular, members of the former Thomson group pension fund, many of them based in Manchester at Withy Grove, the former Fleet street of the north, were urged to enter the fund by the late Mr. Robert Maxwell, who suggested that they could see no increases in their pensions unless they transferred from the former fund into this fund. It is an important matter that many of the contributors are now retired. They are elderly people who are completely bewildered by what they read and are very concerned about what will happen to them from now on.
Above all, the matter is urgent. I was pleased to see that today, since I gave notice of the application, the Serious Fraud Office has been called in. It has been said that the Department of Social Security will introduce new rules. It is also urgent, because foreign banks are already circling over what is left of the Maxwell empire, and the funds must be traced before they leave the country. It is urgent that every Department looks to see whether it has powers to freeze the Maxwell assets before they leave the country, because if they are not frozen it may be too late.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely:
"the safeguarding of the Mirror Group Newspapers pension fund."
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member said about the matter. As he knows, I have to decide whether his application falls within the Standing Order, and whether I should give it precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that, in this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirement of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. Nevertheless, I am sure that Ministers will have heard and will take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been given the expenditure figures that the Secretary of State placed in the Vote Office. They show that spending on tourism has been frozen at £14 million, and will drop by 40 per cent. to £10 million.
Mr. Speaker: That may be so, but what is the point of order for me?
Mr. Griffiths: Will you, Mr. Speaker, give the Secretary of State the opportunity to come back and tell the truth to the House?
Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that phrase.
Mr. Griffiths: I certainly withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Will you give the Secretary of State the chance to come back and correct the misinformation that was given?
Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of any misinformation. We must get on.

BILLS PRESENTED
  NATIONAL LOTTERY
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence, supported by Sir Richard Luce, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. John Lee, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Ms. Kate Hoey and Sir Cyril Smith, presented a Bill to establish a national lottery for the benefit of the arts, sport and heritage; to make provision for its regulation, licensing and conduct; to provide for the allocation by trustees of the proceeds of the lottery, save for a proportion to be paid into the Consolidated Fund; to provide that any residue shall be applied to such charitable purposes as those trustees may determine; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
  TRAFFIC CALMING
  Mr. Keith Mans, supported by Mr. David Amess, Mr. John Bowis, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. John Lee, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. David Alton and Mr. Tony Banks, presented a Bill to make provision about the carrying out on highways of works affecting the movement of vehicular and other traffic for the purposes of promoting safety and of preserving or improving the environment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
  MEDICINAL PRODUCTS: PRESCRIPTION BY NURSES ETC.
  Mr. Roger Sims, supported by Mr. Sam Galbraith, Sir David Price, Ms. Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. John Butterfill, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Jack Ashley and Miss Emma Nicholson, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to medicinal products prescribed or otherwise ordered by registered nurses, midwives and health visitors: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
  TIMESHARE
  Mr. Andrew Hunter, supported by Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Michael Lord, Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Ian Taylor and Mr. John Watts, presented a Bill to provide for rights to cancel certain agreements about timeshare accommodation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  WILD MAMMALS (PROTECTION)
  Mr. Ron Davies, on behalf of Mr. Kevin McNamara, supported by Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Ms. Marjorie Mowlem, Mr. Simon Hughes, Sir Teddy Taylor, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Elliot Morley and Mr. Tony Banks, presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of wild mammals from cruelty; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February 1992 and to be printed [Bill 20.]
  REFERENDUM
  Mr. Richard Shepherd, presented a Bill to require a national referendum as a precondition of the ratification of certain treaties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
  FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
  Mr. Menzies Campbell, on behalf of Mr. Archy Kirkwood, supported by Mr. Robert Maclennan,. Mr. Rupert Allason, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. James Wallace, Sir Teddy Taylor and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to establish a general right of access to official records for members of the public subject to certain exemptions; to provide for the correction of inaccurate records; to require the publication of certain information; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  HOME RULE (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell, supported by Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Sir Russell Johnston, Sir David Steel, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Nichol Stephen, Mr. Richard Livsey and Mr. Archy Kirkwood, presented a Bill to establish and entrench a Scottish Parliament elected by a system of proportional representation, with revenue-raising powers, to assume legislative authority on all matters of public policy relating to Scotland, under reservation of matters relating to defence, international and macro-economic affairs which shall remain the preserve of the United Kingdom Parliament; to provide for changes in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS)
  Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir Richard Body, Sir David Steel, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. John Hannam, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Robert N. Wareing, presented a Bill to prohibit discrimination against disabled people on the ground of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
  STILLBIRTH (DEFINITION)
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes, supported by Dr. David Owen, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. David -Hinchliffe, Sir David Price, Mr. Roger Sims, Ms. Kate Hoey and Mr. Peter Thurnham presented a Bill to amend the law in respect of the definition of stillbirth; to make certain consequential amendments of the law; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
  TIMESHARE CONTRACIS (TIME FOR RECONSIDERATION) (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Alex Eadie, on behalf of Mr. Harry Ewing, supported by Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Jimmy Wray and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, presented a Bill to provide for a period during which the parties in a timeshare purchase may withdraw; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
CORPORATE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Mr. Jeff Rooker, supported by Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Sir Richard Body, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Nigel Foreman, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Ms. Jo Richardson, Miss Emma Nicholson and Mrs. Sylvia Heal, presented a Bill to amend the Companies Act 1985 with respect to the disclosure of information in the directors' report; to permit regulations to be made requiring the publication of certain information by public authorities and nationalised industries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
TOURISM (OVERSEAS PROMOTION) (WALES)
Mr. Keith Raffan, supported by Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Ian Grist, Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones presented a Bill to enable the Wales Tourist Board to carry on abroad activities to promote tourism to and within Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPPLY OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT)
Mr. Rhodri Morgan, supported by Mr. Win Griffiths, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Allen MacKay, Mr. Alan W. Williams and Mr. Dennis Turner, presented a Bill to clarify the law relating to the supply of medical equipment to national health service patients: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo, supported by Mr. Andy Stewart, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. David Bellotti, Mr. Jim Lester, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Michael Knowles, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Richard Alexander and Mr. Jacques Arnold, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to anonymity in connection with allegations of, and criminal proceedings relating to, certain sexual offences: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
HOUSING (FITNESS STANDARD) (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Merlyn Rees, supported by Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. John Battle, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Jim Marshall and Mr. Alun Michael, presented a Bill to amend the Housing Act 1985 so as to add the criteria of internal arrangement and thermal efficiency to the fitness standard; to provide for the enforcement of the fitness standard where only part of a unit of accommodation fails this standard; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
FIREARMS (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Michael Lord, supported by Mr. Andrew Hunter, Sir Trevor Skeet, Mr. Humfrey Mallins, Sir Michael Marshall, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Patrick Thompson, Sir Hal Miller, Mr. Richard Page and Mr. Ian Taylor, presented a Bill to empower the Secretary of State to extend the period for which firearm and shot gun certificates are granted or renewed: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
IMPACT OF DISASTERS
Mr. Keith Vaz presented a Bill to provide that persons involved with and in a disaster receive psychological assessment and, as required, psychological treatment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
SEA FISHERIES (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION)
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, supported by Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Elliott Morley, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Richard Alexander and Mr. Robert B. Jones, presented a Bill to require appropriate Ministers and relevant bodies to have regard to the conservation of flora and fauna in the discharge of their functions under the Sea Fisheries Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
EDUCATION (SCHOOL PREMISES)
Mrs. Edwina Currie, supported by Mr. Robert Hayward, Mr. Peter Viggers, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Roger King, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Denis Howell, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Kevin Barron and Mr. Menzies Campbell, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the agreements which may be entered into by the governors of a voluntary school, or the governing body of a county or maintained special school, concerning the use of school premises outside school hour: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the Matter of the Urban and Rural Regeneration of Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration. —[Mr. Boswell.]

Common Agricultural Policy
Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
4.24 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8356/90, relating to agricultural production methods, 7570/91, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 13th November 1991, relating to the development and future of the Common Agricultural Policy, and 8886/91 + COR 1, 8950/91 and 9136/91, relating to amendments to the legal framework of the Common Agricultural Policy; and supports the Government's intention to seek reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which will make Community agriculture more market-orientated and efficient, will put more emphasis on environmental care, will reduce the cost of that Policy and will apply fairly throughout the Community.
The Agriculture Council is now considering the proposals that we shall discuss today. It held its first discussion on arable crops, sheep and tobacco in November. Next week the Council will focus on beef, milk and the accompanying measures.
The Government have had considerable support from hon. Members of all parties in their attempts to achieve reform of the common agricultural policy. That is no new-found demand, but one that the United Kingdom has clearly made for many years. We have to start, therefore, by recognising that the Commission's acceptance that major reform is needed is itself a good thing. Unfortunately, its proposals would not, in our view, lead to the kind of reform that we seek and would not benefit the Community as a whole, as we want it to benefit.
In the short term, the Commission's proposals would address some of our current problems. There is no doubt that compulsory set-aside would cut production of cereals. Lower cereal prices would lessen the cost of exporting the remaining surplus and would reduce the tension between the Community and other cereal exporters.
In the longer term, the Commission's proposals would repeat the mistakes of the past. They are designed to keep as many farmers as possible on the land and especially to protect small farmers, as defined on the continent and not as defined in the United Kingdom, from change.
Mr. Barry Field: Did my right hon. Friend see the article in The Sunday Times about set-aside? If so, will he tell us whether set-aside has a part to play in the proposals? I understand that the reforms are such that, even though the Isle of Wight is the smallest county in Britain, almost none of our farmers would benefit from the proposals in the MacSharry reforms.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend raises a matter of considerable importance. There is no doubt that set-aside plays a part in the Commission's proposals and it is one of the issues that we shall have to discuss. I read with some concern the article in The Sunday Times. I am sad to say that The Sunday Times carried a wholly erroneous report. The House should know about that, or it cannot consider the motion with the necessary clarity because set-aside is so central to what happened.
Dr. N. Rufford, who claimed to be engaged in agriculture and to be the owner of 1·2 hectares of
284
agricultural land, applied for and was allocated an agricultural holding number. He was not the owner of the land and he gave a fictitious name for the alleged previous owner. An agricultural holding number does not confer any rights, but merely refers to a particular piece of land.
On 6 September, signed registration and application forms for the five-year set-aside scheme were received from Dr. Rufford, who turns out to be a journalist on the staff of The Sunday Times. The application form had to be returned to him twice because he had not filled it in properly and he would not answer the question confirming that he had been farming the greater part of the holding since 1 October 1990. That is a direct question which has to be answered directly. The documents and associated map included what are clearly fictitious details of previous and current cropping. Dr. Rufford signed declarations that he had given correct answers. They were false.
Contrary to the allegations in the newspaper, officials did not accept Dr. Rufford's application. They were suspicious and decided that a physical inspection should be undertaken to verify the details. Of course, The Sunday Times said that no such inspection was needed. Dr. Rufford said that it was essential for him to accompany the inspector, but he could not find a convenient time. He appeared to find a convenient time to be photographed on the site by a Sunday Times photographer. Of course, he was trespassing on the site because it was owned by someone other than himself.
That was the position last Sunday when The Sunday Times article was published; Dr. Rufford had not received an acceptance. He telephoned the Ministry's office in Ipswich on Wednesday 27 November, claiming to be trying to arrange a date for the field inspection. He asked to be sent a copy of the approval document. He was told that an approval document had not been issued as his application had not been approved. Later that afternoon, at a time when he had been told that the officer dealing with his case would not be available, he telephoned again. He claimed to have mislaid his acceptance letter although he knew that no such letter had been issued. So that he could reconstruct his correspondence, he asked a clerk to fax him a copy. An updated, unsigned draft letter, on plain paper, was faxed to him.
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate that such an obvious plant should take place in the middle of an agricultural debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): What the Minister has said seems to be relevant to the debate.
Mr. Barry Field: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I resent being accused of being a plant. May I point out that I am a Field, not a plant. I very much resent the allegation that I am a plant.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no knowledge about plants.
Mr. Gummer: The matter is serious and the point that I have to make is clear. Because Dr. Rufford asked for the approval to be sent to him on the basis that he had already had it, an undated, unsigned draft letter on plain paper was faxed to him. It was the standard letter which would be sent out if the application was accepted. The application had not been accepted and would not be until the inspection took place.

285
This is a serious matter. That letter was reproduced in The Sunday Times report under a faked Ministry letterhead. The Sunday Times story was therefore fabricated. The application had not been approved. The inspection of the land would have revealed that the application was fraudulent. Dr. Rufford gave false information on the ownership and cropping of the land. He obtained a draft letter by deceiving a junior officer. The Sunday Times then published that letter with a faked letterhead.
I have dealt with the matter in depth after the question was asked of me because it is very important, if we are to have a set-aside system, that it is properly carried out. I am determined that it shall be properly carried out. I deeply deprecate the activities of newspapers aimed not at the Minister, the Ministry or anybody in the House but at junior staff who try to carry out properly their job. In this case two members of staff carried out their job absolutely properly. I have asked that that be made clear to them because they have been extremely upset by the action taken by the newspaper.
Dr. David Clark: I thank the Minister for illuminating the matter so clearly. If, as he says, a letter was forged by the use of the letterhead of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will he take the necessary steps to prosecute the individual? If he does so, he will have the full support of the Opposition.
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. It was clear to me that the editor of The Sunday Times would have been unlikely to have known the basis upon which the report was published. [Interruption.] I am sure that he would not have known and I have written to him in those terms. I shall be answering a written question and I shall ask him to quote the whole of that answer in the newspaper so that the readers of The Sunday Times may understand what happened and he can retract something of which I am sure he was not aware.
Mr. David Harris: If the editor of The Sunday Times who, as he says, is an honourable man, refuses to publish such a statement, will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that he will make an official complaint to the Press Council?
Mr. Gummer: If one asks an honourable man to do something, it must be without a threat. I shall. not make any threats. I shall ask him to do what I have just outlined and I am sure that he will agree.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: The headed notepaper might be appropriate to what the Minister is saying, but it is hardly important to the CAP negotiations and certainly is not crucial to the agriculture industry faced with the CAP proposals and GATT and worried about eastern European imports. Will the Minister now guarantee to spend as much time quantifying the effects of the CAP proposals on agriculture? What figures does he have to show the quantitative effects of the MacSharry proposals on the industry? Will he spend as much time telling the industry about that as he has done dealing with the headed notepaper?
Mr. Gummer: I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only shall I now spend more time on that than on anything
286
else, but I have been doing so week in week out, month in month out. Nobody in the agriculture industry or outside does not now realise from what I have said how damaging Mr. MacSharry's proposals would be to British agriculture and particularly to Scotland. They are special attacks on the real problems of the most distant parts of the United Kingdom, whether they be in Scotland or in Wales. No one can deny that I have made that case over and over again because I believe it so strongly.
I answered the question in detail, quoting from my reply today to the written question, because set-aside is necessary if we are to get to grips with the overproduction of cereals in an immediate and direct way. I am afraid that that is true. I wish that there were a better and quicker way, but there is not. Therefore, we must ensure that set-aside is properly run. I want it to be clear that I have no intention of allowing Britain to be party to a system which is not properly organised and dealt with.
I assure everyone that, although it is usual to inspect set-aside land when it has been set aside, because to look at it before it has been set aside tells us much less, when we believe there to have been a fraudulent application we seek to do so in advance. That is what we have sought to do and I do not want anyone to be unaware of that.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will my right hon. Friend also encourage the newspaper to print facts which it did not print explaining that set-aside can be environmentally friendly and it can be hugely profitable for the taxpayer to pay farmers to indulge in set-aside rather than have to deal with surplus food which nobody wants and which has to be stored for many years and then disposed of, often in a parlous condition, at the end of that time?
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend who was, in a sense, the inventor of set-aside, who did so much to campaign for reform of the CAP and who began that reform in a most remarkable manner, will know better than anyone that it is much more sensible to pay people to look after the land—I emphasise that—than to produce an unwanted crop which then has to be stored and subsidised in order to export it to other countries whose agriculture system is then undermined. As long as set-aside is environmentally friendly—as long as I am Minister it will be—with people being paid to look after the land, that is the right and immediate but not the long-term mechanism for dealing with the problem.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gummer: No. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to give way to her later.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wanted to refer to set-aside.
Mr. Gummer: I may return later to set-aside.
The proposals are unacceptable because they do not take into account the need to ensure that agriculture is efficient. They are designed to take European agriculture back to the past rather than forward to the future. Although the methods of support would change with the introduction of direct payments, the underlying objective —to insulate producers from market realities—would not change. The cost of the common agricultural policy would therefore remain very high.

287
I hope that all hon. Members recognise that the Commission's suggestions relating to costs are far from realistic. If a new group of people—pensioners—is created, one must expect them to demand pension increases year after year. That is the nature of a permanent pension. If, therefore, figures for future years are produced on which the assumption is made that the cost will magically fall, one ends up with unrealistic figures. If support is given to the proposed system, budgetary costs will increase year in, year out. Furthermore, farmers on very small plots who would have retired and amalgamated their plots with those of their neighbours will not do so. They will sit there and take the pension. The position is then fixed as it is now and the natural change which would have happened, and which is necessary if countries have badly structured agriculture, will not take place. That is what is necessary if those farmers are not to be disadvantaged.
That is one reason why I feel so strongly about the issue. It is not just that the Commission is discriminating against the United Kingdom, although that would be bad enough, but that it is saying to those parts of the Community that have not benefited from the structural changes that have taken place in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that for ever their circumstances will not he viable and that they will become merely the pensioners of the European Community. That is not a fit choice to offer the people of Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy or Ireland. That is not the way to protect farmers' futures. That is not proper for them, any more than it is proper for the efficient farmers of the northern European countries and Britain in particular.
Discrimination against larger commercial farms forms a key part of the Commission's plan to protect small farms from the effects of change. We are wholly opposed to that and we are supported by a number of our Community partners. Such farmers are the key to the retention of a viable and sustainable agricultural industry in the future, one that can compete in world markets. It would make no sense to penalise them for the progress that they have made by suddenly setting a premium on inefficiency. The effect would be to make Community farmers less able to compete in the liberalised world market in agricultural trade which we are trying to create in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations. No wonder that the only Agricultural Minister who wholeheartedly supports Mr. MacSharry's ideas is Ed Madigan, the United States Secretary for Agriculture. He knows that if we were to carry out Mr. MacSharry's proposals we should be unable to compete with the United States in world markets and that that would do them good. I did not support Britain's entry into the European Community and I am not a great enthusiast for Europe in order to be second rate. I am an enthusiast for Europe because I want Europe to be first rate and Britain to be first rate with it. This is the way to make European agriculture second rate.
The Commission's aim is to fossilise existing farm structures in their present form and to halt the development of more viable farming sectors in the Community. That is unwelcome to those member states with a developed farming structure and it is also unwelcome to those with less advanced farm structures. The Commission's approach also ignores differences in farming conditions and structures in the Community. One cannot have a single model for European farming. Due to the nature of their climate, the Spaniards have to feed their beef animals from feed lots. To penalise them because they
288
do not feed their cattle in the same way as cattle are fed in County Kerry is unfair to the European Community system.
Mr. Alex Salmond: There is little dispute about the discrimination that is inherent in the MacSharry proposals, but the Minister has rightly been criticised in previous debates for not making his own positive proposals to counter the MacSharry proposals. The Minister has published "Our Farming Future" in the last few weeks. If the proposals contained in that document were implemented, what would be the impact on net farm incomes in Scotland on the one hand and in England and Wales on the other?
Mr. Gummer: It is difficult to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when he clearly does not understand what negotiation is about. If I were to say to the House, "My bottom line consists of the following detailed matters and it will have the following result", does the hon. Gentleman think that one could negotiate a proper outcome? Has he never negotiated in his life? He is supposed to be the leader of a party. He should he ashamed of himself. Has the hon. Gentleman heard about the French, the Dutch, the German, the Luxembourg or the Greek proposals? Of course he has not. No sane Government would produce detailed proposals; they want to safeguard their negotiating position. That is why I made it clear in that document, if he read it, that these are not proposals but the general principles upon which I shall be negotiating.
The hon. Gentleman is joining the official Opposition in undermining the British Government's position in these negotiations. I am the only Minister who is negotiating on the basis that the Opposition are demanding constantly that I do something different. In this, like Maastricht, we find that the Opposition are not prepared to support the Government in their European Community negotiations. It is all very well for the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to grin. Just because this question was asked by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) does not mean that the canker has not reached that part of the Labour party which pretends to understand agriculture. In a recently published document the hon. Gentleman said:
"In essence the MacSharry proposals will be accepted by the Council of Ministers."
They will not be accepted by the Council of Ministers. There is not a Minister who accepts them—except, possibly, the Greek Minister. If the hon. Gentleman says that, what is he doing? He is supporting the Commission's line. He is supporting Mr. MacSharry, who is going round saying that that is what is going to happen. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Shields says, from a seated position, that that is what is going to happen. Week after week, month after month, we shall come back and tell him how wrong he was. If that were to happen, British agriculture would be undermined. This Government and this Minister will not allow that to happen, although on this occasion the hon. Member for South Shields will do what his leader would do at Maastricht—lie down and be tickled.
I understand that the chairman of the European Commission did not find time to see the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly Mr. Delors does not need to see the Leader of the Opposition; he knows perfectly well that the Leader of the Opposition will support whatever he says.

289
What goes for the hon. Gentleman's leader goes for agriculture, too. The hon. Gentleman would accept anything that the Commission put forward, for that is now official Labour party policy.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: I dare say that if I give way to the hon. Gentleman I shall hear the alternative Labour party policy.
Mr. Home Robertson: I wish that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would stop trying to trivialise these debates, which are very important to many people who work for the industry in rural areas all over Britain. These are not petty party politics. We are dealing with the future of the countryside. I wish that the Minister would bear that in mind. Has he been able to put a figure on the number of farm workers' jobs that would be threatened by the proposals?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. The MacSharry proposals affect not only farmers and large landowners but employees. They affect all sections of the community and treat farm workers as though they do not count. They regard only landowners as being suitable people to be looked after. The British farmer often employs up to three people, who have families. He is often in partnership with his brother, son or daughter, so together they look after a number of families. Yet the headage limits to which they are subject do not take that into account.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) feels that my mentioning an official Labour document, which I think was published last Friday and which accepts that Mr. MacSharry's plan will be accepted, is trivialising the subject. I am highlighting the seriousness of the situation. Any party that cares about the future of British agriculture would not put that in a document. It would say: "The Labour party wholeheart-edly supports the Government in their battle to ensure that Mr. MacSharry's plan is not accepted."
The fact that that does not appear in Labour's document reminds us how uninterested in agriculture it is. I exempt the hon. Member for East Lothian from that criticism. It is a pity that he is not on the Front Bench, as in his previous incarnation, when we knew that Labour had at least one person who understood the problems experienced on a farm. He knew about the problems of quite large farms, I admit, but we miss his contribution.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I must get on. The hon. and learned Gentleman has plenty of time to make his speech.
I shall give the House the details of the proposals to show what we are up against. Farmers in the United Kingdom would have to set aside 14 per cent. of their arable land. The average for the rest of the European Community would be 9 per cent. In the rest of the Community, almost 70 per cent. of set-aside will be paid for, but only 40 per cent. in the United Kingdom. United Kingdom sheep producers would have 15 per cent. of their eligible animals excluded from the ewe premium,
290
compared with a Community average of 3 per cent. They would bear 60 per cent. of the impact of the new headage limits, although the United Kingdom breeding flock represents only 28 per cent. of the European Community flock.
It cannot be argued that the United Kingdom flock has caused market problems in the sheep sector. Between 1984 and 1990, claims for the ewe premium in the United Kingdom grew by 36 per cent. The comparable figure for Germany was 72 per cent., for Ireland 114 per cent., for the Netherlands 170 per cent. and for Italy 746 per cent. Countries that have caused the problems in the sheep industry would barely be affected by the MacSharry plans, but this country—the traditional supplier of sheepmeat for the Community—would be almost uniquely affected. That is why the subject is serious and why I am not being trivial in showing how dangerous it is to give aid and comfort to those who propose this preposterous plan.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Mr. Gummer: I must get on. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Carlile: On that point.
Mr. Gummer: As long as the hon. and learned Gentleman understands that I am not giving way again, I will give way to him.
Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I agree with everything that he said about headage limits. When he is negotiating, will he make it clear to his European colleagues that a British farmer's wife who is in partnership with her husband plays a genuine role in the farm, because in many continental countries English, Welsh and Scottish partnership law is not properly understood? We must protect our partnerships.
Mr. Gummer: Not only will I, but I have done so. I made the Commission change its proposals on that basis. The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right and I shall put it clearly to Mr. MacSharry that it would be outrageous if it were possible to have a partnership with one's mistress that one could not have with one's wife. I would find it particularly difficult to propose that to the British people.
The extension of headage limits to the suckler cow premium would exclude about 8 per cent. of suckler cows in the United Kingdom—twice the Community average —and I point out to Scottish Members that the figure would be nearly 30 per cent. in Scotland.
The proposals, therefore, are unacceptable and unnecessary and do not meet the real issues. We cannot accept them because they discriminate not only against the United Kingdom but against efficiency, speciality and excellence. They make it imposssible for Europe to compete with the rest of the world, they make a distinction between northern farming and southern farming and they discriminate against particular kinds of southern farming. For example, extensive farming is necessary on the poor ground of some parts of Portugal. Is it reasonable to discriminate against that?
Mr. Kiechle, the German Minister, recently made a speech saying how much he supported the British position on non-discrimination. That is another reason why the suggestion that we shall accept Mr. MacSharry's scheme

291
as a whole is rather wide of the mark. Mr. Kiechle said that he accepted our position on discrimination. I know why. How could the system discriminate against the poorest farmers in eastern Germany who have large farms, low productivity and a sad history?
There is natural concern among farmers which I share. We are faced with great uncertainty; we have not yet reached a solution on GATT; and we have not begun the first round on many dossiers in the discussion on CAP reform. That is another reason why I find it difficult to say that the MacSharry proposals will be accepted by the Council of Ministers. The hon. Member for South Shields cannot say that when some of the proposals are not even in written form yet. The idea that anybody could have decided to accept them or not surely is wide of the mark.
The problem for farmers is that they cannot judge where they should invest, how they should prepare for the future and what they should take into account until those decisions are made. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has left the Chamber, but perhaps his two hon. Friends would be kind enough to tell him my additional answer to his question. One reason why it is impossible to quantify the results of the negotiation is that the negotiation has not been completed. I would not wish to mislead farmers when the current uncertainty is causing much difficulty.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way again.
The only thing that would be worse than uncertainty would be to be given duff information. I certainly will not do that. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan what I am seeking to achieve.
I wish to remove the proposals that discriminate against larger farms, against the United Kingdom, against northern farms, against specialists and against the position in, for example, Spain, Portugal and eastern Germany. That is the first area that must be put right.
Secondly, all the members of the Community have agreed—I think without exception—that there will be no agreement on anything until there is agreement on everything. It would not be proper to start talking about such matters in their final form until we know about olive oil, sugar and wine and the other products about which there are real issues to be raised.
Thirdly, there is a concern to explain to the Community that if there are to be compensations, we cannot create a whole new system of compensatory payments which will last for ever at a price which will never be able to be paid. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Shields will be pleased to hear that I agree with him on that. In a document which contained precious little about what he would do for the future of British agriculture, he had one crumb of comfort for the farmer. I point it out because it is hidden away in a lot of business about freedom of information and other issues about which he is so keen. In the middle of the document, he says that if the MacSharry proposals were accepted—he says that they would be—they would not last very long because they would be too expensive. That is why they must not be accepted. They would cost far too much and would be impossible for the future. That is why many countries, including, for example, Italy, are so deeply opposed to the proposals.
292
Of course, I cannot go into detail about what we would seek to do, but I shall give one or two indications because that is only fair to the House. In the arable sector, it is clearly important to reduce the end price and to ensure that farmers are able to continue to look after the land. That means that we must have a set-aside system. However, it would be wrong to have a system which meant that some countries set aside land so that other countries could produce more. Therefore, we seek a system which will share out the burden of set-aside between the major producers in particular and will not exclude some countries while laying the burden on others.
It is also important that we do not allow many farms to be excluded on the ground of their size. To have a set-aside system which applied only to farms in the north of Europe would discriminate considerably. I am happy to have a de minimis figure which would avoid the bureaucratic nightmare that we do not want. However, it would have to be a de minimis figure and not one inclined to exclude very large numbers of producers to the small number.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When considering the regulations for set-aside, which is a very valuable tool in the present negotiations, will the Minister make them rather more positive by enabling farmers who have land set aside—especially, perhaps, for one year—to use the year to clean the land rather than merely to cut it? In that way, when the land eventually came back into production farmers would use fewer chemicals which would be even more environmentally friendly.
Mr. Gummer: I am certainly open to my hon. Friend's suggestions. I am not keen on one-year set-aside schemes. I do not think that one can be sufficiently environmentally friendly from one year to another. The longer scheme is widely thought to be better and I should like it to be more at the centre of the proposals, as I want the environment as a whole to be at the centre. However, I shall certainly consider whether her suggestion could be included and I am sure that she is right to suggest the positive rather than the negative.
As for the beef regime—a second area that we have not yet discussed—there is another reason why it might be thought that the hon. Gentleman was a little premature in suggesting that we had already agreed these matters. We are about to have our first discussions. The Commission's proposals on beef are absolute nonsense. They do nothing to solve the problem. Indeed, they do not begin to face the problem. They only make the problem worse in certain areas, not least in Scotland. I do not understand how we are supposed to have a system which deals best with the most difficult parts of the Community but which makes matters worse in Scotland and Wales, but that is what the scheme does. It does not work because it does not meet the problems of intervention. We must reduce the degree to which intervention plays a part and increase that to which the premium plays a part, and I am negotiating along those lines. I hope that we can find an answer.
The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats will probably agree that to go into further detail could make it less easy to get the type of consensus that we want. It will not be perfect, it will not be what I should like, but it will be better than what is before us—better in terms of our particular problem—and I hope that it will deal entirely with the discrimination.

293
It is unacceptable to have headage limits for sheep—I do not mean new headage limits, but the present ones—because they do not deal with the problem. It is not the number of ewes that a particular unit has which causes the problem; it is the increase in the production of ewes generally. That is a wholly different argument and it is therefore important to concentrate on it.
My priority is to get rid of discrimination and we shall have to find out which of the various possibilities will be the best alternative to that which is now proposed. I should not like to commit myself too closely to any one of them because my priority—in negotiating one must be clear about one's priority—is to get rid of discrimination. That is the one thing that really matters in the House and we must not undermine it in our negotiations.
On the cost to the European Community budget, I do not believe that it is sensible to have a system that costs more. We must have a system that uses what we spend more effectively. If, for example, we reduce the share of the system taken up by intervention in beef, we should be able to get that money more directly to the farmer. Locking beef up in a cold store, paying the storage man to look after it and then paying more to export it is not a sensible use of Community money and it does not reach the farmer. That type of change would enable one to say honestly that a redirection of the money already spent could do a great deal to improve the situation of farmers.
Mr. Eric Martlew rose—
Mr. Gummer: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I must end because other hon. Members wish to speak. We are determined to ensure that—
Mr. Martlew: It is important.
Mr. Gummer: There is a great deal that is important, but the hon. Gentleman may catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In trying to negotiate we must give considerable credence to the particular problem of the most difficult areas. Therefore, I commit myself in the negotiations to support the special financial help for farming in the less-favoured areas. Even though hon. Members disagree on many issues, I believe that the House will agree that I have tried to make that a priority within the narrow band of the 17 or so per cent. of my budget which I control directly. I have tried to do that year in, year out because I believe that in environmental terms—if in no others—keeping people, their sheep and their cattle in the hillsides is essential if the hillsides are to be kept as they should be. I am sure that hon. Members will have noticed that in the recent announcement of environmentally sensitive areas —especially those in the Lake district, Exmoor and Dartmoor—I have clearly taken that view, with regard to not only hillsides but moorland areas. I shall continue to do that.
I also believe that the common agricultural policy must be much more centred on the environment. It is not satisfactory to change a policy such as that which we have at the moment, and to have add-ons for the environment. That is not sensible and I seek to move the Community in the appropriate direction.
In the negotiations, as in so many other matters, the British attitude is in advance of others. We are the most
294
environmentally friendly Agriculture Ministry in Europe and we continue to bring others behind us. They are copying our proposals and schemes. I hope that we shall be increasingly successful.
It would be possible and proper to provide aid for people who are especially disadvantaged by the changes —for example, the very small fanner in Portugal who wants to get out and to join his land to that of his neighbour. I want to help him to do that. I see no reason why we should not have a pension scheme connected to restructuring, but the aid is supposed to affect the very small farms directly. It would obtain to the person who had gone out and not to his heirs and successors and it would involve his going out and someone else taking on his land. That would be a restructuring aid.
It is also important to ensure that attention is paid to other areas. We cannot have a discriminatory system in milk which works so badly against the British dairy industry. We do not need the new cow premium. It would be better to operate on the present system and to get that right than to have a discriminatory cow premium.
It is important to ensure that, whatever happens, it applies throughout the Community. The tobacco regime should be properly restricted. I cannot believe that it is sensible to spend as much as we do at present per hectare on tobacco. I find it odd when it is suggested that it would be better for other people to grow the tobacco and for us to import it—as though that would help the health of the Community. I do not accept that, but we should look more carefully at the way in which we spend money on tobacco.
It is important to ensure that the negotiations take account of the whole Community and not simply the northern products that have been put on the table first. To accept those when we do not have a deal on a range of other things would not be a satisfactory result for those of us in the north.
I wish now to consider the timetable for negotiations. It is difficult to see how a sensible start can be made on the discussions if we do not know the outcome of the GATT round. If we do not know what we have committed ourselves to in the GATT round, it is difficult to know how to decide the reforms.
Signore Goria, the Italian Minister, has shown a remarkable grasp of those issues throughout the debate. He made a powerful intervention claiming that we must know where we are before we can take decisions, or we shall be paying twice—once in respect of the negotiations and then for the GATT round. That would not be satisfactory.
I cannot tell the farming community that this will be a short negotiation. Some Opposition Members might claim that the negotiations have already ended. I would love to have short negotiations because I am deeply conscious of the serious position in which the farming industry finds itself because of its lack of knowledge of where we are going. However, to pick the wrong answer—even if it was a quick answer—would be devastating for British agriculture.
We cannot agree to something which starts off by being so fundamentally discriminatory that, year by year, it becomes even more discriminatory. What begins by looking just a little off parallel might become wildly different. Anyone who considers what has happened with regard to the sugar and milk quotas or to anything else about which we felt that we should have had a different

295
package but could not achieve it will be aware of how dangerous it is to allow the negotiations to proceed quickly when a longer discussion might result in a better solution.
I do not claim that the outcome will be perfect. However, it is the duty of the United Kingdom Government and the Minister responsible to argue the issues one by one until we reach an acceptable answer. The answer will not be perfect, but it must be acceptable.
I regret that I cannot spell out part by part and line by line exactly what I want to achieve. However, I do not believe that any hon. Member would expect me to do what no other negotiating Minister has done, is doing or will do. Can anyone expect Mr. Kiechle to stand up and explain everything that he is looking for? Would Mr. Mermaz do that? Of course they would not, because just like me they are trying to find an answer that is as close as possible to what is best for their nations and for Europe as a whole.
I hope that the House will support the motion. That would help to show the universal determination of all parties in the House to achieve an answer that will provide a proper future for British agriculture and enable me at least to be able to tell my companions in the negotiations that there are things that matter so much to us that we will sit there until we achieve them, even if it means that we will sit there for many more months to come.
5.14 pm
Dr. David Clark: As always, the Minister tried to be statesmanlike, but ended up being his usual partisan self. He accepted very little responsibility for the state of British agriculture. While we would not want him to show his full negotiating hand at this stage, he gave us very little information. The Minister's speech was one of little substance—
Mr. Home Robertson: And of great triviality.
Dr. Clark: Indeed, and one of great triviality, as my hon. Friend has said.
Listening to the Minister today, it was hard to appreciate that the Conservatives have been in government for 13 years. He tried to say that Labour would not negotiate. Tragically, we cannot negotiate at the moment, but that will be put right before too long.
It is rather disingenuous of the Minister to extrapolate the logic that, because someone has described a situation, that means that he necessarily agrees with it. Whether the Minister likes it or not, I believe that it is probable that MacSharry's notions will be accepted. That does not mean that I or the Labour party agree with those proposals. We do not and I hope that the Minister will accept that we have stated repeatedly that we do not believe that the MacSharry proposals are good for British or European agriculture.
Mr. Gummer: If that is the case, would it not have been better for the hon. Gentleman to keep his own counsel when he stated publicly that we were bound to fail in our negotiations? Would it not have helped British farmers if he had said that he was determined to support us and ensure that we succeeded? That is not being disingenuous: that is asking for the kind of conduct that used to be normal on both sides of the House.
Dr. Clark: I made it plain that we oppose the MacSharry proposals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that. That does not mean that we
296
accept all the Government's negotiating stances. We believe that the negotiating position has not been particularly clever.
Contrary to the Minister's partisan approach, I want to begin by taking a consensus view. British agriculture is in crisis. That is argued by the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union for Scotland and all informed farming opinion. The Minister said nothing today that will reassure the farming community.
We need only consider the scene. The Minister avoided all the details. Every day last year, 19 farmers and 14 farm workers left the land. Nineteen farmers voted with their feet every day last year and left their occupation. That is not a happy position. Farmers' incomes are at their lowest level, but the price of food to consumers is not falling.
Modern agriculture requires investment to survive, but investment has fallen by more than half since the Government took office. The Minister made great play of environmental issues. However, the Government's own Institute of Terrestrial Ecology produced figures in October which show that
"hedgerow removal between 1984 and 1990 is greater than that in the period 1978–1984."
In addition, as much as 10 per cent. of our total stock of hedgerows was destroyed between 1984 and 1990.
So, the economy of agriculture is in dire straits and the environment is suffering, but I am afraid that the position on animal health is even more dire. In September the Minister's own chief veterinary officer painted an optimistic scenario of the problem of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, with the result that the farming press ran the banner headline,
"Goodbye to the BSE scourge".
Tragically, I have to wish that that was the case because today's figures do not give us much ground for comfort, but, as long as the Minister continues his present style of trying to hype up and to trivialise every issue, that is what will happen to our agriculture. Far from the BSE scourge easing, exactly the contrary is happening. The number of confirmed cases of BSE until November of this year totalled 15,698, whereas for the whole of last year they amounted only—I use the word "only" relatively—to 14,322. The total number of confirmed cases of BSE is now in excess of 41,000, despite the Government's estimate in 1989 that the cumulative total would peak at 20,000 cases. We still await the peak. It does not do any good to try to run away from reality or to trivialise these issues.
Blue ear disease in pigs has been allowed to run unchecked by the Government who in September closed their veterinary investigation centre in Lincoln, which is where work into that type of disease was carried out.
Sheep dipping has been decontrolled by the Government and self-notification has been introduced. The result is that farmers are not dipping their sheep. Scab will increase.
It is not really surprising that animal diseases are increasing when we consider the Government's deliberate run-down of their veterinary service. In 1979, 580 veterinary officers were employed by the service, but there are now only 337. That is a decline of 42 per cent. As a result, we had to import 402 vets last year. I repeat that, as a result of the Government's policy, we had to import a vet every single day of last year to try to keep on top of animal diseases.

297
The legacy for agriculture of 13 years of Tory government is little short of disastrous in the economic, environmental and animal health areas.
"Never have I known a time when farmers were more fearful of the future, and never has that fear been more justified."
I thought that those were wise words when I read them and was delighted to find that they had been written by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in The Lake District Herald only this week. He was right. There has never been a time when our farmers have been more fearful of the future. I found it strange that those words had come from the Parliamentary Secretary because, when I read them, I thought that they had been written by the Labour candidate, John Metcalfe, because there was no other indication that that article had been written by a Minister of the Crown who is responsible for this country's agriculture. When Ministers are faced with such unpalatable facts—and they are facts—they tend to blame the common agricultural policy, but those are domestic decisions. Every one of those decisions affecting British agriculture was taken by the Government.
At the EC level, and after 13 years in power, the Government cannot escape responsibility for the operation of the CAP. After all, the Minister is always returning to the House to tell us what a wonderful deal he has got for the British farmer and consumer. He has done it time and again—
Mr. David Nicholson: Yes, my right hon. Friend has got such deals time and again.
Dr. Clark: I hear mutterings from the Conservative Back Benches to the effect that the Minister does return with good deals, but if one asked the British farmer, that is not the message that one would hear.
Mr. David Nicholson: Before the hon. Gentleman gets stuck into the CAP, on which matter I hope that he will be as robust as my right hon. Friend in defending the interests of the British farmer, may I advise him that I was interested to note that he began his speech by talking about animal diseases and BSE? Does he think that he is helping our farmers in their genuine plight by highlighting such diseases in this debate? Although the beef market is now in a better position, does not the hon. Gentleman realise the damage that he has done to beef consumption and to our farmers in the past year by constantly highlighting that issue on radio and television?
Dr. Clark: We do not solve problems by refusing to acknowledge them. Indeed, if the Government had faced up to the reality of BSE earlier and had accepted the Opposition's proposal for 100 per cent. compensation for suspected cases instead of being dilatory for 18 months, the problem would have been contained much more quickly. I must advise the hon. Gentleman, however, that the phrase in Big Farm Weekly,
"Goodbye to the BSE scourge"
was not mine, but that of the chief veterinary officer. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make a charge against me, he must make that charge equally against the chief veterinary officer for raising that issue in the first place.
298
I should appreciate being allowed to return to the issue of the CAP. I begin by reminding hon. Members of the reforms that the Minister has brought back to the House. It is because of those reforms that it is right for us to be sceptical about some of the claims that the right hon. Gentleman has made today. I recall that in February 1988 the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), went to Brussels to discuss agriculture and returned to the House trumpeting the reforms that would radically change the CAP. In our debate on that, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) challenged me for daring to challenge the Prime Minister about whether the system would work. I expect that not only can the hon. Gentleman remember that, but that he will recall that we warned at that time that the reforms were illusory and would not work. We have been proved right. The reforms have failed. The CAP still takes up two thirds of the EC budget, but only £1 in every £3 gets through to the farmers.
The whole point of those reforms was to get rid of the food mountains. Conservative Ministers told us that they would disappear, but they have not. Indeed, those mountains of food are continuing to grow. At the end of October, there were 494,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder in intervention; 446,000 tonnes of butter in intervention; 850,000 tonnes of beef in intervention—the amount is growing—and 15·5 million tonnes of cereals in intervention. The overall position now is worse than in 1988, yet we were assured by the Government in 1988 that we should leave it to them. They said, "We have got you a good deal. The problems will be solved." Those problems have not been solved—just as we said that they would not be—because the Government did not take the issue seriously enough and did not press as they should have pressed for the substantial reforms that were needed. Furthermore, the right hon. Member for Finchley had the opportunity to do just that because at that time she had the right of veto. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady sold this country short on that occasion.
Mr. Gummer: How does the hon. Gentleman square his enthusiasm for the right of veto on that occasion with the decision of the leader of his party that he would give way at Maastricht on all the issues that are now being discussed? Is it still true that the hon. Gentleman is an anti-European although his party is now pro-Europe? The House must ask that question, given that the hon. Gentleman is asking about vetoes while his party is in favour of lying down and being rolled over.
Dr. Clark: It is no good the Minister, whenever he is found to be wanting and to be wrong, starting to hurl abuse across the Chamber or making allegations that have absolutely no substance. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party has never said what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested—and the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case.
One of the key mechanisms of the Conservative party's CAP reforms was set-aside. At the time we warned that it would not work. It has not worked. When the Minister announced the scheme I described the measures as
"no more than damage limitation measures. They seek merely to tackle the effects of surpluses, not the causes."—[Official Report, 4 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 182.]
That is what the Labour party said in 1988 and we have been proved right.

299
The mere concept of set-aside is wrong. Even though land has been set aside, production of cereals has increased. It increased by 2 per cent. last year, even though over 131,000 hectares have been set aside in the United Kingdom. The simple reason for that is that farmers put their most marginal and least productive land into set-aside. One has only to travel by train from the north-east of England to see the land which has been set aside, squeezed between the railway lines, to realise what the farmers are doing. Last year in its Official Report the EEC confirmed the failure of set-aside. It said:
"the land left fallow in almost all Member States was of very low productive level."
Yet, in spite of that, set-aside is one of the key points of the MacSharry proposals.
The operation of set-aside is even worse than the concept. In a parliamentary answer to me the Minister told me that he
"had identified 18 serious irregularities and a number of additional cases involving minor breaches of the scheme rules. Payments were withheld or recovered in full or in part in 39 cases."—[Official Report. 18 November 1991, Vol. 199, c. 1.]
The Minister's Department now concedes that it cannot check every farm in every year. The problem that we identified is only the tip of the iceberg. They were only the cases that have been uncovered. We do not know the extent of the abuse or misuse.
I fully accept the point that the Minister made about The Sunday Times. I accept his statement as the word of a right hon. Member of this House. He said that The Sunday Times journalist made a fraudulent claim and forged the heading of a Ministry letter. The matter is serious because if one inspects the photocopy of the letter one sees that he forged not only the heading but the "Dear Dr. Rufford".
Mr. Gummer: I made the matter clear and I do not want anyone to misunderstand. I explained exactly what happened. The letter was the standard letter that would have gone out if the claim had been entertained. The letter was prepared but would not have gone out until the land had been seen. Therefore, the letter was on plain paper. What has been added is the heading "Ministry of Agriculture". [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] No, I made it clear. Hon. Gentlemen should be clear about it. I made no claim other than that. It is a serious matter to add a letter heading because it hides the fact that the document was a draft letter which was ready to go out if the claim was entertained. The claim was not entertained. The land could not be inspected because Dr. Rufford did not own it so he made sure that the land was not inspected.
Dr. Clark: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. This is a serious issue. I hope that, if there was a fraudulent claim, the Minister will prosecute. If he does not, he will bring the scheme into disrepute. May I check with the Minister his actual words, which I have in front of me? He said:
"That letter was reproduced in The Sunday Times under a faked Ministry letterhead."
The Minister agrees that that is what he said. If the letterhead was faked, surely, as he says, not only was the story fabricated but the application was fraudulent. I hope that the Minister will take the necessary legal action. Certainly, the Opposition will be only too pleased to support him in that respect.
The reason why I take such a strong line on the set-aside scheme is not merely that it is right so to do. It worries us that many farmers appear to be paid for doing nothing.
300
The public are worried about that. They regard it as a racket. How can we justify rich landowners taking public handouts while making their farmworkers redundant? It has been estimated that one farmworker loses his job for every 750 acres of set-aside. The farmworker receives only a pittance in pay-off—perhaps £2,000 in redundancy pay —whereas the owner of the land may receive thousands of pounds for several years. That does not seem equitable.
The list of those who receive set-aside payments in The Sunday Times article reads like the pages of "Burke's Peerage". Will the Minister confirm that at least one Government Minister receives money from the set-aside scheme? Was The Sunday Times right in that assertion? That part of the story, not the fake letters, is the key point.
Many regard set-aside as an alternative form of social security for the landed gentry, yet the workers who are made redundant receive very little. But the problem with set-aside is not only those who receive it or the fact that set-aside does not reduce production. Has the Minister seen the excellent work of the Council for the Protection of Rural England'? It uncovered the fact that 60 per cent. of non-agricultural use of land set aside in the EEC is in Britain. Does the Minister have any comment to make on the reference by the CPRE to the EC Commissioners on the issue?
From the Government's own figures, the CPRE seems to have a justifiable case. Does the Minister recall that in an answer to me on 17 January this year he said that 536 undertakings for set-aside related to horse-based activities; 46 were for golf courses; 24 were for sports grounds; and 15 were for recreational facilities including camping sites. That was in only the first two years of the scheme. We worry about farmers getting paid set-aside and then using their land for other commercial activities. That is not fair to other business men who are not farmers.
Many of the non-agricultural uses for set-aside land require planning permission. The Minister is coy on that point. I asked him to clarify how many applicants had applied and obtained planning permission for non-agricultural use. He said:
"Applicants for set-aside are not required to give this information."—[Official Report, 1 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 330.]
However, the Minister should look at his own form. I have a copy here. Question 3 says:
"Have you applied for or obtained planning permission for this use?"
Yet the Minister will not supply Members of Parliament with the information and says that applicants are not required to give it. The Minister does not even know the details that are requested when people apply for set-aside. He does not want to know because he does not want the public to know the extent of set-aside.
In view of all the publicity, will the Minister carry out an inquiry into the operation of the set-aside scheme? After all, in this financial year he anticipates that he will spend £27 million on it. Will he also recall that in an answer to me this summer he said that he would publish the report by Reading university on set-aside before the end of the year? May I remind him that there are not many weeks of this year left? Will the report be published before the end of the year, as he promised?
The Minister was right to spend some time on set-aside, because it is one of the main planks of the MacSharry proposals. But this time it is to be compulsory and not voluntary. The Minister has made it plain in the past that

301
he is not in favour of compulsory set-aside. Is he now prepared to accept compulsory set-aside within the MacSharry regime? MacSharry envisages 4·4 million hectares being set aside in Europe, in spite of the fact that it has been shown not to work.
We have been critical and sceptical of the Government's negotiating position and abilities. Obviously we would not expect the Minister to declare his negotiating hand, so the only way that we can judge his negotiating ability is to look at the record, which is not very good. What has become of the Minister's somewhat bragging statement in the House? He told us:
"the Government have presided over the largest reform there has been in the common agricultural policy, and very much greater reform than anybody thought was possible. There is no doubt that most other countries in the Community have now come to accept what was a United Kingdom initiative —that is, a common agricultural policy increasingly designed to meet supply with demand rather than simply with surplus." —[Official Report, 6 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 792.]
That is what the Minister told the House in 1990 he had achieved in his negotiations. The record has proved him wrong and that is why we have a right to be sceptical about what he is trying to argue for now.
I only hope that the Minister will approach the final stages of negotiations on the MacSharry proposals with a little more objectivity and humility. I admit that the signs this afternoon are not especially good.
Mr. Alan Amos: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the alignment of the green pound with the market exchange rate was a tremendous success, against all the odds? Will he give my right hon. Friend the Minister credit for that?
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right—the green pound realignment has been a great benefit to the British farmer. We have said so before and I am happy to repeat it now. However, when we are talking about detailed, in-depth reform, about reshaping agricultural support in this country, we have the right to inquire of the Minister and to press him on those issues.
When the MacSharry proposals mark one were published in February 1991, the Minister—in what I can only describe as one of his well-known tantrums in the House—went over the top. He denounced them in graphic terms saying:
"We start by saying that we oppose Mr. MacSharry's proposals. We hate them. We condemn them."—[Official Report, 14 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 1021.]
Strong words which, predictably, have proved somewhat counter effective with MacSharry, for when the mark two proposals were published in July 1991, the Government's protestations had achieved very little.
Two or three weeks later the Minister—quoted in the Financial Times—described the new plan as being "biased" against the United Kingdom farmer.
Mr. Paul Marland: That was right.
Dr. Clark: Absolutely correct. The Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, elaborated on the Government's attitude when he said in the House in July:
"Our objectives for reform can be met only if MacSharry's proposals are modified … Reform along the lines that MacSharry proposes would not encourage efficient farming,
302
but would let budget costs go up even further … MacSharry is rightly treading the path of reform but he has lost his way and we believe that we should get him back on course."—[Official Report, 22 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 1005.]
The hon. Member was right on that occasion. That is certainly the view of the Labour party.
At the Tory party conference in October the Minister went further in his condemnation of MacSharry's proposals when he said:
"The CAP was never designed to deal with surplus. Indeed until recently I did not think it was possible to produce a system which was worse equipped to deal with new problems of agriculture than the CAP. That was before MacSharry"—
strong clear words. Now we know where the Minister stands. He repeated some of those words today. He described the MacSharry plans as "preposterous". He said that the beef regime was "nonsense", and the sheep regime was "unacceptable". Those are the words which he acknowledges that he used.
During the general discussions of three of the six agricultural regimes—I appreciate that they were only general discussions—at the Council of Ministers meetings in October and November it does not appear that the Minister has won many friends. But we shall see.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must understand that in all those general discussions the spokesmen for other countries supported precisely and specifically the issues which we find acceptable. I know that because I was present. He cannot know it because he was not.
Dr. Clark: We shall await the results of the MacSharry proposals before we find out what the final judgment is and who is correct on those issues.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must accept this —by stating what he does not know he undermines the position by suggesting that somehow or other we are not winning the argument when we are. The hon. Gentleman ought to be supporting his country rather than constantly undermining it.
Dr. Clark: That was an interesting intervention. Am I right in my understanding of what the Minister has told the House—that he has won his points on the sheepmeat regime? Has he persuaded his colleagues in the Council of Ministers to support him on the sheepmeat regime?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should have listened carefully to what I said. I said that we are winning the argument. There are now people who support us who did not support us before. I want to continue to win it. We shall not have won it until we have agreed the whole package. In the meantime, it would help the United Kingdom if the official Opposition would stop trying to make small party political points and would get behind Britain's arguments. They are the only opposition party which thinks that it is clever to argue about international negotiations within the European Community—no other opposition party in Europe does that. The Opposition have done that over Maastricht and over the CAP reform and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
Dr. Clark: I do not think that one observer in this country would listen with a straight face to the Minister accusing someone of making petty party political points. That is my only comment on his remarks.
The Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged honestly that the Government had failed to win when he wrote

303
again this week in The Lake District Herald that the MacSharry proposals are "horrendous". He went on to say that the Government
"condemned them because they fail on every count."
That is the Government's position.
We hope that next week at the Council of Ministers meeting the Minister will fight more successfully for British farmers, consumers, taxpayers and for the environment. I emphasise that we think that the MacSharry proposals will be disastrous for all those people in the British economy. We equally believe that the Minister has set himself an uphill task by his refusal to table counter proposals. He has repeatedly told the House that he could not table counter proposals, but other Agriculture Ministers have done so and have also tabled detailed amendments. The Minister denies it, but I have here the proposals tabled by the French Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Gummer: No proposals have been tabled by the French Minister of Agriculture. There is no mechanism by which proposals can be tabled, and so there cannot be any. The French Minister has made a number of generalised suggestions about these issues, as I have done, and bas put them forward around the table, as I have done. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the rules under which the Community operates.
Dr. Clark: I accept that the Minister has made some suggestions, but the French Minister has not only tabled amendments, but circulated them within the Council of Ministers and throughout the Community. Therefore, it is possible to have a detailed debate on those French proposals. I have them here.
The right hon. Gentleman has refused to table such amendments and therefore the debate has centred on the details of the MacSharry proposals, which we believe to be extremely harmful to United Kingdom interests. As a result, the Minister, almost certainly—I hope I am wrong —will lose the battle for our interests. The House should note that the MacSharry proposals are condemned on every count by the Government's declared policy.
The Labour party believes that the reform of the CAP is vital. The Opposition reject the MacSharry proposals because we believe that they do not represent a fundamental reform of the CAP; they are a mere revision. The proposals will fail as surely as did those advocated so strongly by the right hon. Gentleman in 1988. At the very best the MacSharry proposals represent transitional arrangements.
Mr. MacSharry has admitted that his proposals will increase the spending of the CAP for the next seven years at least—the Minister and I are at one on that. We believe that those reforms will not last that long. Mr. MacSharry will still retain intervention boards and export restitutions. Little wonder that the authoritative publication Agra Europe shares the Opposition's opinion of those proposals. It states:
"There is a real danger that the Community could end up not only with an expensive new form of support, but also with no real reduction in surplus production and in the need for subsidised exports."
The MacSharry proposals on accompanying measures are just as worrying as they include such important schemes as those on pre-retirement pensions, forestry and environmental protection. The Labour party believes that they are all vital parts of any reform, but MacSharry sees them as bolt-on extras. He does not believe that they
304
represent an integral part of the reform package. As a result, national Governments would have to pay up to half the costs; frankly, certain nations will be unable to do so.
Mr. George Walden: The hon. Gentleman is not doing well in countering my right hon. Friend's charge about the national interest—that is what the debate is all about. The hon. Gentleman referred to "bolt-on" extras. One such extra is the ill-treatment of animals because of a loophole in the present law. In a recent case in my constituency the owner of animals, convicted of their ill-treatment, was able to continue ill-treating them after that conviction because of that loophole. I hope that the Labour and Liberal parties will join everyone else in the House to push for that loophole to be closed, because, although the second conviction is coming up on the same person, his animals are still being ill-treated.
Dr. Clark: Obviously we give such support. We believe that Britain should take the lead in Europe on animal welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has done a great deal of work in that respect.
I accept that things have been done, but there is much more to do. I am not seeking to be divisive and I accept that the Government have taken the lead on some of the animal welfare issues. The Labour party has never hidden that fact. However, Conservative Members are sensitive about this because they know that the Minister hypes things up and does not make much progress when it comes to the precise details.
Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might be a little more gracious by acknowledging that we have achieved protection for British horses and ponies in terms of their live export. We have extended the British live export of animals arrangements throughout the Community. We have now got the Community to accept, in advance of Maastricht, a proposal to deal with animal welfare. We have done more than any other British Government to promote animal welfare. However, when the hon. Gentleman was discussing our bad negotiating techniques he did not mention those successes.
Dr. Clark: The Minister's intervention makes my point.
Only today my hon. Friends and I in the Opposition Front-Bench team tabled an early-day motion congratulating the Government on their efforts relating to the export of horses and ponies. That early-day motion is in the Table Office and our support for the Government is in print. The right hon. Gentleman has proved my point, because he lets his mouth override his mind.
The CAP, which is a highly centralised, rigid agricultural support system, is in need of reform. The moneys saved need to be diverted to enhance regional and social funds to aid the rural infrastructure so that it can be improved in a meaningful manner. We should seek value-added components to agriculture. That is the future for advanced societies.
In 1956 we recognised that the CAP had relevance and represented the sole common policy of the EC. Now that we have new common policies relating to the single market, economic and monetary union and environmental and social issues, the symbolism provided by the CAP is no longer required.
The CAP made sense when we had a Community of six, centred around France, but it does not make sense in a

305
Community of 12. The problems would be even worse in a Community of 17 or more covering an area from the Arctic circle to north Africa, from Asia Minor to the shores of the Atlantic.
We accept that the agricultural policy must operate within a European framework, but we believe that it should operate in a looser regime of freely traded agricultural goods within the Community. More decisions could be made at national and regional level using the European concept of subsidiarity. In that way countries would be freer to utilise the finances available for agriculture in a way that better reflected the needs of their societies, their farmers and their environment.
We would favour giving support to environmentally sensitive farming in the United Kingdom, but we might wish to give support to other countries in the form of direct income or through other measures designed to support farmers and to keep them on the land.
Mr. Michael Lord: Is the hon. Gentleman's bottom line that the Labour party would support the complete abandonment of the CAP?
Dr. Clark: I appreciate that it is not always easy to assimilate what is said. No, we believe that there would still need to be a European agricultural regime. The main decisions and guidelines would be issued in Brussels, but, through the use of subsidiarity, more decisions could be taken within the Community framework at the national or regional level. That is the concept we are advocating.
The logic of our argument is now finding friends. Chancellor Kohl of Germany recently referred to the need for more decisions in agriculture to be taken at a regional or Lander level. The average size of farm in the old West Germany was a mere 17·6 hectares, whereas the new Landers of the old East Germany have farms with an average size of 3,700 hectares. No wonder Chancellor Kohl is beginning to appreciate that the policy one might want to apply in Bavaria is not necessarily the same as that which can operate in the new Länder of Mecklenburg.
The debates on the future of agriculture in the United Kingdom are vital for farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment. So far, however, the Minister has given a typical display—he did so again today—which is high on hype, but short on application. He appears to have made more newspaper headlines than progress. Those debates, along with those in GATT, are the most important for agriculture in the United Kingdom since we entered the EC. There is little time left. We urge the Minister to go to Brussels and mend a few fences. He should come back with a deal that helps, not hinders, British farming.
5.59 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: I congra-tulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his robust defence of British interests and the way in which he has outlined the need for careful negotiations because, at this stage, we can leave nothing to chance. Like other Conservative Members, I wish him the best of luck in those difficult and protracted negotiations. His speech was in stark contrast to that of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who spent nearly 40 minutes whining about the problems in the EC and the common
306
agricultural policy. In the last few seconds of his speech, he glossed over the Labour party's alternatives so quickly that we could hardly even hear them.
Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the need for an inquiry into set-aside and for more meat inspectors—I doubt whether that will find its way to the heart of many British farmers—and about the need for a detailed, in-depth reform of the CAP. He had ample opportunity to express the Labour party's views, but we heard nothing except a prize example of his total lack of understanding of how the whole system works. He was wrong to say that the French Minister supported reasonable alternatives and amendments, because those were put forward informally, so he has completely misunderstood the situation. No farmer—with the possible exception of constituents of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—would be foolish enough to vote for the policies suggested by the hon. Member for South Shields.
Mr. Home Robertson: Would not farmers in Gloucestershire agree with those in East Lothian that the industry always does better under a Labour Government?
Mr. Marland: We are talking about the common agricultural policy, and I am sure that farmers in Gloucestershire and non-biased farmers in East Lothian will see what an appalling mess the hon. Member for South Shields would make were he allowed anywhere near the negotiating table. It is not true to say that farmers would do better under a Labour Government.
Mr. Ron Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Marland: No. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
This debate is most timely, because we are discussing the future of Europe. The only genuine common policy in Europe is the common agricultural policy. However, that policy has now degenerated into a mess and needs to be looked at in considerable detail, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking the serious nature of the problem on board.
As my right hon. Friend said, he controls only 17 per cent. of the United Kingdom's farming budget, while the remaining 83 per cent. is controlled from Brussels. To make changes, my right hon. Friend must have the agreement of the Greek, Italian and Irish Ministers. Our Minister is mightily persuasive, but imagine trying to get Sicilian slaughterhouse owners to agree to adopt European standards when the Italian Government have yet to introduce dairy quotas.
The CAP is now out of control. It is massively expensive, does not achieve what it was designed to do and is riddled with fraud. The case of Dr. Ruffard is merely the tip of the iceberg, for the problem goes much deeper. The CAP no longer achieves the aims for which it was set up and those affected—the British farmers—are fed up with it. They feel discontented and desperate.
I have received four telephone calls from farmers in my constituency today, saying what a desperate situation they find themselves in. Our farmers find that they are disadvantaged as a result of the national animal welfare measures that have been introduced and the high hygiene standards that are insisted on in our slaughterhouses and

307
elsewhere. Those measures are laudable—I do not knock them—but where we lead others do not follow, with the result that our producers and operators are disadvantaged.
The environmental controls that are introduced with laudable objectives cost our farmers and our industry generally a great deal of money. Other European countries are not following our lead, not only in farming but in other industries. We lead the EC on controls on pollution, noise, smell and other matters.
There are some absurd anomalies that emphasise the position. For example, we determined to stamp out salmonella in eggs. We slaughtered thousands of chickens, and many producers went out of business. But millions of eggs that had not been tested for salmonella flowed in through our ports from Europe. Very few of them were tested for salmonella when they entered this country and many eggs that may have been humming with salmonella found their way into our supermarkets. They were repacked and labelled "Packed in Britain", and unsuspecting housewives bought them thinking that they were salmonella-free. British egg producers want fair treatment.
In slaughterhouses, we implement high Euro-standards and adhere to extensive and frequent veterinary inspections, while others ignore them. A Member of this House has a cottage in France, and his neighbour is a French farmer who kills his own cattle with his own hands in his own buildings. When the hon. Member concerned asked him, "What about the European regulations on slaughtering animals?", the French farmer shrugged his shoulders and said, "Those regulations are only for the British." British farmers want fair treatment.
Lorryloads of British lamb are being held up and burned illegally by French farmers. They put spikes across the roads to stop vehicles loaded with lamb proceeding to their destination. The French police simply stand around with their hands in their pockets shrugging their shoulders. Is that communautaire or fair?
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister that careful negotiations are needed to find a way forward Our over-zealous application of Euro-directives is causing trouble in Ramsgate. Mr. David Pettit, a greengrocer and local councillor in Ramsgate, described his cabbages and peas as "local". Although they were grown locally, officials told him that he could not describe them as such, and he had to change their description. I doubt whether French officials would have bothered to check up on French cabbages described as "local".
The co-responsibility levy and stabilisers on milk and cereals are fatuous taxes that simply make farmers produce more to maintain their margins. We all agree that those should go. A farmer receives £115 on the farmgate price of his cereals, but ultimately receives £100, thanks to the co-responsibility levy and stabiliser. Perhaps the abolition of those levies and stabilisers is part of my right hon. Friend's secret negotiating package—I hope so.
Part of my constituency is the royal forest of Dean, where we have been growing English oaks since time began. We are proud of that history. We are now told that we must grow Euro-oaks approved by the European Parliament. Our British sausage has been under attack, as have prawn cocktail flavoured potato crisps. Even paperboys are now threatened by faceless men from Brussels who say that they must give up that way of earning a few pence before they go to school.
308
All that builds great resentment of Europe and the faceless men in Brussels. To put it mildly, British farmers are stamping mad with the European Community. They regard themselves as being seriously disadvantaged in Europe. Farmers' incomes have fallen like a stone. Despite the fact that they use their ingenuity to add value and pursue alternatives, many of them are going broke. In the meantime, the money that is meant to help farmers under the CAP is siphoned off by others, often by fraudulent deals and double-dealing. That is a flavour of the confusion and frustration in the CAP.
In the European negotiations, we should use the CAP as an awful example of European co-operation. I am glad that the Government have recognised that fact in their leaflet, "Our Farming Future" and highlighted the mismatch between ever-increasing expenditure on subsidies and declining farm incomes, which demonstrates clearly that the CAP does not operate in the interests of producers, consumers or taxpayers, and that further reform in essential. That is a start—a radical reform is needed.
I shall remind the House of the cost of the CAP. In 1991, the European agricultural budget was £25 billion. In addition, the national budgets for agricultural support amounted to a further £18 billion, giving a total of £43 billion. That means that every acre farmed in the European Community costs EC taxpayers £162 in support. Put another way, had the United Kingdom share of that money been divided equally between the 220,000 British farmers, they would each have received a cheque for £20,445. Despite that vast support, farm incomes are being reduced: and net farm incomes in 1990 were only 42 per cent. of net farm incomes in 1984. The trouble is that the money is not being used to provide agricultural support for the farmers for whom it is intended.
Turning to the future, I like the idea of area payments, which are now being used for oilseed. I believe that that proposal will find favour with a number of farmers. It will reduce the price of the end product, and the deficit will be made up for the farmers through area payments. Lower prices for cereals—if and when area payments are used on cereals—could make the alternative cereal imports much less attractive than they are at present.
The EC grain production surplus amounts to 30 million tonnes, which is the amount of cereal substitutes imported into the EC. Lower cereal prices and lower prices generally may reduce fraud and ensure that the money goes directly to farmers, rather than to fraudsters.
Farmers have lost much purchasing power over the years. In 1964, 100 lambs bought a new medium-powered David Brown tractor. In order to buy the same machine today, the farmer has to sell 600 lambs. Mr. MacSharry's plans have given rise to great concern in this country about quota cuts and limiting flock sizes. That worry is aggravated by the fact that, if farmers cannot make a living at today's prices, and the future offers only a reduction in prices and in the amount that farmers are allowed to produce, there is no hope. Any cuts that are introduced must be fair and equal. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will have no truck with modulation and reductions in output that are not absolutely fair.
British farmers are always being urged to become more orientated. I believe that the time has come for us to look carefully at European national aids to food processors, because I think that that is where the trouble lies. In the

309
United Kingdom, the total amount of national aid given to farmers is just under £1 billion. In Spain, the figure is £1 billion, in Italy it is £2·7 billion, in Germany it is £3·2 billion and in France a massive £8·5 billion is given to food producers and food processors. The different figures are distorting the market.
Competition within Europe now occurs in food and drink processing, which is hugely encouraged through national aids. Food from Britain, under the excellent leadership of Mr. Paul Judge, has highlighted a trade gap in food and drink of £7 billion per annum, which emphasises the need for better marketing.
Page 17 of the booklet "Our Farming Future" shows a graph of how much our agricultural produce is sold through voluntary co-operatives compared with other European countries, and there is no doubt that we lag far behind. The co-operatives are not big enough. If they want to hire decent employees, they must pay them good money. Voluntary co-operatives need a minimum turnover of £10 million a year to be able to attract the right sort of employees. Food from Britain said that we have six representatives in Spain, whereas Food from France has 60 representatives in Spain. Food from Britain has four representatives in Paris, whereas Food from France has 32 representatives in London. There is no doubt that there is a massive imbalance.
Some 80 per cent. of our trade deficit consists of food and drink imports. In 1980, we imported 6,000 tonnes of mushrooms. Today, we import 34,000 tonnes of mushrooms, many of them from southern Ireland. It is difficult to believe that mushroom producers in Ireland are more efficient than those in this country—I cannot believe it. Three years ago, our poultry imports were nil; today, the value of poultry imports is £250 million. The birds are not imported merely as dead carcases, but with substantial value added. Ministers should begin to consider that issue, once they have sorted out Mr. MacSharry. They were right: we hate his proposals, and do not like what he has to offer; we shall probably end up with a derivative of his proposals, but we must ensure that they are fair.
Our farmers do not fear competition from genuine farmers competing with them on the same basis, but we are now being disadvantaged nationally because of the benefits given to farmers of other countries to help them market and add value to their goods. Our farmers are efficient and can compete, but their day-to-day plight is desperate. The current position of United Kingdom farmers is not their fault, but the result of the devious manipulation of the CAP rules by our partners at taxpayers' expense to add value to food once it is outside the farm gate.
I shall finish as I began: I wish our Ministers the best of luck in their negotiations with the dreadful MacSharry proposals. I wish them godspeed.
6.17 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: I beg to move, to leave out from "legal framework of the Common Agricultural Policy; and" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'believes the Government should make every effort to restore the confidence, stability and profitability of the British agricultural industry by introducing a ten-year plan for farmers, giving them the opportunity to compete on equal
310
terms with their European counterparts and introducing measures to safeguard the future of the family farm in the United Kingdom'.
I have received many calls during the day from farmers and union leaders in Scotland, Wales and England who are pleased with the amendment. I give the Government and the Minister due warning that, unless they accept the amendment, we shall divide the House later tonight.
My hon. Friends and I believe that today's debate on agriculture is the most important debate that we have had for a long time. I believe that British agriculture is at a crossroads; we face the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the reform of the common agricultural policy. I know that the Government are about to take heed of what the Liberal Democrats have said over the years. I was delighted that, after I had tabled a question the week before last, the Secretary of State for Wales eventually went to Brussels last week on behalf of Welsh farmers. His action was long overdue, but the pressure is now on.
Like every other Smithfield week, this one has been an excellent time for assessing agriculture. Thousands of farmers and their families have converged on London to visit the show, which is one of the high spots of the farming year. As usual, I have been there to admire the splendid animals, wonder at the gleaming high-tech machinery on display and, above all, to talk freely to farmers from all parts of Britain. The show is excellent, and I recommend anyone who has not already been there to visit it and see the high standards attained by our livestock industry.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Did my hon. Friend win any prizes?
Mr. Howells: I shall deal with that later.
This year, there is something different about the show. There is not the air of cheerful optimism that usually abounds. Could it be that, among farmers, the talk is of rising production costs and very low returns, of huge bank overdrafts and of farms being abandoned? Do I sense an air of quiet desperation on the machinery stands, reflecting perhaps the drop in sales over the past year? I understand that, in Wales, tractor sales have dropped by about 30 per cent. and that, although in Scotland and the east of England there was a smaller drop, no one expects to see a great improvement in the near future.
There is much to worry farmers today. Not only have farm incomes plummeted in the past year by 10 per cent., bringing them to their lowest level since the second world war, but there is a nagging fear about the MacSharry proposals and the GATT negotiations on world trade. The recession has bitten savagely into the industry's viability, and this year alone, about 7,000 farmers and about 5,000 workers are known to have left the land. I am afraid that others will soon follow if present trends continue.
Somehow or other, British agriculture has lost its way. There is no conception of what the long term holds in store. There is no framework in which to make decisions. Many factors contribute to the malaise. The country's general economic climate has not benefited any industry, and farmers, with their heavy capital outlay, have fallen foul of high interest rates and increasing prices.
Although our products are second to none, our marketing has never kept pace with production. We have a market of 380 million people in the EC, and it is time that we adopted a more aggressive approach towards exports as well as selling in the home market. That requires a degree of support from the Government, which to date has

311
been sadly lacking compared with the efforts of other EC Governments, and a readiness by farmers to co-operate in modern selling practices.
Some of the blame for the uncertainty in the industry can be placed at the door of the Government, whose agricultural policies have been negative to say the least, and whose response to the crisis in the industry has been slow. For example, time and again they have delayed payment of hill livestock compensatory allowances to hard-pressed hill farmers. They have refused to pay the maximum rate of suckler cow premium while other countries in Europe are pressing for increases. They have refused to implement the useful EC outgoers scheme for dairy farmers, which was designed to obtain milk quotas from those who wanted to give them up and redistribute them among the remaining farmers. That has been widely carried out in other EC countries, and has shielded their producers from a 3 per cent. quota cut imposed by Mr. MacSharry.
The Government have shamefully cut research and development. I could give many other examples. One of their latest failings is their blinkered attitude towards reform of the common agricultural policy. Does the Minister think that his total rejection of the MacSharry proposals has benefited our farmers in any way, or does he think that a more measured and thoughtful response could have gained valuable concessions for us? We accept that, as the proposals stand, there are distinct disadvantages for British farmers. But is there not an argument for looking at the principles involved and adapting the details to national circumstances?
It is plain that the CAP must be fundamentally reformed to cope with a situation that has changed beyond all recognition since the CAP was established. It is clear that there is no longer any justification for encouraging production with reference to demand. It is also ridiculous that, while CAP support increases year by year, farm incomes have dropped and look set to deteriorate. It is wrong that, because of the linking of support to the volume of production, those who benefit most are the larger farmers, who on balance have least need of the support.
Liberal Democrats believe that a healthy, prosperous farming industry is absolutely necessary in this country, and we must find a suitable framework within which it can operate. Our farmers, who are probably the most efficient in Europe, deserve our support, because on their well-being depends the health of our rural economy and the natural environment.
Mr. Lord: Perhaps I could put to the hon. Gentleman the question that I put earlier to the Labour spokesman. Is the hon. Gentleman, as the agriculture spokesman for his party, about to present the framework that he suggests should replace the CAP?
Mr. Howells: My colleagues and I have decided to go to Brussels in the near future to meet Mr. MacSharry. I hope that we will be able to persuade him to accept the policies that our party has pursued for the past 10 years. If he does not accept them all, perhaps he will accept some of them. On another day, I might tell the hon. Gentleman our policies.
It is now time to restore the confidence that has been lost during the difficult times of the past few years, and to do that we must first introduce a 10-year programme for
312
agriculture which will ensure that farmers are able to plan ahead without worry. The chopping and changing of policy over the past couple of decades has contributed greatly to the present state of the industry. Whatever our views on the milk quotas, confidence has not been restored since they were introduced in the early 1980s.
It is essential to ensure that the British farmer is allowed to compete on equal terms with his European counterpart at all levels. The Government must fight for our farmers in negotiations and, at the same time, give more practical assistance. An NFU briefing states:
"If British farmers and growers are required to operate within the EC market at a competitive disadvantage, the consequences for our economy and counytryside would be disastrous."
Mr. Martlew: Will the Liberal Democrat proposals cost more than the present policy being pursued in Europe?
Mr. Howells: Times are difficult, but it is important to keep part-time and full-time farmers in the countryside. People must remain there as custodians of the land.
The iniquities resulting from the present system of support should be removed, and financial resources should be redirected to family farms. They are, after all, the background of the rural community, and as such should be actively encouraged to stay in business. The Farmers Union of Wales is forward-looking on agriculture policies, and in response to the European Commission proposals it said:
"The Farmers Union of Wales is fearful that this failure to discuss and negotiate reform of the CAP and to positively discriminate in favour of family farms will result in an intensification of the restrictive price policies of the past few years which clearly will have a much greater impact, in the absence of any compensating direct subsidies, on the family farms that prevail in Wales. In the absence of targeted support and suitable social measures, the current recession in the industry will not only continue but accelerate, accentuate an already deteriorating farm income position and a decline in the rural economy as a whole."
I agree with that conclusion, and believe that it applies not only to Wales but to a large part of the British agricultural economy. There must be a move towards forms of direct support aimed at improving the environment and achieving social goals. Every effort should be made to keep the farmers on the land.
I shall say a few words about sheep farming. I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he is against the MacSharry proposals. The EC proposes to introduce a limit on premium eligibility based on the numbers of ewes in the flock in 1990. In addition to roughlands flock limitation, it is proposed that no premium will be paid for more than the quota of 750 ewes for the less-favoured areas, and 350 ewes elsewhere. If that policy were implemented, it would have a disastrous effect on sheep farmers in Wales, and perhaps an even more disastrous effect on large farms in Northumberland, the border counties and the Scottish highlands. Many farms in the north of England and in Scotland employ six or seven shepherds, so that would have a disastrous effect on the economy of the area.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, as the Minister has said that Britain is responsible for more than a quarter of the sheep production for the entire EC—he gave a figure of 27 per cent.—the right hon. Gentleman must be in a strong

313
negotiating position to change that policy, which discriminates against British sheep farmers? I believe that the limits are far too low, especially for hill farming areas.
Mr. Howells: My hon. Friend has made a worthy point, and I am sure that the Minister will take heed of it.
This afternoon, I received a note from the National Farmers Union of Scotland. That organisation sums up the situation to the best of its ability, and I could not improve on what it says. It sent out a questionnaire; and said:
"On 101 of the 264 Borders farms surveyed, there are 67,000 LFA"—
that is, less favoured area—
"ewes, in excess of the MacSharry 750 ewe proposed limit, which may not receive SAP"—
sheep annual premium—
"and LFA supplement. This could represent a reduction in income on these farms of over £1·3million."
They are talking about only 101 farms, so, if the policy were pursued, I do not know what effect it would have on the countryside of Scotland and on other parts of the country.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the first effect would be that employed shepherds would cease to be employed. Shepherds are the backbone of much of rural life in Northumberland and the borders, and they have already been put out of work by the effects of headage limits, so if the policy is not changed it will disastrously affect the structure of rural life.
Mr. Howells: In addition, the National Farmers Union of Scotland says:
"123 of the 264 farmers who completed the survey, indicated that, if the MacSharry II proposals are implemented, they would have to make a total of 135 men redundant."
Shepherds will have to be made redundant in the hills of Scotland and in the north of England, which could have a devastating effect on the land and the families involved.
The Government made a big mistake last year, but I am delighted to see that the pressure brought about by the early-day motion on the wool board guarantee tabled by my hon. Friends and myself has been beneficial. I can claim a success for that. I was vice-chairman of the British Wool Board for 11 years and did my utmost to carry on the financial agreement between the Government and the board. Unfortunately, two years ago the Government decided to do away with the guaranteed price. It was a unilateral decision, made without consulting their friends in Europe.
Today, the farmers of Britain receive only 50 per cent. of their wool clip cheque three months after delivery. They have to wait another 12 months for the other 50 per cent. That has a disastrous effect on many hill farms. I hope that the Government will take heed of what I say on behalf of the wool producers of Britain. They could do with that money. They need it, and it is the Government's duty to provide the mechanism whereby farmers will get it when it is due to them.
I could refer to many other aspects of the MacSharry proposals, but now I shall mention the Liberal Democrats' farmers charter. That says it all; it says what should be done, and I hope that my parliamentary colleagues on
314
both sides of the House will listen to it and agree. Hon. Members are aware that we are now winning many rural seats, and that is because of our agriculture policy.
I hope that others will agree with us about
"Reform of CAP so that farmers are paid proper prices for the goods which they produce",
and about
"Government action to ensure that the MacSharry proposals do not discriminate against British farms for being, on average, larger than their European counterparts …
Action in the GATT talks to ensure that any reduction in agricultural support which is negotiated does not penalise European farmers".
Our best suggestion to the farmers of this country and to the Government is:
"Well-resourced Countryside Management Agreements, based on whole farm plans and available to all, to encourage sustainability and safeguard wildlife and landscape".
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the farmers of this country need their confidence restored to give them the stability and profitability to enable them to invest in the land. Then we shall ensure that the next generation will stay on the land, will farm and will conserve the countryside for the benefit of others.
6.38 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) will excuse me if I deviate a little from his constituency. He made a wide-ranging speech on many agricultural topics and products, and I shall want to follow him under one or two of those headings during my short speech.
However, I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister on the firm, skilful and constructive role that he is playing in the negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy. I especially congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who was kind enough to send me a note saying that he would have to slip out for a few minutes, on his role in the negotiations. He is a skilful and expert practitioner in the area, and he has a relevant professional background. He spends immense periods with his face locked into the mire of the common agricultural policy in Brussels. We owe him an enormous debt for his work. We can all endorse our objective in the negotiations, which is to save the common agricultural policy from itself and to save the British farmer from the common agricultural policy, if it is branded by the hallmark of the current MacSharry proposals.
A good deal of gloom and doom is forecast for British agriculture. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) reflected that in his speech, as did the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) to some extent. It is commonplace in the House that our agriculture is going through a difficult and black period, in terms both of its prospects and of the current restrictions. Agriculture is not helped in that contingency by uncertainty over the general agreement on tariffs and trade and over the reform of the CAP, because it also faces declining prices and there is no sign of its costs going down in the same way.
However, we must be careful not to undermine unnecessarily national confidence or farmers' confidence in agriculture. We all aim to close the gap between our home food production and our home food consumption. We shall not close that gap between what we import and what we produce at home if we all talk about the burial of

315
British agriculture or about its imminent demise On the contrary, we all expect it to improve its output, which is the object of every party's policy.
Agriculture is staggeringly successful. About 100 years ago, after the abolition of the corn laws when American agricultural, especially cereal, output rocketed, Britain imported three quarters of all its grain. Today, we are not only the world's sixth largest grain exporter, but the world's second largest exporter of sheepmeat. Viewed in that context, British agriculture is to British industry what German manufacturing is to German industry. We are at the top of the league. Against that background, it is a great mistake to regard British agriculture as a lame duck which is staggering haltingly towards an early demise.
Mr. Martlew: I could not let pass the right hon. Gentleman's comment about German manufacturing industry in comparison with our agriculture. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that German manufacturing industry has massive surpluses, whereas we are running a deficit in both food and drink?
Mr. Alison: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point that there is a gap that our producers could fill. Agriculture is a tiny sector in terms of the number of people it employs–2·3 per cent. of our total work force. We can be excused for having a modest gap in contrast to what the Germans are able to do with manufacturing. However, we aim to close that gap, and we should all cheer on agriculture as it seeks to do so.
I am a Church Commissioner, and the Church Commission has the second largest agricultural estate in England after the Crown. We have more than 156,000 acres and about 500 farms under tenancy. Our agents tell us that farm incomes generally in our estate are
"holding up reasonably well this year on the back of a good harvest. This has been reflected in our rates which in broad terms have remained level this year. Reductions on some arable farms, especially in Lincolnshire, have been counter-balanced by small rent increases on dairy farms."
On the whole, things are not quite as bad as some might suggest.
In focusing again on the reform of the common agricultural policy, I want to reiterate the objections expressed by hon. Members of all parties to the MacSharry proposals as they now stand, especially with their support for the smaller farmers. There is a double disadvantage in the policy. First, it backs the inefficient small farm unit and does nothing to improve farm structure and output. Secondly, it is grossly unfair in human terms—the very area that MacSharry seeks to magnify. Many British farmers with a far larger acreage than the small units in different parts of the continent about which we have been hearing, such as the 17·6 hectares in west Germany, have as few people running and managing them as the tiny units on the continent have.
If one is trying to help the human dimension, there is no point in tackling that in terms of acreage. With modern farming techniques and conditions, very small numbers operate very large acreages. It is nonsense and illogical, therefore, to focus attention on the small acreage farms, ignoring the numbers of people who operate large acreages with few individuals. Such farms are often family farms, although they are several times bigger than their equivalents on the continent.
Various different formulae have been advanced for real reforms in agriculture. Perhaps we should at least consider
316
taking off the shelf and dusting down our earlier pre-Common Market techniques of agricultural support involving especially the old standard quantities and the associated deficiency payments. Those schemes could be applied transitionally for farms under a certain acreage or a certain level of output.
Such schemes have many advantages. They are progressive in tax terms because they would go directly on to a budgetary Exchequer cost and have no effect on farm prices, thus taking the burden of support off the poor consumer. They would dispense with intervention, support buying and restitution for exports, and they would be an alternative in certain circumstances for large-scale set-aside proposals. Individual farms might be offered the option of a large set-aside or deficiency payments for a standard quantity which would keep everyone employed on the farm, but would make the farm restrict its output to some extent. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary or my right hon. Friend the Minister will give some. consideration to reintroducing those schemes as one of the formulae for reform.
I will pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) about mushrooms. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has a particular interest in and knowledge of mushroom production. Mushrooms are now the largest of all United Kingdom horticultural crops. Middlebrook Mushrooms in my constituency is the largest individual fresh mushroom producer in Britain. However, it faces the severe competition to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West referred, especially from Ireland. I believe, as do many involved in British mushroom production, that the foreign competition is unfair. My hon. Friend mentioned the huge increase in imports in the past few years. As much as 53 per cent. of mushrooms is now imported. That is far too high a proportion for a crop which we could produce on a much bigger scale.
I want to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary what is happening in Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has quite recently considerably enlarged its mushroom production through extensive regional and Government assistance in all sectors of production. The three entrepreneurs involved in the Republic have received aid for compost production, packaging facilities, transport and promotion. They have been accepted within the so-called trading houses scheme, so that they pay only 10 per cent. corporation tax instead of 43 per cent.—a major financial benefit.
British growers can compete, given fair competition. A major concern for the British mushroom industry is compliance with health, hygiene and environmental legislation. The industry has no criticism of the need to introduce protective measures, but they add costs, which affect the competitiveness of the product. In other EC countries, the implementation of the regulations has been delayed, or they may not even be applied. In the United Kingdom, some unfair advantage is gained through the implementation of the regulations being delayed by up to three years in Northern Ireland.
If my hon. Friend is not aware of the distorting supportive measures in the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, Northern Ireland, I hope that he will allow me to submit a memorandum on the topic which he will consider carefully so that he can take whatever steps are necessary to restore a level playing field.

317
However, we should be proud of the industry, which has great potential. I am sure that it will close the gap and remain a great leader in British industry.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to intrude on the debate in this way, but, before the speech of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), the House was addresed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). I believe that it is a convention of the House that, when a Member speaks, he waits to listen to the subsequent speaker. There were five Liberal Democrat Members present, including the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. Has the Liberal party broken a convention, or was it merely a display of bad manners that they left the Chamber immediately after their spokesman had finished?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I consider that a genuine point of order. I would have wished that the Liberal Democrats might have remained in their place, especially as their amendment is now before the House for debate. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has brought the matter to the attention of the House. I hope that it will be noted by those who read the Official Report tomorrow.
6.52 pm
Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudon): It will probably be understood that I wish to make my remarks in the context of the Scottish agricultural scene. Under the MacSharry proposals Scotland would suffer disproportionately to not only other EC countries but other countries within the United Kingdom. Before I take issue with the quantities on which the subsidies within the MacSharry proposals are based, may I remind the Minister of what farming means generally in Scotland.
The gross output of farming in Scotland in 1990 was £1·5 billion. Around 50,000 people are engaged directly in farming and a further 140,000 work in the support and service sectors of Scottish agriculture. Agriculture accounts for 14 per cent. of the value of Scottish non-oil output and 6 per cent. of employment. Those who know the geography of Scotland will understand that the latter percentage is much higher in rural areas where there is no other employment. The figures show that agriculture represents a major industry for Scotland.
Like all other areas of Great Britain which are involved in agriculture, Scotland has seen a slump of 10 per cent. in farm incomes this year on top of a massive 21 per cent. slump last year. The MacSharry proposals, if implemented in anything like their current form, would decimate Scottish agriculture because Scottish farms are generally well above the average size of farms in the EC and in the rest of the United Kingdom, for historical but mainly geographical reasons.
Compensation is based on the small farmer or the peasant farmer in the EC. To find out how it affects Scottish farmers one need go no further than my constituency. Although Kilmarnock is an industrial area, there is a large rural area in the constituency in the heart of Ayrshire. All hon. Members will know the reputation of the Ayrshire farmer.
318
About three quarters of dairy herds in EC member states qualify for full compensation. In Ayrshire, with some world-famous herds, the larger farms would receive less than 5 per cent. of the compensation. The same problem applies to the new proposals, which are based on compensating flocks that are far lower than the Scottish average.
The Scottish Agricultural College did a survey to find out what would happen if the MacSharry proposals were to be implemented in the Borders region. The in-depth research programme showed that farm incomes in the region are likely to suffer a direct loss of between £6 million and £6·5 million per annum, depending on how responsive farmers are in meeting the stocking density limits. The table which the college provides shows clearly that half the losses would be experienced by cereal farmers, a quarter by sheep farmers and the rest by farmers with beef, suckler cow and dairy herds.
The grain trade in the Borders region is very important not just for the region itself. The turnover is about £6·5 million per annum. At current prices the cereal farmers will experience a £2 million per annum contraction immediately and there will be a further contraction as farmers reduce output in response to lower prices.
There will be a knock-on effect. United Distillers distils some of the finest whiskies in Scotland and supplies Johnnie Walker whisky to my constituency, where we have the biggest bottling plant in Europe. The whisky is bottled there and dispatched abroad, earning a great deal of money for the coffers of the Chancellor. It is company policy to buy barley in Scotland. It would all he from Scotland if there were sufficient supplies of appropriate barley. The barley which is grown in the Borders is particularly useful to the whisky industry because it has a high starch and low nitrogen content. Its abilities to germinate are exactly those required for the mashing of our marvellous golden liquid. We could not afford to allow the Borders farmers to suffer the terrible experience of stopping farming or reducing drastically their supplies of barley to the whisky industry.
I have read with interest some of the Minister's statements. When the Secretary of State spoke to the House on 14 February he opposed the MacSharry proposals vehemently. On that occasion he used the example of their effect on Welsh farmers. The Minister has told us today that he does not want to let us know what his proposals will be when he goes into negotiations. No poker player will sit with a man at his back or show his hand, but nor will a poker player have a cocky attitude to the game. Sometimes at the Dispatch Box the Minister displays not just a cocky attitude—on occasions I could be accused of that myself—but almost an arrogant attitude. Such an attitude often hardens the attitude of those with whom one negotiates. Sometimes the negotiating game can be played a little more skilfully.
We hope that the Minister will get the best deal that he possibly can to protect our farmers and we would support him in achieving that objective. But the deal must be seen to be fair to all farmers in the United Kingdom because their circumstances vary depending on the country and the area in which they farm. It is important that the negotiations should be successful.
I do not know whether the Minister will come back with the news that the farmers want. As has been said before, there is a general gloom about the farming industry. They have suffered tremendous losses in income. I often speak to

319
the farmers in my area and they are seriously concerned about whether they can continue. Moreover, their sons are loth to follow their fathers into farming. If they do not go into farming, there is real reason for gloom because it could well mean the end of the Scottish farming industry. Therefore, their spirits must be lifted.
It is not me who distrusts the Minister's ability to negotiate, but the farmers I met today who doubt whether he can deliver the goods. Because of that, the National Farmers Union of Scotland gave me a lengthy and accurate brief. I do not wish to take up much time other than to remind the Minister of the five-point agenda with which the NFU would like him to be armed in the poker games of Europe. It says:
"(1) The British Government must stand by its anti-discrimination pledges—no second thoughts."
There must be no letting up. It goes on:
"(2) The CAP negotiations must build on reasonably broad agreement on the principle of resource withdrawal in the shape of arable set-aside.
(3) The negotiations must also develop constructively the common thread of agreement on the environment, and on the need for permanent measures to compensate for the disadvantages of farming in Less Favoured Areas.
(4) Import policy must not undermine sensible CAP reform. The Minister of Agriculture has said that he is 'not going to have land set-aside in Britain so that the rest of Europe can produce more'. He's right. But the logic must not stop there. Land set aside in the EC must not be the green light for imports from other countries either—whether from countries in the GATT negotiations, or from Eastern Europe.
The Minister has also said that 'it' is no good raising standards here so that our farmers pay the cost—while others use the old methods and flood our markets with crueller but cheaper food'".
I support that. The NFU and the Opposition want action to deal with Britain's £6 million trading deficit in food and drink which, rightly, concerns the Government, the farmers and the British producers and certainly concerns me.
The fifth point says:
"There must be detailed negotiations on how we would be affected by the detailed introduction of new commodity support arrangements."
In other words, farmers must know the results of the negotiations and must not be left to wonder in some kind of vacuum how the negotiations will affect their income. There can be nothing worse for those employed in any industry than to have their incomes drastically reduced for two years on the trot and then be left twirling their thumbs wondering whether at the end of the next year they will still be in business—whether they can continue to be farmers and produce the food that Britain can use. Milk produced throughout Scotland can be consumed in Scotland. Therefore, I agree with the milk producers that there is no need to reduce the production of milk in Scotland.
The Minister of State must make the Minister aware of the state of Scottish agriculture and of its importance to the Scottish economy. I remind him of the disproportionate harm that the MacSharry proposals would cause and seek his assurance that he will bear in mind the Scottish farmers and all those elsewhere in Britain when he represents the interests of the British Government and the British farmer in Europe.
I am as aware as all Scottish farmers that reform is needed. They understand that reform is needed, but they wish to ensure that overproduction is halted and that EC farmers are ready and able to compete in world markets
320
when the Uruguay GATT round is finally resolved. We are also aware of the need to halt the environmental degradation that overproduction brings in its wake.
I understand the desire to protect the small rural communities which rely on agriculture. However, the MacSharry proposals look only in the most narrow, blinkered way for solutions. I offer the Minister the NFU's five-point agenda, of which I hope he has taken note. It will stand him in good stead when he comes to argue against the MacSharry proposals.
7.6 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I was interested to hear about the state of the Scottish agriculture industry. As a frequent visitor to Scotland I have formed a great admiration for the Scottish farmer's skills, particularly in animal husbandry and the attention that he pays to the production of a crop of whose product I am a not infrequent consumer. I hope that all that goes well.
The problems reflected by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey) are part of the general pattern of agriculture, not only in Britain but elsewhere. The French do not revolt because they have nothing to revolt about. We may not like the fact that they stop exports—they affect some of the exports of my constituency—but they are bloody-minded because they think that they, too, are getting a rotten deal from the CAP. So do we all. That is why during the next few weeks we shall be embarked on considering the extent to which we can change it to the benefit of all.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on their able work. My right hon. Friend is on the right lines. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), but, apart from his whinge against my right hon. Friend's personal qualities, I did not detect that he would do anything fundamentally different were he in my right hon. Friend's shoes. However, as usual when one is in opposition, particularly close to an election, one has to shout and scream trying to pretend that there is a big difference when there is not. We heard nothing particularly constructive. If we were in opposition we would do exactly the same.
I heard the hon. Gentleman at 6 o'clock this morning and he was just as bad then as he was this afternoon. When he was told that what he had said was all very well but a bit negative, he fell back on the 13 wasted years that he has been in opposition. He had not a clue. Agriculture is not like defence—a matter of being privy to private information; it is splattered all over the journals. However, he tried to give as good as he got. He is a fair-minded bloke on occasions—at least he has been to me.
I want to concentrate on my constituency, but before I do I shall make two points. The first concerns something that we can do ourselves. We all recognise that the British farmer is having a rough time. I do not want to dwell on it; we know it to be true. In my constituency we have a sad picture to paint. But there is one thing on which all can agree. There is a tremendous deficit between what we import and what we export.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) paid tribute to Food From Britain. He said that it is doing a good job. I believe that it is. It promotes the idea both in this country and abroad that we should

321
consume British food, but some people think that what Food From Britain does is enough and that the rest will follow.
No one will buy British food because somebody tells them that it is better than their own. Sometimes they do not believe it and, if they believe it, how can they get hold of it? They would also want to know who markets the food and its price. Twenty five years ago I became the Member of Parliament for East Grinstead. Its name has now been changed to Wealden. At that time I had some interest in advertising and marketing, so I decided to get people I knew in some of the big stores to come down to one of our towns. I managed to get local National Farmers Union branch members to come to listen to what they had to say. Their message, 25 years ago, was the same message as today: "We won't be able to sell your goods unless you market them to us properly." Again and again we hear the cry go up, "We must get down to marketing." Good Lord! How many more years shall we have to wait before we have as up and running and as efficient a marketing system for British products as they have in France, Holland and Denmark?
A few co-operatives have been set up during the last 25 years. Some companies are doing very well. Farmers have got together and specialised, with the result that there are some very good success stories. That is typical of Britain. We hear about good success stories in manufacturing, but I am talking about the broad base. There are not sufficient people who are good enough at organising the sale of their products. I wish my right hon. Friend luck in his negotiations over the common agricultural policy, but I do not believe that if it were modified, as a result of my right hon. Friend's efforts, to suit all our needs, the British farming industry would be able to take sufficient advantage of the improved conditions if its own marketing arrangements had not also been improved. That is one reason why we look forward to some progress being made with the Milk Marketing Board so that it becomes a real marketing institution. I do not believe that that has anything to do with the Government. It has everything to do with farmers and those involved in the food industry.
My right hon. Friend knows that set-aside has been regarded primarily as a restraint on production. That is why it is criticised. People do not like to see land set aside, with someone appearing not to be doing very much with the land set aside and getting paid for it. My right hon. Friend said today that he would like set-aside to be much more environmentally based. I am sure that he is right. The Ministry is due shortly to take over the countryside premium scheme. I hope, therefore, that it will look at the opportunities for expanding the scheme.
The most important problem, however, that set-aside presents us with—I know that my right hon. Friend will relish tackling it—is that Mr. MacSharry must be told that any reform of the common agricultural policy must ensure that set-aside takes environmental factors much more into account. I wish him luck in the negotiations that he will vigorously pursue towards that end.
The ordinary man in the street looks to farmers to combine production of food with care of the countryside. I do not believe that there needs to be any inherent conflict between those aims. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will continue to encourage the reconciliation of
322
agricultural environmental objectives through a combination of advice—which is obviously needed—regulationwhich is also needed—and incentives.
However it may be modified, the common agricultural policy will be the biggest single influence on farming practices in Europe. Some of the funds that are now flowing from the CAP—not always put to as good a use as we should like—should encourage rather than discourage environmentally friendly farming. If my right hon. Friend succeeds in gaining enough support for his efforts, the European Community will set up a framework of support and it will be up to individual countries to decide, within that framework, how they wish to use the funds.
My constituency, Wealden, includes the High Weald which extends beyond my constituency eastwards into Kent. Sussex land is heavy; much of it is clay. Sussex is hilly. There are few big fields. There are lots of hedges that need to be clipped. There are copses and woods. It is a heavily wooded county. It provides a great contrast to many other parts of England. Sussex probably has more trees per acre than any other county. It is not, therefore, the easiest land to farm. In the 18th century the trees were used for shipbuilding and in the iron ore industry. Dairy farms predominate. Farmers grow some wheat and barley for their cows. Many of those farmers have gone out of business. I understand why. The quota system did it; there was a milk glut. Other countries have had to face up to that problem.
Some of the farms have been split up into smallholdings. They are used for a bit of horticulture and, increasingly, for a bit of "horseyculture"—and the horses do not half make a mess on the ground! There is also the livestock. Some farmers have beef cattle, some for breeding purposes or for showing purposes. A few wealthy people do that. It is a drain on their resources. Others do it on a very small scale. It is a hobby for local gentleman farmers. That is what they like to do with their few acres and it is of some benefit to us. Many farmers are now engaged in rearing sheep on a commercial basis. I do not know how long that will last.
All this takes place in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Not all of it is beautiful, but the countryside as a whole looks attractive. That has not prevented diversification. The Government have encouraged farmers to diversify. One finds that a barn has been converted into a smart office where a chap is working hard on his word processor; he has a nice set-up with computers.
I visited one farm that obtained permission to convert a barn for use as a place to pack boxes. Voluntary workers help to supervise mentally handicapped people to pack the boxes. That provides them with some work and pocket money. They are extraordinarily good workers. That enlightened policy is much to be welcomed.
As it is an area of outstanding natural beauty, much of the diversification can take place only in limited areas—close to the towns and bigger villages. It is not surprising, therefore, that incomes have dropped severely during the last few years, with the result that we are now beginning to see signs of dereliction. I do not like to see thistles growing in the fields. I do not believe that the people who own that land have set it aside. I think that they have just opted out; they cannot afford to look after their land. That is worrying. The spread of weeds can have a very serious effect on neighbouring farms.
There is an alternative. A nice piece of land could be cleared. People in London want to play golf, but there is

323
a shortage of golf courses. We have one of the newest and finest championship courses in the land, developed on 250 acres. There are two 18-hole golf courses. I forget how many golf courses there are in my constituency, but there must be about 10. At the last count, 15 planning applications were outstanding. We cannot go on like that. The county has a view about golf courses—that if there is to be such a development it is better for them to be sited not on good farming land, or in naturally beautiful areas, but on the outskirts of towns. There is a limit, therefore, to what can be done in that respect.
We must try to help ourselves to come to terms with the changes in farming, but if the present position persists, farmers in rural areas will not be seen to be working in line with the avowed aim of my right hon. Friend the Minister of a good environmental policy mixed with good farming. Therefore, I should like to make a suggestion, which I know will be regarded as special pleading. The Government recently announced the establishment of a further dozen environmentally sensitive areas, which included one close to my constituency on the south downs. That area is not as tough as areas of Scotland or the Welsh hills but it is hard farming land. My plea is that if the Government want to maintain its environmental quality and ensure that people work it they will consider including the High Weald as an ESA. Such a policy of extensification would avoid food mountains and ensure that our land was properly looked after by farmers who want to work and who expect a reasonable return for their efforts.
I received a letter this morning from a farmer about the MacSharry proposals. He said that there would be preference funding for smallholdings. He believes that the proposals discriminate against the bulk of United Kingdom agriculture. He adds these words, which I ask my right hon. Friend to pass on to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"However, there is a recognition that some responsibility for securing fair competition lies with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To take two examples, the French farmers receive some £90 per acre for set-aside land whilst we receive less than £50. Italian farmers can claim a 50 per cent. grant to buy machinery for conservation uses. Such discrepancies can only be bridged by national funding."
I do not know whether that is the answer but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr Alison) said, in too many cases the playing field is not level enough.
Finally, I should like to mention my friends on the Milk Marketing Board, to whom I pay tribute for their efforts to reform the board's structure. They have told me about the effect that price cuts can have on the dairy sector. The stocking density hurdle would exclude 30 per cent. of dairy farms in England and Wales from receiving any compensation. Since 1983, we have had to reduce our milk output more than many countries that are far more self-sufficient than we are. We have achieved self-sufficiency of 90 per cent., but other countries have achieved more.
I hope that if my hon. Friend the Minister has time he will deal with those points in replying to the debate. If he cannot do so, perhaps he will drop me a line.
7.22 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I always enjoy listening to agriculture debates and especially to Conservative Members, because that is the only time when we do not hear any free market claptrap. We hear about farm subsidies and the social wage. [Interruption.] The hon.
324
Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) shakes his head. I shall happily give way if he wishes to intervene.
The problem is that Conservatives are not consistent in their policies. I understand that 500 jobs losses have been announced by Bass breweries today. The situation is drastic, but I suspect that we will not hear special pleading for Bass workers from Conservative Members. I accept that we need to keep people on the land. That Conservatives are free-marketeers on everything but agriculture can, at least, be said in their favour.
The milk industry is in a terrible position. We have some of the most efficient dairy farms in not only Europe but probably the world and an effective milk-processing system; so we should have, because we have good climatic conditions and, perhaps with the exception of New Zealand, the best pasture in the world.
Our serious problems have been caused by the deals that have been negotiated by the Government. Milk quotas are not working in the United Kingdom's favour. There has been much debate on the imbalance in food and drink. I think that it was £6 billion last year, or £15 million every day that the Minister has been in office. The United Kingdom is only 86 per cent. self-sufficient in milk and dairy products. We know that the Minister will negotiate another cut in the quota. What will that do to the imbalance? We shall be down to 80 per cent. self-sufficiency, or perhaps less. That will depend on how good he is on the day. I hope that he is better that day than he was today. Milk quotas do not work, and in some ways a bit of market forces might have helped the United Kingdom because we are efficient producers.
Hon. Members have expressed deep concern about the plight of the sheep farmer, especially the hill farmer, on whom milk quotas have a direct effect. A farmer friend—I do have some—said to me, "You realise that as soon as the quota was introduced dairy farmers put more sheep on land that previously was used for cows." We are a major exporter of sheepmeat because of the quota. Hill farmers, who could not change to dairying because their land was unsuitable, are suffering because of such distortions.
I am glad that the Minister does not appear to be accepting a quota system for other products, but how will he deal with our not being self-sufficient? Will we get more milk from France? Previously, the Minister has said that we still have a surplus of dairy products, which is true, but there is not a steady weekly or monthly supply of milk. There is what one calls a flush in the spring—that could upset those who do not understand dairy terminology—which always leads to a surplus. That will be overcome only if the industry has enough confidence to invest in plant to find new milk products to sell.
As there is no confidence in the supply of milk, the dairy processing industry is looking for new ways of selling dairy products. More of our ice cream is being imported from France, not because of the quality of our product but because of the shortage of milk.
When the Minister announced set-aside in June 1988, I accused him of introducing a scheme to pay farmers for watching the grass grow. Little did I know that not only were we paying farmers to watch the grass grow but were paying The Sunday Times reporters for watching somebody else's grass grow. At first, the Minister was straightforward in saying how wrong The Sunday Times article was, but later he started to flannel a little. I am not

325
suggesting that he would deliberately mislead the House, but I should like to see The Sunday Times reply before offering him my wholehearted support. There are ways of interpreting things, and he was becoming a bit shifty.
The failure of the set-aside policy is a cause of great concern. It is not popular with anyone apart from those people who have horses. In urban areas there is often a great demand for somewhere to keep horses and to use them for recreation, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). It might be popular in such areas, but in France I suspect that the horse is an agricultural beast because they eat horses over there.
The set-aside regime will not work and I think that we must accept that. I recently asked the Minister whether he would consider a nitrogen fertiliser set-aside policy, as advocated by Friends of the Earth among others. He turned it down, and I was very concerned that he did so, out of hand. One argument was that it would be hard to police, but the present policy is hard to police if we are to judge by what is happening at the moment. Such a policy would have the advantage of reducing inputs and production and it would prevent the anomaly that exists in some areas whereby nitrogen is getting into drinking water and creating a health hazard. A nitrogen set-aside policy should be considered seriously. It is important and would, I believe, be acceptable to the general public. It is certainly acceptable to the environmentalists, but I accept that it might be difficult to police.
We have talked a great deal today about surpluses, but the reality is that there is not a surplus of food in the world; there is a lack of money. As we cannot get the world's economics right, we are unable to transfer food from the European Community to the areas of the world that need it. There are many problems, because we could undermine farming in some countries, but we must be very careful about reducing production. We must get the world's economics right.
I am deeply concerned about what used to be the Soviet Union. I have not seen the news today—by tonight it may no longer be the Soviet Union. On Friday I shall attend an independence celebration of the Ukranian community in my constituency. That community has been there since the last war and has made a useful contribution to our community. We shall celebrate with it on Friday, but what concerns me is whether the people of the Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Union will still be celebrating at the end of the winter. I suspect that there will be major food shortages there. I also believe that the Government are doing very little—or nothing at all—to help. It is not a good idea in the short term to send our major retailers there to see how they can set up branches of Tesco and Sainsbury, an idea in which the Government take pride. The way in which those companies make their profits in this country might not be a good idea for the Russian system.
In the short term we must ensure that the Soviet people get through the winter. We must begin to direct food—a lot of food—to that country. We cannot merely talk about it going through Europe. I understand that the Government are putting about £20 million worth of grain into the St. Petersburg—or Leningrad—area to stop the people there killing their animals this winter. That will not be enough. We must launch a major food aid campaign to
326
feed the people of eastern Europe and especially those of the Soviet Union because that would also be enlightened self-interest.
Mr. Frank Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware of the basis on which the west was able to help the eastern bloc countries last year? We learnt on a military tour this year that the basis of food supplies that went from west to east to help to sustain the people throughout the winter was from military stocks that had been stockpiled to feed the armies if they had come westwards. But because the armies were returning to the Soviet Union, we were able to pick up the supplies and send them back. The stocks are no longer there, so the point that my hon. Friend makes is even more starkly visible.
Mr. Martlew: That was a one-off which cannot be repeated. I have been to the Soviet embassy in London to talk over this issue, which is of great concern. I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will say that the Government are taking note of the problem. We have massive surpluses and the Soviet Union will have massive shortages. Let us ensure that our surpluses get there.
I understand that some food aid organised through the European Commission was produced in the United Kingdom this summer. When the German haulage company came to collect it, it was told that there was no hurry because the food had a nine-month delivery time scale. I suspect that the food is still in a German warehouse. I hope that the Government will take the issue seriously.
Let us return to the MacSharry proposals and the Government's attitude to them. The Minister told the House what a good deal he has made. Some of us were sceptical and we were right to be so. I wonder whether the Minister carries on in the Council of Europe in the way that he has in the Chamber. If so, he makes me ashamed to be British because of his childish performance of a type that we rarely see. I asked a civil question during the previous agriculture question time about the Milk Marketing Board and he leapt into a tirade of party political propaganda which did not go down very well with the dairy farmers. If he behaves like that, it is little wonder that our farmers are worse off today than they have been at any time since the second world war. The sooner that we replace the Minister with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) the better—the grasp of the subject that he has shown today and the cool way in which he dealt with the nine or 10 interventions from the petulant Minister would stand us in good stead. I am sure that my hon. Friend could go to Brussels to negotiate a good and sensible deal for the British farmer.
7.36 pm
Mr. Michael Lord: I am pleased to take part in this important debate, and although I shall not take up all the points made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), his concern for the Soviet Union is a matter with which I shall deal in a moment.
I congratulate the Minister on the very tough stance that he has taken on this difficult issue. We know that he is battling hard and that he understands all the problems faced by our farmers. He has our support for all that he is trying to do. Having said that, I believe that the MacSharry proposals are absolutely disastrous. They discriminate against the large and efficient farmers—who,

327
it has been generally acknowledged today, are our farmers. The proposals promote and preserve the small and the inefficient, and they are totally unacceptable.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that there are efficient small farmers in Northern Ireland—they are the best in the United Kingdom—and that in any overall settlement they must also be kept in mind?
Mr. Lord: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but there are small farms and small farms. When we talk about small farms in Northern Ireland, we arc not talking about the small farms that are being propped up in some parts of the European Community. Many small farms in Northern Ireland would be regarded as quite large by Mr. MacSharry.
We must set the debate in context. As many hon. Members have said, farmers' prices are down and falling even further, but costs are up. Several hon. Members have said that farmers' profit margins are now the lowest since the second world war, and there is absolutely no doubt that the prospect of bankruptcy is very real for many farmers.
The effect of that on our rural economy would be disastrous, not only for the farmer, but for all the other services which depend on them. The providers of fertiliser, the feed and corn merchants, the village shops and the whole rural economy are now in grave danger. My constituency in the east of England has very few large industries and depends enormously for its livelihood on farmers and the farming industry.
The last thing that I want to see is the kind of dereliction about which we often speak, but which many of us do not believe could actually occur. However, I suspect that there are hon. Members in the Chamber today who are older than I and have seen derelict land in this country. Not so very long ago, farms in East Anglia were almost given away and land could be rented for next to nothing. We do not want those bad old times to return.
I feel very strongly about the MacSharry proposals. They are children of the CAP and I believe that the CAP is the real problem. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will battle hard in Europe for us. If he succeeds in defeating many of the proposals that discriminate against our farmers, he will simply succeed in spreading the nonsense more evenly.
I do not believe that the CAP can be reformed sensibly. It is becoming more and more detached from reality. Other hon. Members have referred to the food mountains, storage costs and the problems with set-aside, quotas and Euro-oaks to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) referred.
I am quite fond of trees. In fact, I am president of the Arboricultural Association. Although there are many nonsenses in Europe, I can assure the House that our English oaks are not in danger from Europe. Indeed, they are perhaps one of the few things that are not. However, I believe that the CAP must be abandoned and an entirely new system must be devised.
The CAP was never going to work with 12 different nations with different cultures, languages, agricultural systems, markets, climates and soil types. How could one system, one inflexible framework, ever serve all those nations? It is not surprising that we now have grain mountains and wine lakes.
328
Pursuing the wine analogy for a moment, there is a television programme entitled "The Last of the Summer Wine". Of the three gentlemen who feature in that programme regularly, one is called Compo, another is called Clegg, but I cannot remember the name of the third. [HON. MEMBERS: "Foggy".] Thank you.
I have not watched the programme very often, but, as far as I can recall, those gentlemen specialise in putting together at the beginning of the programme some quite absurd proposal. They then spend the rest of the programme trying to make it work, while the audience dissolves in laughter. That is what is happening in relation to the CAP. We are trying to make the impossible work, and it is now becoming pure farce. Pure farce may be entertaining in the Whitehall theatre, but it is not entertaining for my Suffolk farmers. They have now had enough.
Some people say that the CAP is the flagship of Europe. There are those of us in this place who know what sometimes happens to flagships—[Interruption.]That was a joke against myself. There can be little point in continuing the sad and expensive experiment of the CAP. which, as we have heard, is taking up two thirds of the Community's budget.
The hon. Member for Carlisle referred to the problems of the Soviet Union. It would be madness if we tried to impose on our 12 nations the kind of command structure that existed in the east and which was so rigid and created problems for food production and distribution, just when those eastern countries want to participate in our agriculture and trade. How could they join then? How would such a system work? I believe that it would not work very well.
The CAP has now become regimented. Almost all Ireland's production is geared to intervention and not to sensible markets or people's needs. Instead, it is geared to serving the artificial framework that we have created. I am not advocating a totally free market in agricultural products worldwide. That could never happen, because Governments could never reconcile themselves to such a market—nor should they. I also believe that the idea of world food prices is a myth. We often talk about the real or world price of food, but that is nonsense. Governments will always interfere with food production for a variety of reasons, some of which are good and some bad.
Accepting that agricultural prices will always be to some extent artificial, I suggest that we should scrap the CAP in its entirety. We should allow individual nations to deal with their own farmers and agriculture in the way that they see fit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has already referred to the value of deficiency payments and the way in which we used to do things in this country a few years ago.
We should also construct sensible international agreements for trade in agricultural products between all nations. Finally, we should build into all those agreements the very real need to look after the third world, and that includes its immediate needs in terms of hunger and the longer-term needs of agricultural stability. That is part of the picture.
I am certain that the days of the CAP are numbered. How long will it take for those responsible for it to recognise the truth? I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister well in his negotiations. He knows just how much is at stake for our farmers. He, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, should be given back the

329
responsibility for our farmers. I urge him to consider the fundamental changes that I have suggested, for the sake of the long-term future and stability of this vital industry.
7.46 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I listened with great interest to the views of the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) about scrapping the CAP. He said that we should allow our Parliament to decide policy for our farmers. However, he must recognise that we are debating the future of the CAP when European integration is to be considered at the intergovernmental conference at Maastricht next week. This is an appropriate time for us to discuss the issue, because our farming industry has long regarded Europe as its marketplace. Since 1973, decisions affecting the industry's future have increasingly been taken on the European stage.
I have no hesitation in claiming that farmers in general are much more knowledgeable about the European debate than any other sector of United Kingdom industry. Farming politics have for so long been dominated by issues such as the green pound differentials, ecus and the merits or otherwise of the European monetary system and monetary compensatory amounts. I remember as far back as 1976, when the debate about whether sheepmeat should come into the Community's sectoral structure, the sophisticated and mature way in which farmers considered the arguments. Whatever the public at large have felt, farmers have never doubted that we needed to be at the heart of Europe. They led the debate in 1973 and in 1976.
Many of the issues that we have debated in the past 20 years have centred not on whether we should be moving towards greater European integration—that has always been understood in agriculture—but on creating a level playing field between farmers in Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland on the one hand and our counterparts on the European mainland on the other. That is why the arguments about the green pound and MCAs were so significant and why eliminating differentials became a dominating issue.
We in Plaid Cymru have always argued, within the European context, that Welsh farmers need a specific and clear voice in negotiations. Our farmers are aware that small countries in the European Community, such as the Republic of Ireland, have a direct voice in the Council of Ministers—the decision-making process—while we have none. They also have many more Members in the European Parliament than we have.
As I said during Welsh questions on Monday, we very much welcome the initiative of the Secretary of State for Wales in going to Brussels to talk to Commissioner MacSharry, but we fear that the ultimate decision about the negotiations will be in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to present with justice the case for the differing and sometimes conflicting interests of the farmers in each country or region of the United Kingdom.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the parlous state of the industry in Wales—even without the cuts proposed by the Commission. Aggregate farming incomes in Wales at current prices dropped by 23 per cent. in 1990. That followed a drop of 18 per cent. in the previous year. The
330
1990 figure was 25 per cent. below the average for the period 1981–85. Gross profits declined during a period of escalating costs, thus eroding a weak capital base.
Dr. Peter Midmore, of the economics department at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, predicts that, if current trends are not reversed, by the turn of the century 12,000 employment opportunities in Welsh agriculture will be lost and that a further 12,000 jobs will go in the ancillary industries. That is the measure of the catastrophe that faces rural Wales. A disaster of monumental proportions is staring us in the face.
Let us remember that rural Wales dies without agriculture and that agriculture dies without support. The relationship between agriculture and its ancillary and dependent industries on the one hand and our rural communities on the other is profound. This is not about statistics; it is about people, their families, homes, schools, village shops, community centres, youth clubs, rural societies and all the other organisations that comprise rural life and make it such a rich tapestry. All that is under threat. Our whole way of life is in jeopardy. Wales particularly faces a threat to its language and culture. That principle at least—I say "principle" because I shall come to the detail later—is recognised in the Commission's plans. We need to keep people on the land if we are to maintain the fabric of rural society. Unfortunately, that principle was noticeably absent from the Government's response.
Let me make one thing clear. I am not saying that Welsh farmers, any more than any other sector of industry, want state handouts simply to prop up an ailing economy. However, they do say that they are entitled to support to take account of the special difficulties that they face in terms of soil quality and climate. There is a vision of farmers living a life of luxury on handouts from Brussels. That may be true of some, but the vast majority of the farmers whom I and my colleages represent—the small or medium-size family farmer—have faced considerable difficulties in the past two or three years and some even face ruin.
On the hills of Wales, the reality is not of vast profits, but of simply eking a meagre living from shallow soil in an inhospitable climate. On the hills of Wales, there are no alternatives to sheep production and, even on the better land, dairy farmers are disposing of their milk quotas in an effort to improve their cash-flow problems. They are cashing in on a valuable capital asset simply to reduce an ever-increasing overdraft. That can be only a temporary respite.
That is the reality that we bring to this debate—and I make no apology for arguing as strongly as I can, using every line of argument I can muster—that the Secretary of State for Wales has to present the case for Welsh farmers even if that puts him in conflict with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The industry expects no less than that tonight.
In the dairy sector, I note that quotas are to remain beyond 1992. It would be helpful if the Commission could tell us how long it envisages the quotas remaining in operation. I am told that they might remain until the year 2000. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point when he replies. I support plans to ensure that there are no cuts in the quotas of the medium-size and small farmers, provided that the Government establish a fully operational cessation scheme. Any quota cut would also take into account the self-sufficiency in dairy products of each member state.

331
It is recognised that margins in the beef sector are low. That is an argument for reducing the intervention mechanism and replacing it with a system of more direct support. However, although I am happy that the Minister is prepared to fight the Commission in discussions, I must advise him that if he loses that argument and the price is reduced by 15 per cent., as is envisaged in the current proposals, the phasing-in of stocking rates should follow the phasing-in of compensation payments in support of the beef special premium. As my Liberal Democrat colleague the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) has said, the greatest difficulty is in the sheep sector. The Commission has given a quota figure to qualify for support of 750 for the less favoured areas and of 350 elsewhere, but that is far too low. Those figures discriminate against Welsh and Scottish farmers. They should be increased to at least 1,000 and 500 respectively and should apply to each partner, not per holding. That is the issue that discriminates most against Welsh farmers. It must be changed.
We support the idea that farmers should be given proper retirement schemes to release land for their successors or for use in conservation schemes where appropriate. However, there appears to be some confusion in the Commission's proposals. A literal reading of the text of the proposals suggests that the scheme would assist farmers in retirement only in cases where, if they left land to their successor, that would increase the area of land that the successor would take over. That seems clear enough —the holding would have to be amalgamated with another before the retiring farmer could benefit. However. when the Commission was asked to explain the rationale behind that, it claimed that the scheme would operate in cases where members of the family took over the existing holding.
I ask the Minister to seek clarification on the point because it is vital that the scheme operates for the benefit of families in the way I have just described. The scheme should not apply only where there is amalgamation. Far too many farms in Wales have been amalgamated in recent years. We want to maintain the fabric of our rural society and our small and medium-size farms, provided, of course, that they are viable units, because that means that we can keep more families on the land.
We also support the environmental action programme which encourages farmers to use production methods that do not affect the environment. That is important in Wales where stocking ratios have to be reduced. In that regard, I renew my plea to the Secretary of State for Wales that the whole of my constituency should be designated an environmentally sensitive area, given its unique network of wetlands, marsh and other wildlife habitats. I know that the Secretary of State has included Ynys Mon on his short list and I urge him to include us in his final selection.
I hope that my short speech has demonstrated what is really at stake for Welsh agriculture in this debate. We are talking about sustaining a viable industry in rural Wales that cannot survive without support. We fear that the Government regard the whole exercise as one of cutting support across the board—that has been the thrust of the Minister's attitude to reform from the outset—but that would damage the interests of the farmers I represent and the communities in which they live.
I remind the Minister of his speech to the annual conference of the National Farmers Union earlier this year when he said:
332
"We must stop these proposals in their tracks".
The right hon. Gentleman has failed to do that and a second round of proposals is now on the table. I cannot imagine that they will be torn up so that we can start again. We are not in that position. We want the Minister to enter the negotiations positively and to take his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales with him if necessary. If the Government fail to do that, they will not only pay a heavy electoral price, but the interests of the communities that we represent will be damaged.
7.58 pm
Mr. David Harris: One point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) is that farmers, whether Welsh, English, Scottish or Northern Irish, are extremely well-informed about all things European as they affect the agriculture industry. I think back to the days when I was first a Member of the European Parliament some 12 years ago. I could get away with murder when I spoke to local National Farmers Union branches. I certainly cannot do so now. When I speak to my NFU branch this Friday I shall be well aware that I shall have to be careful of the facts as I present them and the views that I express. As the hon. Gentleman said, farmers are now extremely well informed, and that is all to their credit.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) spoke on behalf of the Liberal party. I draw attention to the amendment that he and several of his hon. Friends have tabled and particularly to the idea of a 10-year plan. The amendment says that the Liberal Democrats want to look 10 year ahead so that farmers can approach those 10 years without worry. O that it were so easy! The hon. Gentleman has great Welsh charm, but he will not con the agriculture industry in Wales, England or Scotland with such a simple solution.
Mr. Geraint Howells rose—
Mr. Harris: I see that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to intervene, so with the greatest pleasure I will allow him to do so.
Mr. Howells: With respect, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the majority of farmers in his constituency and mine and in the rest of Britain would like to have their confidence restored? Does he accept that one way in which that can be done is to produce a 10-year plan to ensure that the industry knows exactly which way it is going?
Mr. Harris: Of course, the hon. Gentleman's farmers, my farmers and the farmers of every right hon. and hon. Member would love to have their confidence restored. I agree that there is a lack of confidence. But what on earth does the hon. Gentleman suggest should be the basis of that 10-year plan? A few moments ago the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that he did not know what the position in the Soviet Union would be by the end of t he week. None of us does. Can anyone build a 10-year plan that has any meaning whatever without knowing, for example, what the structure of the European Community will be at the end of the decade?
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North does not have a clue what the structure or mechanisms of the European Community will be by the end of the decade. Of course he does not. Yet those are vital ingredients in planning the future. Does the hon.

333
Gentleman really want a 10-year plan such as the Soviet Union used in its approach to agriculture? I doubt it. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Of course, he does not. The amendment is a bit of Liberal Democrat connery. I do not think for one moment that his farmers or those of any other hon. Member will be taken in by it.
However, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is right to say that there is a lack of confidence in the future. Despite the difficulties in foreseeing the future, the Government must do something to restore confidence. I, or any hon. Member, would be a fool if we tried to pretend that everything was wonderful in agriculture. We know that all our farmers are going through one of the most difficult periods that the industry has faced, certainly within the memory of most hon. Members in the Chamber today. The difficulties are enormous. We all know about the pressure on incomes. Farmers are leaving the industry. Oh that they were not! But any party which holds out the prospect, as the Liberal Democrats seek to do, that no one would leave the industry in the next few years if this or that panacea, a 10-year plan or whatever, were implemented, is not being honest with farmers. Above all else, we must be honest with the members of the industry.
In these changed circumstances, I was heartened to read in the current edition of the NFU magazine British Farmer an article by the President, David Naish. It said:
"Traditionally the NFU has devoted its efforts largely to maintaining UK and EC support for our members as producers. Now, with the launch of our 'Food from the Countryside' initiative, we are looking increasingly to promote your interests"—
that is the farmers' interests—
"as sellers in the market-place.
This is an important change of emphasis."
The NFU was right to make that change of emphasis. Although better marketing is not a panacea, it is undoubtedly a contribution to helping our farmers. That has been a recurrent theme in the debate.
I was delighted with the Ministry of Agriculture's document "Our Farming Future", which was published a few weeks ago. I was particularly pleased with the pledge
that
"the Government intends to offer Group Formation Grants to encourage the establishment of producer marketing groups".
As we know, some £5·4 million will be allocated for that purpose over the next three years. I hope that there is a good take-up of that money. Indeed, it is one way in which we can give back some confidence to the industry.
Another recurring theme of the debate has been environmentally sensitive areas. The hon. Member for Ynys M00F4;n wanted the whole of his constituency to be designated an ESA. Some years ago I served on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill that introduced the concept of ESAs and I was quick to realise the potential that they offered.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member has gone already.
Mr. Harris: Yes, indeed, he has gone already.
I was anxious that part of my constituency, Penwith moors, should be designated an ESA and I was delighted that it was part of the first wave. There is a proposal to extend that ESA and I hope that it will be considered
334
sympathetically by the Government. I understand that extensions of existing ESAs are to be decided in the near future. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us some information on the timescale. I am talking about not the creation of new ESAs but the extension of existing ones.
However, I will speak about the creation of new ESAs. The Isles of Scilly, which are also in my constituency, have made a case to be designated an ESA. The interest that is being shown in the concept is a tribute to the Minister, who pioneered the idea of ESAs and persuaded the European Community to adopt it. It is interesting that so many areas now see designation as an important aid in correcting the present position in agriculture.
The impact of imports from eastern Europe was touched on briefly during the debate. I have dropped a note to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) telling him that I intended to make a passing reference to him if I was able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In his speech in the historic two-day debate on the European Community before Maastricht my right hon. Friend said:
"The Community should be devoting much more attention to what it can do to open its markets to the produce of those countries,"—
he was referring to eastern Europe—
"especially their farm produce."— [Official Report, 21 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 468.]
I nudged my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). She immediately took the cue and, being a bolder person than I, interrupted our distinguished colleague and took him to task.
Of course we must help the countries of eastern Europe—they are in a desperate state. However, it should not be done at the expense of our farmers. I feel very strongly—the hon. Member for Carlisle mentioned this—that the right way to approach the issue is to make aid available from the European Community and partly from this country, so that the countries of eastern Europe can help feed themselves and help feed the Soviet Union. Opening our doors to eastern European agricultural products would be wrong and would be to the detriment of our hard-pressed farmers. I hope that the Government will take that message to heart.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There has never been a flow of goods from eastern Europe to us—the flow of goods has always been to Russia. However, eastern European countries are so short of hard currency that they cannot sell food to Russia, which has no hard currency. If we supply them with hard currency they can send food to Russia and our farmers will not be harmed.
Mr. Harris: I could not agree more.
Finally, I join all those hon. Members who have congratulated the Minister on his approach to MacSharry. When one strips away all the flummery from the other side, there is little difference between us in our support for his approach on that issue.
Like other hon. Members, I came with a list of issues provided by my local NFU branch. I do not need to go through them because my right hon. Friend the Minister dealt with them in his opening speech. I was especially reassured about what he said regarding the so-called partnership rules.
8.11 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: About two weeks ago I attended the annual general meeting of the Cymdeithas Defaid Mynydd Cymreig Dinbych—the Denbigh Welsh Mountain Sheep Society—held in Pentrefoelas in my constituency. They naturally took the opportunity to voice their concerns about the present state of farming generally, but especially about the problems of livestock farming in the difficult conditions of the Welsh hills, and I know of those problems. I am sure that other hon. Members will also be aware of the loss of the sheep variable premium and the problems with interest rates and prices.
Since 1980 farm incomes have fallen overall by 39 per cent. It is fair to say that farmers in constituencies such as mine have borne the brunt of such falls. In markets serving north Wales, recent prices for sheep were the same as they were 10 years ago and therefore do not allow for inflation.
I have here two British Wool Marketing Board payment advice slips for one of my farmers—one from 1980 and one from 1990. For every grade of wool the pence per kilo figure is higher in 1980 than in 1990. If we take total inflation into account, it should not be surprising that farmers are going bust and that six farmers and 16 farm workers have left the industry every day since the Government took office.
Farmers would not be quite so annoyed if they did not find the lamb that they received perhaps £15 for being retailed in a local supermarket at £80, albeit in nice, neat, little packages. It is hardly surprising that they should be unhappy at other problems such as the delay in paying ewe premium—which in my area is undoubtedly due to the closure of the Ruthin Welsh Office agricultural department—the redefinition of the less favoured areas, the increase in the MLC levy and, last but not least, the MacSharry proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy. It is generally acknowledged that the CAP desperately needs reformation—65 per cent. of all EC funds are spent on it and, of the money spent, most is spent on the richest farmers or on storage and export restitution.
What are the Government doing to reform the situation? In the Orders of the Day the take—note motion purports to suggest that the Government have an
"intention to seek reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which will make Community agriculture more market-orientated and efficient"
putting more emphasis on environmental care and reducing the cost—words with which I cannot disagree. However, is not the reality somewhat different?
How can we stand any chance of changing the system without tabling alternative proposals—a suggestion turned down by the Government in their evidence to the Select Committee of the other place? Surely we should be giving specific alternatives to the proposals—changes to MacSharry—for example, to the headage limits proposal which is terribly damaging to farmers in my constituency.
Perhaps the Minister has the priority to remove discrimination but the important question is how. Why does he not propose a fundamental change? Why not argue for repatriation of substantial parts of the policy within overall production control targets?
Many of my Welsh mountain farmers thought that the MacSharry proposals would help them. They considered themselves to be small farmers. It is fair to say that they now realise that in EC terms they are not small. They are not small in hectarage or in headage terms, but they are
336
very small in profit and they are desperate for a change which would allow them and their families to farm and to have a future in farming.
Other hon. Members have already referred to the meeting of the Select Committee this morning. We heard about the horrendous balance of trade deficit that this country has, not in manufactured goods, but in food that we can grow ourselves, such as eggs. For example, we heard that mushroom imports have increased from 6,000 tonnes to 34,000 tonnes in the past five years.
We need a level playing field and support for our producers. The Minister pretends that he cannot reveal his hand in the negotiations but it is not playing into the hands of other negotiators to reveal alternatives. This evening we have heard about mushrooms. The Minister is treating our farmers to the mushroom system—keeping them in the dark and dropping them in the manure.
Our EC partners do not seem to worry about giving alternatives. France is putting its views to other members. We should tell the Community that the "common" should be dropped from a CAP policy which cannot possibly cope with agriculture as diverse as that of Sweden and the almost subsistence agriculture in eastern Turkey.
If we took the "common" out of the CAP, we could ensure that our farmers would not be penalised but would be protected and would have a level playing field and a future.
8.17 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), with his beautiful constituency. He has the mountains and hills of north Wales and I have the flattest part of Europe if not the flattest place between here and the Urals.
Farming has faced many challenges and never more than the list that we have heard today. Like any industry, agriculture must take account of international develop-ments in this rapidly changing world. Markets are growing more dynamic, more demanding and less protected. They will become even more influential in what has been a rather over-managed sector of the economy.
There are three elements of the international dimension, some of which have already been touched on in the debate: the general agreement on tariffs and trade round of negotiations; the problem of produce from eastern Europe, which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) brought to the attention of the House; and reform of the common agricultural policy, the subject of tonight's debate.
In my opinion, GATT must come first. I was delighted that the Minister took the same line in his excellent speech. There are two reasons. First, GATT is a more comprehensive negotiation than MacSharry, because it takes into account the products of southern Europe which are not covered by the MacSharry proposals. Secondly, it is believed that we are more likely to get a reduction in support price, which is closer to our model and not that of MacSharry.
It is recognised by the House, the people—certainly those involved in argiculture—and by the EEC that reform of the CAP is necessary. The United Kingdom contributes £3·5 billion to the CAP and we are somewhat puzzled when our farmers ask us what they get in return. There is no ready answer. It is certainly not "common" in the sense

337
that it applies equally everywhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) drew attention to the huge subsidy of £8·5 billion provided in France. In Germany that subsidy is worth £3·2 billion. Those figures compare with the support provided in the United Kingdom of just under £1 billion.
The CAP is full of hidden national subsidies and my farmers may well ask where is the so-called level playing field. We heard the amusing story about mushroom production in Ireland—there was a hint of a hidden subsidy behind that production. Given the figures of national support for agriculture in different countries, it is not surprising that our farmers sometimes attempt to battle on an uneven playing field.
It is also important to consider the various factors at work in the United Kingdom, for example, cost recovery, which is expected by the Treasury. On poultry, the full cost recovery for salmonella inspections and the inspections of abattoirs is required under our rules, but not in any other Community country.
Through our negotiations we must not impose on agriculture a structure that reduces the ability of farmers to compete effectively. That might mean large increases in the CAP expenditure and could increase the probability of trade disputes.
The MacSharry proposals have been debated at length today. They are utterly opposed by the Conservative party and by my farmers in north-east Cambridgeshire. Those proposals are anti-economic because they penalise the larger and more efficient farm. The average size of a farm in this country is 69 hectares; in Cambridgeshire it is 80 hectares. There are about 6.8 million farmers in Europe, but the average farm is only a paltry 16·5 hectares. The MacSharry proposals will discriminate against British farmers, and certainly against the farmers of my constituency.
The proposal for set-aside presumes three size bands—up to 20 hectares, 20 to 50 hectares and more than 50 hectares. The set-aside limit will be 15 per cent., which is the rate of the existing scheme. That means that, on average, my farmers will have to set aside 4·5 hectares, for which they will receive no compensation. The exemption from set-aside on cereal holdings works out at 5 per cent. throughout the United Kingdom as against 40 per cent. in the Community. Uncompensated set-aside for cereals works out at 54 per cent. for the United Kingdom and 27 per cent. for the Community, and the cereal area to be set aside amounts to 14 per cent. of the farmed area in the United Kingdom as opposed to 9 per cent. in the Community.
The MacSharry proposals will hit north European farmers, not those of the south, because products such as wine, olive oil and cotton are not involved. MacSharry also proposes to create a class of farm pensioners, technically in receipt of social security, in order to maintain existing social and economic structures. Those proposals would cost a fortune—about 4·5 billion ecu a year more than the present overblown budget. They do not establish a clear link between support and environmental enhancement.
The arable farmers of north-east Cambridgeshire expect the Minister to negotiate CAP reform so that they are not discriminated against. They also want set-aside to
338
be voluntary. It makes little sense to set aside some of the best-quality land in the whole of Europe if we want to retain that land in production for many years to come. They want a progressive reduction in the level of prices and other support at a pace which will enable efficient farmers to adjust. They also believe that the targeting of direct aid should be selective and they want transitional compensation.
The developments on GATT and CAP reform will increasingly force farmers here and elsewhere to be aware of, and knowledgeable about, market conditions. The negotiations on CAP reform should resist policies that place unnecessary constraints on the industry.
Many producers are exploring new ways in which to organise and co-operate. They are helping to build better ties with customers and they are looking to add value to their produce. However, as has been said, EC farmers are already competing successfully for our home market. The imports of temperate foodstuffs significantly exceed our exports of such products to EC partners.
The most forward-looking farmers are already responding to changing market needs by providing quality, volume and continuity of supply. However, one fundamental difference, which was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West, between this country and our EC partners is the small percentage of United Kingdom farm production that is marketed through co-operative and other types of collaborative organisations.
I was encouraged to read in the publication "Our Farming Future" that the Ministry has set up a market task force to help to define and identify product areas for new and expanding opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives mentioned the group formation grants—about £5·5 million will be set aside—and they will help farmers get into groups to consider their marketing practice. That is extremely welcome and those grants will be readily taken up by farmers, certainly by those in my constituency.
Whenever I speak in a debate on agriculture I always refer to the vexed question of the potato industry. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the tremendous help he has provided to my farmers in the past 18 months by ensuring that the seed potato industry produces products of quality that farmers will continue to want to buy in the future.
The potato industry is big business in this country. Cambridgeshire produces 9 per cent. of the total crop. In the United Kingdom 98 per cent. of households eat potatoes. Production is worth £500 million at the farm gate and with added value potatoes are worth £2·5 billion in retail sales.
Unfortunately, there are still misconceptions about the role of the Potato Marketing Board. It operates a commercially free market. There are no restrictions on imports from the Community, but the board maintains a high level of home market penetration, and that has helped to keep imports down. It is also argued, however, that far too much money is siphoned off to the producer and not passed on to the consumer by cost savings. The producer share of the final retail price on loose potatoes is 33 per cent., on pre-packed potatoes it is 28 per cent. and for frozen and chipped potatoes the share is 10·5 per cent. and 2 per cent. The import penetration of processed potatoes

339
is not due to the United Kingdom price of potatoes, since the potato itself represents a small percentage of the final price.
Processors sometimes criticise the Potato Marketing Board because they believe that it places them at a disadvantage. They argue that if there were no supply management there would be surpluses and lower market prices. However, would the retail price to the consumer differ? If we had a lower market price the people who would suffer would be the farmers of my constituency.
The Government keep a close eye on the Potato Marketing Board. They set down three conditions that the board had to implement by the 1990s. First, they asked for non-growers representation in market management decisions. That has been brought about by the joint consultative committee, which has proved effective. Secondly, the Government asked for more flexibility in supply management to assist the development of new market opportunities and, through the introduction of the leasing system and research and development, to expand the market. That, too, has been honoured by the board. Thirdly, the board was asked to reduce its administration costs, which it has done by more than £1 million.
Do we need an EC regime for potatoes? The publication, "Our Farming Future", says that the Commission has said that it would like common arrangements in place by the end of 1992. However, it goes on to say:
"It is understood to favour a light regime to primarily establish common competition arrangements with no intervention. Such a regime would have no place for acreage quota controls or support buying functions as at present operated by the PMB".
Those words have struck fear into the hearts of farmers in my constituency, who often rely on potatoes as their main cash crop.
Is the change absolutely necessary given that we already have free trade in potatoes, if we accept that potato markets differ from country to country—nowhere else in Europe consumes the same volume as we do—and if the Committee on Professional Agricultural Organisations principles put forward by our European partners have been accepted by our board? The present system in this country has worked remarkably well for both consumer and producer interests. I hope that, in his negotiations on CAP reform, the Minister will fight strongly for the board and the potato producers of this country.
8.31 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) has just delivered a thoughtful and wide-ranging speech. I agree with his starting point about the three swords that now hang over our agriculture: GATT, CAP, and the potential threat of eastern European imports. However, I differ from him in thinking that the CAP rather than GATT comes first. I hope that, when the Government make their decisions, they will do so in the best interests of agriculture rather than because they have been pressed or forced to adopt a timetable brought on by the need to agree CAP before GATT. The quality of the end product, rather than the pressure of timetables, is crucial.
I am only too well aware that the future of agriculture and, even more than that, of our rural areas is at stake. If we get it right, the quality and ability of our agricultural industry will allow the industry to take on, compete and
340
beat any of its rivals. But if we get it wrong, there will be a clearance of people from the upland hill and rural areas of this country.
I cannot stress too much the importance of agriculture for Scotland. Its annual gross turnover is some £1·5 billion, it represents more than 14 per cent. of Scotland's non-oil revenue output, and it is a major employer. It has a massive knock-on effect on transport and ancillary industries, spilling over into schools, the provision of shops and the infrastructure of rural areas. I know how a Scottish Minister would negotiate in Europe, and I deeply regret the fact that, sadly, the future of agriculture and our country are in the hands and at the mercy of others who may not realise the importance of agriculture to Scotland's economy.
What do the Government want of agriculture? Where is their plan for its future structure? What future and desired structure do they envisage as the industry approaches the year 2000? Where are the Government's medium and long-term plans toward which the industry is being directed? I look in vain, and see only an industry that faces uncertainty through a maze of short-term, unstructured negotiating stances as we move toward the CAP negotiations.
I certainly do not want the industry to be restructured through bankruptcy. Through its own record, agriculture has shown that it will do what Governments ask it to do. It is about time that we had sensible long-term planning, given the nature of an industry that cannot be turned on and off like a tap. It has enough unknown factors to deal with without the added complexity of a Government with no long or medium-term plans for its future.
Agriculture faces the uncertainties of CAP, GATT and eastern European imports at a time of crisis and weakness. Farm incomes are at their lowest levels in real terms since the war, and are now at half their level of the early 1980s. I am told that farm investment is now half its level of 10 years ago. In allowing that to happen, we are simply storing up problems for the future. Income problems are spread across the whole industry, and every sector is affected. The hills, uplands and lowlands have seen input costs and borrowing levels rise at a time of high interest rates and falling incomes.
That is the background against which the CAP and GATT negotiations are taking place. It places an even heavier obligation on the Minister to negotiate suitable and favourable agreements. It is obvious that the CAP must be reformed, but MacSharry's current proposals are completely unacceptable and must be rejected. Under the proposals, the size, efficiency, success and strength of Scottish agriculture will lead to massive discrimination against Scottish farmers.
The National Farmers Union has detailed just how catastrophic the proposals would be. On cereals, 78 per cent. of the land set aside in Scotland would receive no compensation, compared with 27 per cent. in the rest of the European Community. More than 40 per cent. of the EC's 12 cereals area would qualify for full compensation for price cuts without participation in set-aside, whereas the figure is a mere 7 per cent. in Scotland.
Furthermore, 55 per cent. of European beef herds will have full access to special beef premiums, for all qualifying animals, under the 90 head per annum limit, yet less than 10 per cent. of Scottish herds will have access to the

341
premium. The picture is building up of the massive problems that those proposals will cause in discriminating against Scotland.
There is a new limitation of 90 head per annum on suckler cow premiums and the application of the new stocking density limits. Moreover, 27 per cent. of hitherto eligible animals in Scotland will no longer qualify if those are implemented, whereas, in the EC, the figure would be a mere 8 per cent. The imposition of a limit of 750 head per holding on payment of annual ewe premiums would disqualify 16 per cent. of all ewes in Scotland, yet there would be virtually no impact anywhere else in the Common Market.
All sectors are affected. For example, 72·6 per cent. of EC dairy herds would qualify for full compensation for price and quota cuts, yet in Scotland the figure falls to a tiny 5·8 per cent.
Those examples clearly show that the MacSharry proposals would have a devastating effect on Scottish agriculture, individual farm incomes and the competitive position of our industry. The Minister has given no figures or details whatsoever of how he will negotiate, but he can rest assured that he will be judged on how he delivers on his previous anti-discrimination pledges. The proof of the pudding will be what he delivers in Europe.
Because of Scotland's large herd and flock sizes, together with the proposed stocking density levels, the proposals of 90-head limits would exclude 25 per cent. of male beef cattle and 27 per cent. of suckler cows from premiums. Because of the structure of Scotland's industry, it will be hit much harder than any other part of the United Kingdom. What estimates does the Minister have of the impact of the MacSharry proposals, or even of his own proposals in the document, "Our Farming Future"?
We have a right to know—the Minister should have those figures. He has civil servants to back him up, and the figures should be available. If he does not have them, it is quite disgraceful—[Interruption.]—even though the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) makes clucking noises. If the Government do not have the figures, the NFU certainly does. The NFU has clearly shown the devastating effect on our industry of the MacSharry proposals.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman rudely referred to "clucking noises". I was merely expressing my astonishment. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what my hon. Friend the Minister said, he would know that my hon. Friend made it absolutely clear that he is fighting the proposals hard, but he cannot possibly say at this stage what the result will ultimately be. He made it abundantly clear—and has done through-out—that he is fighting tooth and nail.
Mr. Welsh: It is the ultimate result that worries the living daylights out of me, especially if the Parliamentary Secretary is arguing for us. He could tell us the background effects of the MacSharry proposals and the Government's estimates of those effects on the industry. On that matter, we have had a devastating silence. If the Minister cannot tell us, the NFU, which is doing the Minister's work for him, can. It has carried out a Borders survey and found that the ewe premium would result in an income reduction of £1·3 million from the pockets of
342
Borders farmers. The survey found that there would be a loss of £400,000 on the annual sheep premium. Could not the Government tell us that?
Mr. Salmond: I ask my hon. Friend to think of any reason why detailing the savage discrimination of the MacSharry proposals and their impact on Scottish agriculture would weaken the Minister's hand when negotiating. I should have thought that detailing the effects would have strengthened his hand. How on earth would it affect his negotiating position if he were to give the net farm income figures on the impact of his own proposals set out in "Our Farming Future"?
Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend sets out the reasons why I wish we were negotiating in Europe, not the Government. If the Minister were to detail the matters, he would strengthen his position in Europe by showing the massive discrimination and harm that would be done to the Scottish agricultural industry. I should have thought that, given the clear unfairness involved, that would strengthen his case when arguing for improvements in Europe. However, the Minister's silence is ominous and unfair on our farmers.
If the Minister does not know the details, I direct him to the NFU survey on the Borders. It showed that the £90 limit would lead to a loss of £250,000 income and the compulsory cereal set-aside proposals would lead to a £2·8 million loss. Does he not know that? Can he not tell us that? Outlining those figures in Europe would strengthen his negotiating hand. The NFU survey shows the devastating loss of a total of £6 million to our agriculture as a direct result of the MacSharry proposals. They would lead to an estimated 135 redundancies among farms in the Borders alone.
The Minister does not know the figures, but I shall tell him what farmers in Orkney found when they made simple inquiries. They found that the proposals would result in net farming incomes falling by an estimated £11,000 or £12,000. They expect that overdrafts would rise an average of about £15,500 upwards. Those are the figures that the NFU found on making simple inquiries. Why do we not hear of the Government's estimates, even of their own proposals, never mind the MacSharry proposals?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I have never heard anything as pathetic as this form of statistical necrophilia. The farmers want to know that we are fighting the proposals. It serves no earthly use to recapitulate the damage that they do, and which we know they do. We have as many figures as we need to prove that to Brussels, and we are doing so. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) is merely parading the great terror in front of the farmers for his own purposes. I have never heard anything so irresponsible and silly; he does a great disservice to farmers, who rightly put their confidence in the Government, not him, to get it right.
Mr. Welsh: The Minister has brought the matter into the open. He is accusing the farmers of being irresponsible and silly, because the figures I have given are the farmers'. If the Minister had bothered to listen to the submissions made to him or if he cared one iota for the industry, he would know that the figures come from the farmers. I hope that, from up in the Gallery, farmers will notice how little the Government care.

343
The Minister's talk of statistical necrophilia shows that the Government document is not about our farming future but sadly, in many cases, our lack of farming future because of his lack of action. The proof of the pudding will lie in the deal that he wins in Europe. If he argues there as he does in the House, heaven help our farmers.
The final deal must take into account every sector of an all-industry package, because every sector of the industry is affected. The package must treat the hills, uplands and lowlands as an integrated unit—one complete industry. I look for medium and long-term planning, not the short-termism that we have seen too often, and I shall happily support the amendment.
The Scottish larger herd and flock size must be paramount. Employment and keeping people on the land, in rural districts and in family farms must be paramount in the negotiations. I want us to achieve increased secondary value for existing products, not to lose any of our market share. When we have a £6 million food and drink deficit, it is no use reducing Scottish production to replace it with cheap imports form eastern Europe. There is no sense in helping eastern European farmers while reducing and destroying our own industry.
There should be no major reconstruction of the industry while we are in the middle of a recession, which is the worst time for such a reconstruction. All we would do is transfer people from rural districts to the ranks of the unemployed in urban ones. I do not wish to see reconstruction through bankruptcies. Our environmental goals should be an opportunity for us, not a hindrance. We should not rely simply on price mechanism alone, but reduce output and link it to markets to balance supply and demand. Scottish farmers have shown the Minister how he should negotiate. I hope that he will listen to their submissions, and, for once, do something. I have seen the results that he has achieved on fishing, and I am disgusted by them—I hope that they do not set a precedent.
There is no single solution, no quick fix; we need a balanced package of measures across the whole of agriculture. The future of our agricultural and rural districts is at stake; we simply must get it right this time.
Mr. Geraint Howells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, I was rightly pulled up by Madam Deputy Speaker because I left the Chamber after moving the amendment. I apologise to her, to the Chair and to all hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I thank the hon. Gentleman for that apology.
8.47 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I suspect that I am not the only hon. Member in the Chamber with a sense of déjà vu when we debate European affairs. We have setpiece debates on the European Community budget—we had one in only 90 minutes last week, which worked out at a rate of about half a billion pounds per minute of our debate. The extraordinary factor in such debates is that at the end of them we get the feeling that there is little that we can actually do to alter the course of events. We receive the Court of Auditors' report—a well-presented and well-documented publication—and all sorts of platitudinous noises are made about it, but little action results.
Tonight we are having another ritual debate on the common agricultural policy. We also have many other
344
futile debates on directives and regulations. At all times we have a sense of not being able to achieve any change of direction on how the European Community conducts its affairs. More and more, hon. Members will have responsibility for these matters without the direct authority to do anything about them. Is that the shape of things to come? If we advance to a single currency and monetary and political union, will we, as Members of Parliament directly answerable to the electorate, have responsibility without authority? Perhaps some hon. Members will be quite content to say to their constituents that they understand their problems and sympathise, but that there is nothing that they can do about them as the matter is out of their hands. That prospect does not appeal to me. I entirely reject it because I want to be able to help my constituents to achieve their natural and legitimate aspirations. Above all, I want to help my farmer constituents towards a prosperous future.
Such a prosperous future will not be possible under the common agricultural policy, which is fundamentally flawed and incapable of the satisfactory reform that the Government would like to see. I can certainly see no future prosperity while there is intervention and absurd support for beef under the special beef premium scheme, which is simply a further incentive to produce what the market does not want, either in quantity or quality. There can he no progress while for sheep there are headage payments which simply prop up our less efficient competitors in mainland Europe. Milk quotas which deny Britain the opportunity to be self-sufficient in milk and dairy products are also a hindrance, as are FEOGA grants which accelerate the progress towards overcapacity.
I had hoped that there was some special significance in holding the debate in Advent. It is usually held in October or November and I thought that holding it today perhaps heralded better news or that we were on the brink of a breakthrough or a decision. I was quite sad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say that he was prepared to sit in the negotiations for months. My concern about that prospect is the effect that it will have on our erstwhile healthy, prosperous and progressive British agriculture. That period of uncertainty and the postponement of decisions that are vital to farmers will have a debilitating effect on United Kingdom agriculture.
On a more positive note, I remind the House that my right hon. Friend said that he sought the redirection of money and that available funds should be much more centred on the environment. The objective must be to achieve a solution that satisfies the public about the way in which the countryside is preserved and maintained. It must enable farmers to continue to do the job that they are trained and best qualified to do, which is producing essential food for the nation, at a price that the taxpayer is prepared to pay.
I should like to hark back to a comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) who instanced how, in other European nations, the amount of money provided by the national Government to domestic agriculture was very much greater than in this country. He gave the amounts per annum, which were: France £8·5 billion; Germany £3·2 billion; and the United Kingdom somewhere below £1 billion per annum.
I welcome the Minister's recent announcement about a new environmentally sensitive area in my constituency

345
which will be known as Shropshire hills. It will be greatly welcomed by farmers and the general public. It holds out worthwhile prospects in that lovely part of Shropshire.
I urge my right hon. Friend to study the interesting proposals by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. They cover the whole spectrum of agriculture and forestry and deal with the necessity to arrive at a situation where we no longer talk about a common agricultural policy but a common rural policy. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) about the common agricultural policy. The CAP cannot survive because it is totally unrelated to the realities of a free market. I am sure that Opposition Members will be delighted to hear me speak about the free market because they were in some doubt about whether it would be possible for Conservative Members to mention that. I am proud to do so, because it holds out very much more opportunity for resolving our problems than the centralist control of which the Opposition are so fond.
The second reason why the CAP cannot survive is that all practical considerations are subordinated to political expediency. The regime is abstract in concept, political in intent and largely insensitive to practical consequences in a highly practical industry.
8.56 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who launched a scathing attack on the common agricultural policy. I noted that several hon. Members, not only Opposition Members, were highly critical of the CAP and called for urgent reform. We all know about the crisis in agriculture which has been well described by many hon. Members. Yesterday's issue of The Guardian stated:
"farmers saw their incomes in real terms plummet 21 per cent in 1990 to their lowest position for 50 years. Yesterday, the NFU warned that 1990 figures would reveal a fresh 10 per cent. cut."
I do not follow The Guardian's statement about farm incomes being at their lowest for 50 years, because many farmers whom I know now have two cars, quite tidy houses and a reasonable lifestyle. However, during the past three or four years there has been a gross deterioration in farmers' incomes. It has occurred at a time when expenditure on the CAP is again almost out of control and increasing all the time. It poses an appalling dilemma for us all, because more and more money is spent on the CAP but the people at the receiving end do not seem to be any better off. It is a black hole into which the consumer, the taxpayer, is pouring more and more money.
I am glad that, under the pressure of the GATT negotiations, there is now serious talk of fundamental reform of the CAP. We believe in trade. Britain invented world trade when we had an empire 100 or 200 years ago. We were the big trading nation, and even today we are the second largest by way of the percentage of GDP exported and imported—we are second only to West Germany. We believe in trade and in the aims of the GATT negotiations.
If it is possible to free trade in agricultural produce we must strongly support the negotiations. The side effects of the CAP in its present form include the dumping of surpluses on third-world countries, which undermines their economies. Let us hope that we can bring that to an end through GATT.
346
Under the pressure of the GATT negotiations, the MacSharry proposals have been produced. They have been severely criticised by almost all hon. Members during the debate. I am not quite so hostile to them as other hon. Members are. They have some good features, especially the principle that in dire straits, where there is hardship and cuts are to be made, the broadest backs should carry the greatest burden. The cuts under the MacSharry proposals would fall most heavily upon the very big millionaire farmers—we do not have those in Wales. Furthermore, there would be protection for small farms. That principle is right, for social and environmental reasons, because small farms are more environmentally friendly.
My main criticism of the proposals is that the reforms that they suggest are far too complacent and conservative. I understand that at the GATT negotiations, for example, we may eventually settle for a 30 per cent. cut in export subsidies. The United States initially demanded 90 per cent. If we are to move towards freer trade, all those export subsidies must go, yet in the negotiations we are compromising. The reform is not sufficiently dramatic.
The other aspect of the MacSharry proposals is that the compensation terms are incredibly generous. It is amazing that, although agriculture in general faces cuts, if the proposals were adopted the CAP could cost more over the next seven years than it does now. That is an appalling position.
I do not know whether fundamental reform of the CAP will ever come about. We need to change its structure and I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow about the need for fundamental reform—indeed, there was a strong contribution to that effect from another Conservative Member. There are too many vested interests among the 12 countries. Perhaps the Franco-German axis is too strong for us on this issue. We must start thinking in terms of reform for Britain—national and regional variations on the best way forward. The interests of Britain are different from those of France, Germany and Italy, and even more different from those of the southern European states such as Spain, Greece and Turkey, which are joining as the Community expands.
Agriculture is different from making videos, cars or whatever. Manufacturers of those can build their factories in Portugal, south Wales or Germany, and the product will be the same. But in agriculture, because the climate, crops and farm sizes are different, we should think in terms of national variations of the MacSharry plan—a national and regional flavour to any reforms.
In our proposals we mention subsidiarity. That is an important principle in all our discussions in Europe—at Maastricht, and so on. We pass on only the powers that need to be passed on. We keep as much power as we can in Britain and we devolve as much of that as we can to our regions. The interests of Wales, Scotland and other regions are different because our geography, the nature of our agriculture and the size of our farms are different.
The principle of subsidiarity means that we should build into the reform of the CAP a large dimension of national freedom. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said earlier, in France and Germany there is substantial national support for their systems of agriculture. We do not have that in Britain and we need to build it into any changes.
The other major factor in reform of the CAP must be the environment. We now realise the importance of

347
hedgerows, of small fields, of clean rivers and of less intensive agriculture. We must move towards environ-mentally friendly agriculture. Over the next 10 years, we need to move away from a production-based support mechanism to a mechanism that supports environmental protection. If the support for farmers—£2 billion or £3 billion a year or whatever we need—went to finance green premiums, to help the environment or to help less intensive agriculture, the consumer would support it. The British people are willing to pay something towards preserving an attractive landscape.
I want the size of holdings in Britain to be preserved in their present form. The amalgamation of farms has gone much too far in Britain—much further than it has in any other European country. We need to preserve our present structure and ensure that it is viable. Support mechanisms should be based on environmental protection rather than on production.
9.5 pm
Mr. Alan Amos: There is no doubt that agriculture is going through a difficult transition period, continually hampered by a serious lack of direction and strategy from Brussels. The incomes of my hill livestock farmers are under real pressure.
British farmers are the victims of their own success. They are the most efficient in Europe, and they supply good quality produce and make a large contribution of £3·5 billion to the balance of payments. We are 75 per cent. self-sufficient. Food prices have consistently risen less than the retail prices index. Farmers' activities, which are the backbone of the rural economy, are vital to the survival of whole communities. However, there are now real problems and the solutions to them can no longer be delayed or fudged.
The CAP budget, already two thirds of the total EEC budget, is again about to breach its strict guidelines. The application of technology and over-generous subsidies, together with a decline in demand for some commodities, such as red meat, have led to levels of surplus whose financial and structural consequences for EEC farmers must now be addressed.
There is a need for a number of immediate short-term palliatives, as well as for a radical and bold long-term solution. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on fighting his corner with such determination, vigour and success for British farmers.
Let us consider what he has achieved, for example, for my farmers in the less-favoured areas. First, the green pound has been aligned with our market exchange rate. The elimination of the green pound and the absurdity of monetary compensatory amounts, which tax our exports and subsidise our imports, was a major achievement which brought considerable financial advantages to my farmers. No longer will Northumberland farmers be at an artificial competitive or financial disadvantage.
Secondly, the level of the suckler cow premium was raised to the maximum allowable under EEC rules. That money goes directly into farmers' pockets. Thirdly, there is strong support for the hill livestock compensatory allowances, amounting to £142 million in a full year. Again, that money goes directly into the farmers' pockets.
Fourthly, for the second year running, there have been two advance payments of the annual ewe premium,
348
including the whole of the 4 ecu per ewe supplement which is worth £39 million in the less-favoured areas to help farmers' cash flows.
Fifthly, there is marketing. The Select Committee on Agriculture, of which I am a member, is about to launch a major inquiry into Britain's food trade gap, which is estimated to be about £6 billion. Over half of that can be eliminated by buying British, so marketing can produce considerable improvement and it takes on a new and dramatic urgency. The high level of import penetration of high value added products, such as Danish bacon, can be halted and reversed.
At a recent meeting with some of my local farmers, I was most encouraged to see that they gave a far higher priority to and had a greater awareness of the need for better marketing. Their role is wider than just being producers of good-quality meat. They have to widen their skills to sell and market their produce.
The market is one of growing complexity, dynamism and openness. The industry must become more responsive to consumer needs. We need an imaginative and flexible response in a situation where there are few automatic markets left for British produce. Therefore, the Government's recent announcement of £5·4 million of new grants to encourage the formation of producer marketing groups to help them get closer to the market, and the establishment in the Ministry of Agriculture of a new market task force, are to be warmly welcomed. In that regard we must ensure that food labelling throughout the food chain from the farm gate to the supermarket contains the country of origin so that British consumers can buy British.
Sixthly, on environmental controls, I congratulate the Government on their more sensible and practical approach. Unlike the Liberal and Labour parties, which would suffocate my farmers to extinction with an endless stream of unnecessary and unreasonable controls over every aspect of production, thereby putting many of them out of business, the Conservative Government have appreciated the need to protect the environment while giving proper priority to the needs of the agricultural community to remain economically viable.
Payments to upland livestock farmers through hill livestock compensatory amounts and proposals for an improved farm woodland scheme are two examples of the Government's common-sense approach. If society is to impose extra burdens on farmers' costs of production in order to preserve or go back to an idyllic view of the countryside, which may never have existed anyway, it must pay for it. As always, the Liberals try to have it both ways, but they are up against canny farmers. They will have to choose between pretending to be friends of the farmer and lackeys of the environmentalist.
There are areas that deserve further consideration, in particular, the problem of fallen stock, the costs of which are falling heavily and unfairly on farmers. The problem might be covered by environmental grants. Also, with the present demographic structure of farmers, together with their greater willingness to consider such matters, an early retirement or outgoers scheme would address the problem of over-supply, as well as allowing for mobility within the industry, and would encourage more young people to enter farming.
On the maintenance of a flexible and dynamic industry, reform of the agricultural tenancy legislation is overdue. In Northumberland, half the farmers are tenant farmers and

349
we need a greater supply of land for rent to ensure the continued prosperity of the tenanted sector, with new entrants being able to come into agriculture. The farm business tenancy is a helpful way forward.
Of course, a number of measures must be taken while more long-term structural reform is implemented. For example, assistance might be given for diversification into tourism, to which Northumberland is ideally suited, as tourism is dispersed, small-scale, labour-intensive indu-stry. The farm and conservation grant scheme and the farm diversification grant scheme are both helpful measures, as is the new farm woodland premium scheme. Equally, if farmers are to be more subject to market forces, the planning system must be flexible and sensitive enough to enable farmers to diversify. The planning process must not be used to stifle sensible development.
Another important aspect of diversification is the need for retraining in which the agricultural training board has a dynamic role to play. Extensification also has a limited role and the pilot beef and sheep extensification scheme is a useful start. Set-aside schemes must be voluntary and must facilitate the entry of young people into the industry. No scheme will be worth much if farmers are allowed merely to give over their least productive land. Quotas by definition rigidify and distort the market, so we must resist absurdities such as nitrogen and other input quotas which merely serve to raise the cost of production and undermine our ability to compete. Our job is to harness technology, not to prevent farmers from being able to sell their products.
No discussion of reform of the CAP can ignore the likely outcome of the GATT talks which may involve price cuts of at least 30 per cent. Nor should we ignore the fact that in the not-too-distant future eastern Europe and Russia will be able to realise their massive agricultural potantial once they have become fully harnessed to a market economy. Reform of the CAP will be difficult, but there must be reform.
The Government's policy statement "Our Farming Future" is a serious attempt to outline the ingredients of a prosperous British agriculture industry, which is part of the United Kingdom economy and the United Kingdom way of life. Successful reform will include elements of continuity and change. Only fundamental and radical reform of the CAP can stem its rising and unjustifiable cost. Any system that costs the British taxpayer more than £2·5 billion, only half of which reaches farmers, is an absurdity and must be abolished.
However, the aim of the reform must include four key elements. First, EEC agriculture must be made more efficient and competitive, with the objective being to get down as near as possible to the marketplace and world prices, however they are defined. We must face up to the harsh fact that the present social and economic pattern of farming in the EEC can no longer be maintained.
Although many people do not like talk of market forces, the plain fact is that in the real world we simply cannot ignore them. It is precisely because market forces have in the long run caught up with the operation of the CAP, as they inevitably would, that we are in such trouble. Only an agriculture industry set free within the framework of market forces operating more closely to supply and demand will have a secure and prosperous future. The
350
GATT talks make that abundantly clear. We can neither perpetuate excessive levels of support, nor penalise the most efficient producers. The CAP costs the taxpayer and the consumer more than it need, through excessively high taxes and prices. It does not protect the farmers since so many are now in difficulties and the long-term trend has been for many to leave agriculture altogether. CAP reform must cut costs and prices and encourage structural rationalisation.
The fundamental problem with the CAP is that, in an attempt to keep farmers on the land, the price mechanism has become so distorted that none of its objectives is now being realised, and at a high cost. There is still gross confusion in the pursuit of the CAP's conflicting objectives. We must clearly separate the CAP's economic, social and environmental aspects.
On the economic side, there is no doubt that price support must be reduced to nearer world levels. On the social side, the desire to keep farmers on the land should be dealt with via a direct income support or other aid measures, such as voluntary set aside, which do not distort the price mechanism, for a transition period.
Other measures such as nitrate quotas would badly undermine competition. Quotas would only ever be properly and legally enforced by the United Kingdom and, again, would interfere with our competitiveness on world markets. Both should be fiercely resisted. We must give the small, inefficient, part-time continental farmers an option to leave the industry, not a subsidy to produce.
The fundamental point is that, although the cost of buying and storing surplus output is high, the largest item is the unbearable burden of export subsidies or refunds. Therefore, the nearer that we can get to world prices, the lower will be the cost of those export subsidies, and hence the cost of the total CAP.
It is precisely because British farmers have a competitive advantage in the production of sheepmeat, beef, cereals, dairy and other produce that it is in our interests to have a truly and genuinely single free and open common market in the EEC in agriculture produce.
The strength of our comparative advantage is shown by the fact that 75 per cent. of British lamb exports go to France. The abolition of the clawback will enhance our position and 1992 must become a reality of fair competition and free movement of goods without any artificial restrictions. We must abolish the green currency system and the MCAs altogether. That is not something that my farmers need fear, but rather a challenge and an opportunity to be welcomed and grasped. If the EEC is to compete in post-GATT world markets, it is not the number of farmers which matters but rather the quality of their output.
Limitations on the output of the most efficient will prevent them from taking advantage of technology and size, thereby inhibiting further productivity gains. The only effect of that would be to raise the costs of the CAP and prices. Therefore, headage limits must be fiercely opposed as they are particularly anti-British. The MacSharry package would reduce headage limits for ewe premiums in less-favoured areas from 1,000 to 750 ewes. In the United Kingdom it would mean that in the LFAs 10 per cent. of holdings would be affected and up to 15 per cent. of eligible ewes would be excluded from payment. They discriminate against extensive farms on poor lands.
If farmers are unfairly forced out of business in the less-favoured areas, the social objectives, let alone the

351
economic objectives, of the common agricultural policy cannot be met. The whole concept of quotas should be abandoned because of the economic damage that they cause by preventing the proper and flexible use of farmers' resources and assets and by preventing technological innovation.
The burden of reform must be borne fairly throughout the Community, both between and within member states, regardless of size and location, bearing in mind the paramount need to ensure the survival of the most efficient producers. The MacSharry proposals, which discriminate against the larger and more efficient British farmer, are totally unacceptable and must be firmly and unequivocally rejected. The MacSharry package will hit specifically those farmers most able to compete on the world market. At an average of 163 acres, British farms are five times bigger than European Community farms, at 33 acres. Specialist sheep producers in the less-favoured areas would be particularly badly hit by the package.
Reductions in support levels should be carried out at a pace that gives efficient farmers time to adjust and diversify. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to continue financial support for the less-favoured areas in general and the hill livestock compensatory allowances in particular, where there are fewest opportunities for diversification.
Finally, farmers must be encouraged to get closer to the marketplace and be market oriented. One of the problems with the MacSharry proposals is that, instead of bringing agriculture closer to the market, they will perpetuate existing excessive levels of support for the majority of farmers. The cost of the common agricultural policy would go up, not down, so taxpayers, consumers and farmers would all lose out. We must establish a dynamic industry that is readily able to adapt to changes in the market.
Reform of the common agricultural policy is vital for farmers, consumers and taxpayers, but the proposals as they stand are not acceptable. While we must get closer to the market, the proposals continue to ignore the reality of market forces in a misguided attempt to solve undesirable social objectives. In the post-GATT world of liberalised trade we must encourage our efficient producers to compete in a more open world trading system. We want a developing, dynamic and flexible rural economy, not some stagnant, idealised rustic world— which has never existed —stifled by environmental controls. We do not want fossilised museum pieces of countryside but communities with jobs and a living, dynamic and healthy social fabric. Reform must be fair to all, equally applied by all.
9.22 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on the vitriolic quality of his criticism of the common agricultural policy. I commend his appreciation of the need for a social dimension in any reforms that may take place. I commend his outlook to the House when we discuss issues relating to the social charter. Acceptance of a social charter might lead more easily to the achievement of the goals to which the hon. Member referred.
I apologise for the fact that I heard only about 40 minutes of the Minister of Agriculture's speech. I had to leave the Chamber to attend a Select Committee and did not return here until halfway through the speech of my
352
hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). I may therefore not have heard points made to which I wish to refer.
The Minister made a robust speech, in which he outlined his support for and his defence of the British farmer. I heard no reference to the industries that support the British farmer, in particular the fertiliser industry. It will surprise no hon. Member to learn of my interest in fertilisers. ICI plants are to be found in my patch. Brunner-Mond came to Billingham for the anhydride deposits which it could process into nitrates. The company has been there ever since—thank God, in view of the employment that it has created in the area. To that extent, I declare a vested interest.
I have received representations from Mr. Higgs, the director general of the Fertiliser Manufacturers Association. He makes some valid points that I should like to bring to the House's attention. The FMA maintains:
"The CAP is too costly and is producing no winners: not farmers, not consumers and tax payers, and not those, such as us, who supply agriculture. Food surpluses beyond those necessary to maintain strategic reserves are a nonsense and we fully accept that reduced agricultural output will mean reduced fertiliser sales … The important part to be played by the market is well recognised by most people as is the need to safeguard small producers and to protect rural communities and our landscape and environment. What is often not appreciated is the need also to provide a stable and profitable agriculture that can support the infrastructure it needs … There is a danger that farmers will not be given adequate incentives to grow produce efficiently and environmentally responsibly. They may either be discouraged from having to care about the quantity or quality of what they produce, as their income will be guaranteed regardless or, conversely, they may be less concerned about the quality of the inputs they use, or the agricultural practices they employ, because they will be driven to compete on price in the market against imports dumped or produced to lower environmental standards … If the EC demands higher environmental and animal husbandry standards than elsewhere, it must not 'export' its problems by importing produce from these sources. Similarly, there must be also a risk that some imports of agricultural inputs (such as fertilisers) will be cheap because they too are either being dumped or produced without due regard for the environment: those from Eastern Europe already pose a particular threat." Those threats have been highlighted in the debate.
The FMA maintains that cross-compliance in the environmental standards of production is essential. It concludes:
"If sustained improved economic performance is not achieved there is no prospect of existing nitrogen fertiliser manufacturing capacity being replaced.
We"—
the country—
"would then gradually become totally dependent on imported fertilisers with very serious consequences for both EC balance of payments and EC food security."
I entreat the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to take those points with him to the negotiations.
Mr. Gummer indicated assent.
Mr. Cook: He indicates his attention by nodding his head. In my experience, which is considerable, negotiation is based on an ability to heed, hear and respond, not abrasively but with some charm and intelligence, which is not always apparent from Ministers.
Will the Minister also make representations on this side of the water? I am referring to other hidebound attitudes that cripple some producers, and I am referring specifically to ICI. The world market in fertilisers is changing. The world is producing food more efficiently and is feeding itself better. Fertilisers are more effective, so fewer are

353
necessary. The environmental groups have also launched effective campaigns against the level of nitrates in water tables, so ICI's position in the world market is somewhat difficult.
However, in seeking to preserve its production centre in Billingham in my constituency—and thereby to preserve the jobs involved—ICI came to an agreement with Kimera which, I concede, is a Finnish-based company. It agreed that Kimera should take over the unit as a productive concern and keep it going, thus maintaining jobs for the British workers and a share for British-manufactured fertilisers within a world market—because Kimera has a major market share.
That agreement was effectively scuppered by the Minister's colleague—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—who, on the basis that Kimera was a state-owned company, would not allow the agreement to stand. Such a doctrinaire attitude prejudices not only the jobs of my constituents but the market share that could come to a United Kingdom-based production unit. I ask the Minister to make representations on that basis to his colleagues.
I leave the Minister with a thought—my "finally", if I may use that term—on the common European currency which has already received attention. It might interest the Minister to know that ICI estimates its costs each year for the negotiation of fiscal exchanges to be as much as £60 million, and probably as much as £80 million. If that is the cost to ICI, the cost to other British industries—regardless of the merits or demerits in other aspects—will be considerable.
9.31 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Government spokesman who will be replying to the debate tonight knows Europe very well because he served as a member of the European Parliament, was chairman of the European Agriculture Committee and now serves on the Council of Ministers. He knows exactly what Europe is about and what is being done in Europe.
It would be a good thing if this debate were to be settled in Europe on the merits of agriculture, on the merits of farmers' needs and on the merits of establishing a viable agriculture industry across the whole of Europe. However, if anybody in the House believes that that is how it will be settled, he is living in a fantasy world. It will be pure politics that will settle this matter in Europe and all the arguments—however credible—will not alter political decisions that have already been taken. In introducing his proposals Mr. MacSharry seems to have very strong backing from the Commission and, at the end of the day, is really a spokesman for it.
The common agricultural policy lends itself to gigantic unfairness and colossal fraud. The House would do well to realise the amount of money that is squandered and lost to the Community because of colossal frauds. There has been an exposure in the Irish Republic which has shaken even the Government and has put into question the future of the Taoiseach. I refer to the Goodman controversy.
The Meat Trades Journal refers to the record of a Goodman accountant called Patrick McGuinness. The journal reports that
354
"he told the inquiry into the Irish beef processing industry that he had gone public with his allegations of irregularities to save the company from further financial difficulty."
That is an amazing confession. The report continued:
"He claimed that because of its reliance on intervention abuses, the company had lost focus in dealing with the business in a commercial sense."
It was no longer a commercial propostion. It was guided by the need to manipulate the structures of intervention to make vast profits.
Mr. McGuinness said that a group known as the "A-team" was employed illegally to re-box intervention beef and aids to private storage. It seems that Larry Goodman's beef undertaking in the Irish Republic has a system of re-boxing intervention beef and aids to private storage beef. That says something about how the structure lends itself to fraud.
Mr. McGuinness also pointed out that tax-free payments of IR£3 million were made to the employees in one year. How can that occur without some Government winking at what is happening?
Sir John Farr: What is the equivalent of IR£3 million in sterling?
Rev. Ian Paisley: The punt is not as valuable as the pound. However, as I come from a part of the United Kingdom, I do not really know, but I think that the punt is worth perhaps 90p or 98p. It is not far from the pound sterling.
Mr. McGuinness also said that accounts were kept from the company's auditors to hide those payments to the employees. Bogus stamps were used to upgrade carcases and increase their value. Weights on intervention documents were increased and decreased to record required yields after deboning. Larry Goodman, the chief executive, was present at one meeting when the practice of altering weights was discussed. It was accepted that that was the thing to do.
That is a colossal fraud in the Irish Republic under the CAP. It is so serious that one must conclude that there must have been some connivance with the officials who should have been monitoring the position.
Mr. Gill: There is a strong body of opinion in the House that, to prevent such massive abuse and fraud in the system, we should appoint more inspectors and accountants to check on the details. Does my hon. Friend believe that that is the right way to proceed, or does he believe that the system is impossible to control and should be abandoned?
Rev. Ian Paisley: My conviction is that that is impossible to control. It is a fact that when that fraud was being carried out at the Goodman-owned air-freeze coldstore in Dublin in 1988, the supervisor admitted that no one from the Department of Agriculture was present. The officer who should have been there was conveniently absent. As I said, that looks like connivance.
I have a large meat producer in my European constituency. When I visited that firm to see its operations some time ago, I noticed a group of men standing around. I asked who they were and was told, "Those are the veterinary men. We must have them here to look after Common Market interests." I believe that there were six of them in one room. I wondered how many veterinary officers I would find if I went to France. When I was in France the other day, I was told that there are none at all

355
in some French factories and that they do not even know of their existence. When that type of thing is going on, how can we have any faith in the common agricultural policy?
National Governments are supposed to deal with fraud, but if they have neither the ability nor the will to deal with it, how can we ever have a common agricultural policy that is acceptable to us all?
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has an impossible task. If he was in charge of agriculture and answerable to this House, he could take care of the different regions that make up the United Kingdom. One hon. Member tonight said that he represents the flatlands. He spoke of the difficulties facing his farmers. We have also heard hon. Members representing Welsh constituen-cies talking about the uplands and their difficulties. We then heard a voice from Scotland underscoring the peculiar difficulties of farmers there. I am a voice from Northern Ireland and say simply that our farming operations are also greatly different—for example, we do not have tenant farmers. On the point about small farms, I advise the House that Ulster has always had family farming units. I know that the continent has what are called "small farms", but they are pocket farms located in back gardens. They are not really farms.
I should like to put my worries about agriculture in Northern Ireland to the Minister. Perhaps he will tell the House how many times he has met the Minister from the Northern Ireland Office who is responsible for the interests of Northern Ireland's farmers. How many times when negotiations are taking place has the Minister had serious discussions with his colleague about the specific needs of Northern Ireland's farmers? As hon. Members represent-ing Scotland and Wales have said, there is a fear that the voices of the different parts of the United Kingdom are not being heard.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in an impossible position because he is not master in his own house. Indeed, this House is not master of the situation and never will be, given the present set-up. That is why it is difficult to achieve a settlement that will help our farming communities.
The tragedy is that farming in Northern Ireland has suffered such a cut because of the common agricultural policy. Northern Ireland has intensive pig and poultry farming. The pig industry has been cut to almost a third of what it was. The laying flock has been reduced by millions of laying hens. We are being cut back simply because we could not buy feedstuffs on the world market as reasonable prices.
Those reductions took place, but the farming community took up the struggle and did everything that the Government told it to do. It was encouraged to borrow money at the bank and concentrate its efforts on beef and milk. It did that so well, that we now have surpluses. Now it is told, "You did it too well so we will fine you." The alarming proposal, made from some sections of the House, is that in some way the farmer is to be punished.
If the farming community must ease off from farming, it must have proper compensation. If farming is to have some regularity and viability, we must take that easing off at a reasonable pace. The farmers must be cushioned against serious financial pressure. I have farmers going out of business every week. I have talked to bank managers who encouraged those farmers to go ahead and do this, that and the other thing. Now that the dark day has come, farmers are being pushed off the homesteads which had
356
been in their families for generations. The House has a responsibility to those people. Where do we put them? Where do they go? We do not have employment for them in Northern Ireland. No part of the United Kingdom has employment for them. The position is difficult and such factors must be kept in mind when we are discussing it.
The farmers in Northern Ireland have been efficient and have the best record in animal health of any part of the United Kingdom. They have worked hard and carried a heavy load. I make a plea tonight on their behalf and I trust that their case will not be forgotten in the negotiations.
I happen to believe that there should be a plan for farming. We cannot sit here and say, "All the difficulties are so great that we cannot make any plan." The Government should have aims and objectives and should tell us what they are. We should aim for the achievement of those objectives, no matter how difficult. I trust that the Minister will give some encouragement to the farming community. It needs encouragement and something to give it hope in this dark night on which it cannot see any stars. I trust that the Government will be a star to it to guide it to a better daybreak, if that is possible. I see great disbelief on the faces of the Scottish contingent tonight.
9.48 pm
Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a privilege to be called in. a debate in which so many speeches have been made. One of the notable features of the debate has been the agreement between Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House. Another feature is that up to six Welsh Members of Parliament, representing the Labour party, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal party, have spoken but not one Conservative Welsh Member has spoken.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Are there any?
Mr. Edwards: There are now only six as a result of the famous by-election victory last May in Monmouth. It is significant that the Welsh farmers can no longer look to the Welsh Conservative party to represent their interests.
I have the privilege to represent a beautiful area of south-east Wales which has a fine agricultural tradition. Not only is the Monmouth constituency a beautiful area but it contains within it one of the designated areas of outstanding natural beauty to which several other hon. Members have drawn attention.
The aims of an area of outstanding natural beauty are to ensure that the environment is protected and enhanced. Protection of the environment takes precedence over development. I hope that hon. Members from both sides of the House will be keen to support the early-day motion that I have tabled to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty and to draw people's attention to their significance.
The area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency is beautiful for one reason—because of the role of farming. We owe a special debt to the farming community in all constituencies where the environment is beautiful as a result of their work.
Most of us object to MacSharry's proposals and when discussing those and reform of the common agricultural policy we should consider new forms of support for farming, which will protect and enhance the natural environment and will reward farmers for their vital work in maintaining the countryside—for which they get little recognition and scant reward.

357
We cannot discuss the CAP without referring to the Government's economic policy. Agriculture policy is inextricably linked to economic policy. The problems that farmers face are inextricably linked to the fact that they have been the victims of the Government's inept economic management in recent years.
Farmers are worried about potential loss of income under the MacSharry proposals, which will exacerbate the loss in income that they have suffered due to the Government's economic policies.
In recent years Welsh Office Ministers have boasted about an economic miracle in Wales—it was short lived. There was an economic miracle in manufacturing and new technology for a short while, but it never benefited the Welsh farming community.
The state of Welsh farming has been clearly spelt out in recent publications. Research by the department of agricultural economics at University college, Aberystwyth shows the significance of agriculture as a form of employment in rural Wales. It states:
"In many parts of rural Wales between a third and a half of the economically active population depend at least partly on the farm community for their incomes."
But it also says:
"Total farm incomes in Wales have fallen by 17 per cent. between 1977 and 1990 when all costs including wages, rent and debt servicing are taken into account."
According to Peter Midmore of University college, Aberystwyth:
"The main reason for the acute fall in total farm incomes has been high interest rates",
which were imposed by the Government. Interest rates may have decreased in recent months, but that does not alter the fact that many farmers are in trouble because of the Government's absurd policy of increasing interest rates for so long.
The farming labour force in Britain has declined from 71,000 to 67,000. The number employed full time in agriculture has declined by 13 per cent., but there has been an increase in the number of part-time workers, who now constitute 55 per cent. of the farming work force. That trend may be inevitable because of changes in farming, but it has worrying implications for the future, for example, for the social security and pension entitlements of people who only earn their living on a part-time basis.
The MacSharry proposals have been widely criticised in the House. They aim to reduce agricultural support, yet protect smaller farmers. As hon. Members have said, farms in this country are likely to lose out because they are generally "too large" in MacSharry's terms.
The Commission's proposals will discriminate against efficient family farms in Monmouth. I acknowledge the findings of the National Farmers Union, which estimates that the proposals will cause farm incomes to fall by 30 per cent.
Farmers in Monmouth believe that it is essential that the limits on milk and beef quotas are removed. Farmers in my constituency do not benefit from less-favoured area payments—the average farm size is much larger than the size that will be protected under the MacSharry proposals. It is always sad to hear from farmers or members of their families about the dim prospects that they now envisage for their industry and their family businesses. That applies not only to the sons of farmers, but to their daughters,
358
many of whom would like to maintain the farming tradition. It is sad that there is little prospect of their being able to do so.
Even if many people are unable to continue directly in farming, they would like to continue to make their livelihood in the countryside. There is a tremendous challenge to redirect resources into training and away from direct agriculture to countryside management and environmental protection. The training and enterprise councils and educational institutions face the challenge of offering young people new employment and educational opportunities in the countryside.
Labour's proposals to introduce green premiums to reward farmers for their vital work in countryside management will greatly help to encourage diversification. Farmers tell us that they are usually better off under a Labour Government. In a few months' time we will have that Labour Government and the farmers in my constituency will welcome that.
9.55 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). He came to the House as a result of a by-election in June, and this is the first time that we have had an opportunity to debate agriculture. During the by-election campaign, I know that my hon. Friend worked hard to secure the confidence of the agricultural community of Monmouth. I am pleased to note that he is determined to represent it in debates. I am sure that, when the general election comes, he will find that his rural community repays the work that he has put in and that he will be returned as the Member for Monmouth.
My hon. friend the Member for Monmouth was right to say that there has been a great deal of agreement in the debate. Central to it is opposition to the MacSharry proposals. We oppose them because they discriminate against the United Kingdom and damage our interests.
We accept in good faith that both Ministers will negotiate to the best of their abilities in Brussels. We accept that they will do their best to secure the best interests of Britain and Britain's farmers. The final judgment will be given once we know the outcome of those negotiations. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will co-operate to ensure that we have an opportunity to debate those proposals, when agreed. That debate will provide a sharper examination of them and the negotiations.
I was interested at the way in which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) moved the amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I have a great deal of sympathy with the spirit behind his speech because he speaks as a true representative of farming interests in his constituency and throughout Wales.
I believe that the Liberal Democrats have made an error in the way in which they have framed the amendment. Their amendment would delete the last five lines of the Government motion, which means that all references to environmental care would be removed. However, there is no reference in the Liberal Democrat amendment to providing payment or support for farmers in respect of their work in caring for the environment.
We must try to square a circle, because we must decide how to provide support for farmers without encouraging

359
over-production. No one has suggested the means of doing that other than by making environmental payments. I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats made an error when drafting their amendment or whether it represents an oversight. Perhaps they are trying to have it both ways.
I believe that the Liberal Democrats would serve the interests of the House well if they recognised the error of their ways and withdrew the amendment without pushing it to a vote, because I accept what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said. He felt that if we were to show opposition to his stance we would somehow weaken his negotiating position. The Opposition are not prepared to take any action that would weaken the Minister's negotiating position, so if the amendment is pressed to the vote, we shall join the Government in defeating it. We shall take whatever course of action is necessary to ensure that we demonstrate our support for the Government to strengthen their negotiating position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth referred to the fact that no Conservative Members representing either the Principality or Scotland were present in the debate. The debate has shown that there is now a considerable malaise within the Tory party. Tory Members have been thin on the ground in this debate, and I was particularly saddened to note that no Welsh Office Minister has been present throughout the debate. Their sole representative of Scottish interests was the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who drifted in and drifted out again without even listening to the debate.
There has been not a single contribution from a Scottish or Welsh Conservative Member. For most of the evening, there have been more Opposition Members present than Members on the Government Benches, which shows that the Conservative party no longer represents farming interests in the House of Commons.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth said, there have been speeches from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and the Democratic Unionist party, but we have heard no voice from the Tory party representing the far-flung reaches of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) was the first to speak in the debate. He refused to give way to me, which I understand and for which I do not bear him any malice or ill will—
Dr. David Clark: Why not?
Mr. Davies: Because I think that he is a jolly nice chap —an opinion that I formed a long time ago. He fought the parliamentary seat of Bedwellty in 1970 and lost by only 23,000 votes, but he believed that he would come back and win it at the next election. Since then, he has always had a spirit of optimism and, to do him credit, he was looking on the bright side tonight. He used to be the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I sincerely hope that he gets his job back—I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
The sterling qualities of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West are that he is even-tempered and good-natured. If he were sitting behind the Minister, some of those qualities might flow over the Benches. We might then find that the Minister is less irascible than he was tonight.
Before I do the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West too much good, may I tell the Minister that he missed the
360
hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. The hon. Gentleman is very close to the farming community, and he said that he accepted that we shall end up with a MacSharry derivative. However strongly the Minister intends to oppose the MacSharry proposals, he has not yet convinced the former PPS to the Minister for Agriculture that we shall end up with anything other than a MacSharry derivative.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the farmers in his constituency were very angry. I know they are, because they rang me today and asked me to address a meeting in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am going along to it next Tuesday. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that farmers in his constituency are angry now, he should wait until Wednesday morning, when they will be even angrier. If the hon. Gentleman is free next Tuesday, I extend an invitation to him to come along. If he is short of a pair, I shall have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and we can make a mutual arrangement so that the hon. Gentleman and I can pair and discuss agriculture in his constituency.
The farmers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West are angry, and they have every reason to be so, because farm incomes in Britain have fallen to an all-time low. Confidence and investment in the industry have almost collapsed. Our agricultural infrastructure has been undermined, our markets have been exposed to European competition, and precious little has been done to equip us to compete with them for our and their main markets.
Agriculture now faces a perilous future given the uncertainty caused by the CAP reform, talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the productive potential of the former eastern bloc. The man almost uniquely responsible for that state of affairs, the present Minister, has excelled himself tonight in the complacency with which he approached the debate. During the past 10 years, when he took time off from his post as chairman of the Conservative party, this man was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, and Minister of State, MAFF, and, for the past couple of years, he has been Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If there are any deficiencies in the state of British agriculture, and if there is one person to blame for its decline in the past 10 years, the Minister certainly cannot excuse himself.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to the Smithfield show. On Monday, the president of the National Farmers Union said at the show:
"We are limping into fiercer competition which lies ahead —with potentially disastrous effects on the efforts we are making to reduce the present adverse trade gap in food."
I think that we can accept that, in those circumstances,the president spoke with authority. Of course, he does not do so when he speaks as the Conservative candidate for the local county council—but the Minister will have to take up that matter with him.
Mr. David Naish, the president, said that the NFU estimates suggested that, for the second consecutive year, farming incomes had fallen in real terms to a new post-war low and were now less than half those of the early 1980s. He said that that fact ruled out an early recovery in farm investment, which had sunk to half the level of 10 years ago. That lack of investment is inflicting long-term damage on the ability of Britain's farming and the food industries to compete. Faced with economic difficulties and

361
uncertainty about the industry's future, farmers are unable to plan ahead, at a time when investment and new initiatives are crucial to survival. The Government's inaction has caused the representatives of the industry to cry out for leadership. It is a matter of much regret that the Minister has not shown such leadership this evening.
The reorganisation of the CAP was inevitable; we have advocated and welcomed it. We do not expect the Minister to take sole responsibility for the drop in farm incomes that resulted. Only last February, at the annual general meeting of the NFU, the Minister said:
"we must spell out how we want to reform the CAP."
We are still waiting for him to do so, and we have asked him about it tonight. Month after month, we have asked him to spell out how he intends to reform the CAP, but we are still waiting.
At the heart of the matter lies our gross contribution in 1991 of £2·4 billion to the CAP. Some £1·6 billion was returned—that averages £9,000 for each British farmer, although not every one of them received that amount. The Government have failed to manage the change, give coherence to Britain's agricultural strategy or ensure value for money.
We should have common objectives in the House. We are agreed on the need to ensure the continuation of the family farm, maintain efficiency in the industry, protect the environment, ensure food quality and maintain the structure of family farming intact. On all those tests, by any objective standards, the Government have failed farming during the past 10 years. According to the NFU, for the second consecutive year farming's real income will fall significantly this year. The industry's income is now at its lowest level in the post-war period and is about half the average that it was in the period 1980–85. The NFU president speaks of the industry's "bleeding to death", with the cost of inputs continuing to rise and the value of agricultural products standing still or falling.
Using 100 reached in 1985 as the constant enables us to see the dramatic fall in real terms in British farm incomes compared with those of France and Germany. These are valid comparisons, because farmers all over the country ask me what is so unique about Britain's representatives. They say that it is always British industry that gets the rough end of the stick, while French and German representatives can protect their interests.
British farm income has dropped from 118·8 in 1984 to 93 in 1990—a fall of 18·8. In France, income has increased from 100 in 1984 to 107·5 in 1990, an increase of 7·5. In Germany, farm income has increased from 102·5 in 1984 to 115 in 1990, an increase of 12·7. Our farmers have been suffering and going out of business while those of our main competitor countries have been making hay at our expense, if I may use that expression.
Anyone who doubts that agriculture is moving deeper into recession should consider the number of people leaving the industry. Over the 10 years to 1990, the industry has cut its whole-time hired labour force by 30 per cent.—a loss of about 43,000 rural jobs. The June census conducted by the Ministry confirmed another large loss in farm employment this year. The national farm is losing full-time jobs at the rate of 1,200 per month.
While farming income and jobs are decreasing, food prices and supermarket profits are increasing. In real terms, using 100 reached in 1985 as the constant, British
362
food prices have increased from 100 in 1985 to 125 in 1990. In France, the increase has been 16·2 per cent., but in west Germany it was only 4·9 per cent. Britain has averaged an increase of 4·7 per cent. a year in food prices over the past six years, France has averaged 3 per cent. and west Germany has averaged 1 per cent. However, unlike French and German farmers, our farmers have not had any increase in income over the past five years. They have been losing income.
We are entitled to ask who is benefiting from these quite dramatic food price increases, and the answer must be the supermarkets, whose owners have been described by one of my hon. Friends as the law-breakers, the people that the Government refuse to make comply with the law of the land.
Mr. Alison: If the hon. Gentleman's figure of 3 per cent. a year for France is correct, it adds up to a higher figure than the total increase that he has just quoted.
Mr. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures that I quoted, he will see that that is not the case.
Mr. Andy Stewart: Add them up.
Mr. Davies: I have added them up, and I spent a great deal of time today carefully working them out. If the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) wishes to take issue with me on that, I am prepared to give way to him.
The supermarkets have benefited at the expense of agriculture. Let us examine Sainsbury. Sainsbury's profits have increased from £45 million in 1980 to £787 million in 1990. In that time, it has increased its profit margin from 3·7 per cent. to 9·6 per cent. Who is being squeezed for that tripling of profit? The answer is the private producers. The people being squeezed are the farmers who see the prices of their products at auction being driven down by the supermarket buyers. The same applies to Tesco, whose profit margin has doubled, while Argyll's profit margin has tripled.
As I have said, reorganisation of the CAP was inevitable, but the way in which British farmers have been failed in so many other ways, especially the way in which the Government have neglected the rural and agricultural infrastructure, was not inevitable.
To be successful in the modern competitive world, all industries have to research and develop new products and techniques. Agriculture is no exception, yet, as a conscious act of public policy, the Government set about cutting the resources devoted to agricultural research and develop-ment. The money spent on R and D at the Agricultural and Food Research Council has declined by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979, with a cut of more than 1,200 AFRC scientists in the past decade. The Government have halved the number of scientists employed at the Institute of Food Research since 1986.
Over the past year, in the run-up to the single market, with all the pressures of competition, the need for new product lines, the new demands for animal welfare and the continued demand for greater efficiency and environmental awareness, the research budget has been cut yet again.
The twin pressures of declining incomes and a reduction in public support for the infrastructure have been responsible for the great insecurity and uncertainty that face our farming industry.
The sheep sector illustrates the difficulties experienced over the past 10 years. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend

363
the Member for Clwyd South-West (Mr. Jones) and is close to the heart of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, who moved the amendment.
In 1981, the auction price of new season lamb was £1·81 per kilo, and the equivalent joint in Sainsbury's would have cost £3·35 per kilo. Last week at auction, the average price was £1·44 per kilo—83p at 1981 prices—while at Sainsbury's this week the price was £5·25 per kilo. Not only has the auction price for lamb decreased in both cash terms and real terms, but Sainsbury's has increased its retail leg price from 85 per cent. above the wholesale price in 1981 to a massive 264 per cent. higher than the market price. That is a clear sign of how the return to farmers has been depressed and the supermarkets are making profits directly at their expense. The Government have sat idly by and watched that exploitation happen. It is about time that they started examining the role played by supermarkets in the food chain as a whole.
I shall finish soon, as I understand that Ministers are becoming a little restless. I shall consider not so much the views that have been expressed in the House—destructive though those are of the Government's reputation—as the comments made by other people about the Secretary of State and the way that he runs his Department.
The right hon. Gentleman was a little upset about The Sunday Times earlier in the debate. I can understand why he has something of a vendetta against the media, because they do not think very highly of him. I am not sure whether he and his hon. Friends have seen the quotation in Farming News on 20 September 1991, but an article under the name of Jim Padfield, about the Secretary of State's cricket box, makes interesting reading:
"Now, many of you might have missed this—it's a busy time of year—but apparently John Gummer does have, in his office, a filing cabinet containing all his policies. This is indeed known, in civil servant circles, as John's cricket box. However, I have been assured that this designation has not arisen because it contains halls, as rudely suggested by the media."
I can understand why the Minister is a little upset—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am referring to cricket balls, and I hope that hon. Members were not suggesting anything else.
Their Lordships are upset by the Minister. The Duke of
Westminster attacked the Tory attitude. An article says:
"The Duke of Westminster took a swipe at the government during a prestigious farm awards ceremony this week over its attitude to the farming industry. Perhaps our Government is simply not aware how serious the problems are that are facing our industry, the landscape and the people working in it', he told guests at the NatWest NFU Venturecash award ceremony in London on Monday.
The comment appeared to be a taste of things to come in the Duke's report on rural businesses".
The Tories are not very happy with the Minister. I was delighted to read in an edition of Countryweek on 28 November the views of Lord McAlpine, a distinguished former treasurer of the Tory party. I know that many farmers are concerned that the Minister of Agriculture says one thing in public and negotiates another in private. Lord McAlpine was the treasurer of the Conservative party when the Minister was the chairman of the Tory party. Lord McAlpine says, talking about the removal of the former Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is very relevant. Lord McAlpine says:
"Mr. Selwyn Gummer—why did he behave like this, first plotting the downfall of Mrs. Thatcher, then crying all over the place after the event"—
364
[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am quoting the words of Lord McAlpine. They are relevant to the Minister's attitude in the agriculture debate.
Sir Hal Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that I was vice-chairman of the Conservative party at the time to which he refers? I assure him that Lord McAlpine spent almost no time at No. 32 Smith square, and could therefore have had only extremely scant knowledge of what went on.
Mr. Davies: That may be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said, all this demonstrates the deep divisions within the Conservative party. I refer to Lord McAlpine's account, because it gives a clear insight into the Minister's negotiating techniques. He is involved in delicate negotiations at this moment. The quotation is brief, and I have already read half of it, so I hope that I shall be allowed to finish.
Mr. Marland rose—
Mr. Davies: One sees how confused the Conservative party is.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have the brief quotation? It does not seem to be very relevant. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) may then wish to comment.
Mr. Davies: That is sensible, and I am happy to follow your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
Lord McAlpine says:
"Mr. Selwyn Gummer—why did he behave like this, first plotting the downfall of Mrs. Thatcher, then crying all over the place after the event? This seems to me entirely within the parameters of his character as I know him. I remember his dealings in the downfall of Cecil Parkinson and how he treated Cecil at that moment"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am about to come to the punch line.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the subject of the debate. It does not seem to be very relevant.
Mr. Davies: When I give the punch line, Mr. Speaker, you will see precisely how relevant it is.
The punch line is:
"Entirely typical of the chap. Mr. Major, do not go for a walk in St. James's Park with this man, let alone the jungle."
One can understand why the farmers are upset.
Mr. Marland: The hon. Gentleman told the House that he had a special invitation earlier this evening to speak to farmers in my constituency. I beg that, when he goes to my constituency, he makes a speech exactly the same as the speech he is making now, so that my return to this place after the next election will be guaranteed.
Mr. Davies: I am delighted that the prospect has crossed the hon. Gentleman's mind that he might lose his seat and one day might have to revert to doing an honest day's work.
Mr. Martlew: Is it not a fact that, on one occasion, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) said in the House that salmonella was a dangerous orgasm, and that we should not take too much notice of what he says?
Mr. Davies: I think that I had better stick to my own speech rather than be led down these attractive by-ways.

365
The Government have lost the confidence of the British farming industry. We can see the depth of the divisions within the Conservative party. We can see that the Minister of Agriculture is not capable of adopting a tone and a method of argument to unite the House to strengthen his negotiating position. Their Lordships are throwing up their hands in distress at the actions of the Minister of Agriculture. The media are turning against him.
The National Farmers Union disapproves totally of the way in which the Minister of Agriculture is conducting his affairs. I refer briefly to an article in Big Farm Weekly of 17 October 1991. It is headed "Naish opposes calls to snub John Gummer." Naish of course, is the president of the National Farmers Union. The article said:
"John Gummer should not be invited to address the NFU AGM, say many of the union's council delegates. … One council delegate said that people must be blind and stupid not to see through Mr. Gummer's 'weasel words'."
I suspect that that anonymous NFU delegate speaks for many farmers in Britain in 1991.
10.26 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I shall do my best to say twice as much in half the time. I do not think that that should prove too difficult a task. For a minute I thought that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) was going to rise to the occasion. He said that he opposed Mr. MacSharry's proposals in that they were discriminatory. He said that he trusted my right hon. Friend and myself to negotiate to get the best in the interests of British farmers and he said that he would vote with us tonight. We are grateful for that. It is important that a message goes from the whole House and we shall count carefully to see how many have stayed to take part in the vote.
Having got to the big moment, the hon. Gentleman collapsed in a heap. We then had an irrelevant knock-around for 20 minutes which I hope will be read by the farming community so that farmers may see what constructive proposals were put forward about the prospects they would face in the unfortunate event of there being a Labour Government.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) never fails to disappoint. He remained true today. He repeated that the essence of MacSharry would be accepted. I wonder whether in his heart he would like it to be accepted because that would make his political task so much easier. He repeated his horror story about all the things we cannot eat, about meat and BSE. In every speech he talks about the disasters in that area. Farmers know that he is a great disaster-monger.
I keep a note of all the Opposition's spending promises. The hon. Member for South Shields reproached us for not checking every farm every year for set-aside. There are 3,500 farms. I take it that it would be Labour policy to check every farm every year. I would be interested to know the cost and the number of officials who would be required to do that. I wonder whether farmers would welcome that increase in the burden of bureaucracy.
The hon. Gentleman then attacked the best part of the set-aside programme, the conversion and diversification schemes. It must make sense to do our best to get land
366
more permanently out of production, remembering that technology always endows us with an underlying yield increase of 2 per cent. per year.
The hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend of aggression and later of irascibility. The hon. Gentleman offers his own alternative—a farmer-friendly, animal-friendly, environment-friendly, consumer-friendly, Euro-friendly, Uncle-Tom-Cobbleigh-friendly alternative—an-onymity. He is the Doctor Who of the Labour Front Bench.
If the hon. Member for South Shields failed to rise to the occasion, I was genuinely disappointed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). I give him credit for being genuinely concerned about these matters. Where he has felt that the Government have performed well he has never failed to give us credit for it, and we are indebted to him for that. I know how genuine is his concern that we should he able to give farmers some signposts. We all recognise that they live in a world in which uncertainty appears to be compounded by uncertainty.
But a 10-year plan is not a realistic option. What assumptions can be built into it? What assumptions should be built in about how many member states there will be in the EC; the GATT outcome; the situation in eastern Europe and the level of liberalisation for imports into the Community; the development of biotechnology, one of the greatest developments in agriculture; and dietary and consumption trends? A 10-year plan cannot be anything other than a wholly speculative document.
But better was to come. The hon. Gentleman said that he would take his hon. Friends to Brussels to persuade Mr. MacSharry to adopt his party's proposals. One of my hon. Friends asked what they were. I listened carefully to the response because we were all anxious to know. He said: "At another day I might inform the hon. Gentleman what our policies are". That is a reassuring statement. We are all deeply reassured to know that at another day we will know what are the Liberal Democrats' policies. That is what is known as precision.
Mr. Geraint Howells: It is unbelievable that history is repeating itself in the House. The two major parties are defending each other's policies against the wishes of the Liberal Democrats and the majority of British farmers who want confidence to be restored, stability in agriculture and a 10-year plan. If the Government do not look after the interests of the agriculture community, we will do so.
Mr. Curry: I should have thought that if the Liberal Democrats wished to restore farmers' confidence, it should seize the occasion of what is virtually the annual agriculture debate in the main debating forum in the land to reveal their policy. But the hon. Gentleman did not do that. When the hon. Gentleman was challenged by Labour Members on the cost, he said, "It is very difficult". That is the summary. We shall find out what the Liberal Democrats' policy is later and it is difficult to give the cost. That is a song to sing in the valleys and I shall make sure that it is known fairly far and wide.
It is curious that from a party which proclaims its adherence to the federal principle we get the great exposition of the disaster story which is MacSharry. If there was a party which should be predisposed to accept those proposals it is the Liberal Democrats. For them the F-word is "fraud".

367
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for his kind remarks. As he knows, we have been concerned about the fate of the mushroom industry in his constituency. I shall devote my attention to that in future. I realise that it is an important matter and I note that he will send me some information on it which I undertake to examine immediately I receive it.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) mentioned the whisky industry. He listed the Scottish NFU's five points, with which we agree. There is no dispute between us on that and I know the importance of the excellent beverage to which he alluded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) made an important point about marketing. He will know that we have introduced a marketing scheme. The idea is to tell farmers to get away from the idea that somehow they must be turned into French farmers, to co-operate in a French style. We are looking for something different, for something British. We are looking for something that does not have the overtones of the French-style co-operatives. We do not want them to be retailers or processors; we want them to be more efficient farmers by farming for the market. That is the entire message of the marketing initiative, which has received an extremely good response. I am delighted that the NFU has complementary proposals, which will enable us to marry our ideas to their ideas and to get a response from farmers on this important matter.
I noticed that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) winced when one of my hon. Friends mentioned the damage that horses do to fields because I think that he has a family interest in horses. Once again, he defended the present status of the Milk Marketing Board. It is indefensible in its present form and the board knows it. It is the board which initiated the process of reform. If we said that we were going to defend the status quo, it would deeply damage farmers' interests. Therefore, we are saying to the board, "You must promote the change and we shall help you to do so, but it is your industry and you must decide what you want to do with it." What farmers do not want to do is to hold it back.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) said that he would like to repatriate the common agricultural policy. That is not what the debate is about. If the United Kingdom is to be at the heart of the debate, there is no point in espousing ideas that immediately put us on the margins of the debate. We had that trouble in the past. We do not intend to repeat it. That does not mean that we accept the CAP, despite all its blemishes; it means that we must negotiate our way to a better system. There is no effective alternative.
As for the speech of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), we defend the interests of Welsh, Northern Ireland, Scottish and English farmers. We do not stand for any sectional interest; we stand entirely for the interests of British agriculture. That is our sole purpose in the negotiations. I give a clear undertaking that we make no distinction between farmers in fighting to defend their interests against proposals which we feel damage them universally. There is no sector of British agriculture which has been miraculously insulated from the effects of the proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) mentioned the importance of environmentally sensitive areas. I take note of what he said. I recognise, too, the concern about eastern Europe. We cannot say to eastern
368
Europe, "Sorry, go away." It is important to us that we should give them a helping hand. Trade liberalisation is the most economically sensible way to go about it. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. However, we must ensure that it is done in a sensible, orderly and measured way, since it is important to ensure that we create a fair marketplace.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) referred to repatriating the common agricultural policy. He made the sensible point that the small Welsh farmer was not excluded and that the CAP would adversely affect him.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) made the sort of remarks that I would expect from a member of his party. He wanted me to go round the country telling farmers how awful the MacSharry proposals are. They know how awful they are. What they want is an assurance that we are going to fight them, improve them and ensure that we obtain a package that is acceptable to farmers. That is our message to farmers and it is just as true for Scottish farmers as for any other farmer in the United Kingdom. We shall defend their interests with as much vigour as we defend the interest of any other farmers in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Curry: No, because I have nearly finished my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said that the common agricultural policy could not survive and that we should get rid of it. The conclusion that I draw from that is how mistaken it is to arrive late. If we had been members of the Community earlier, we should not have the CAP as it is now. The conclusion which I draw is that if the Community were to propose other exciting ventures that would have an enormous influence on how the Community develops, it would be very sensible for the United Kingdom to be in at the beginning, otherwise the penalties for this country might be very great.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) referred to the millionaire farmers who would have to bear the burden of MacSharry. I will take him to meet the millionaire farmers in my constituency and throughout the country. We shall spend a long time looking for them. They no longer exist. I should be delighted to let him just talk to them—
Mr. Martlew: How can he, if they no longer exist?
Mr. Curry: —so that they can tell him how well they are going to do under the MacSharry proposals, which is what he said. The hon. Member for Carmarthen is misleading the farmers in his constituency if he thinks that the small farmer is insulated. That is not the case. Small farmers will suffer just as much as anyone else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) referred to tenancy reform. That is crucial. As my hon. Friend knows, we have got that matter in hand. He mentioned its importance to the whole of the rural community. We all say amen to that.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said that industry depends on agriculture. It is an important issue. We are just as mindful of that as we are of agriculture as a whole.

369
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the Goodman case. It is being investigated in the Republic and I do not intend to comment upon it.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) referred to discrimination and corrected what his hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen said. He talked about the family tradition of countryside livelihoods. With my constituency, I cannot but share his very real concern.
Farmers must face up to three interlocking negotiations —the eastern European negotiations, the MacSharry negotiations and the GATT negotiations. They touch on each other and sometimes they ricochet off each other. They are all crucial to this country, to the future of the European Community and to the world trading system.
My right hon. Friend and I have made it absolutely clear that in all the negotiations we shall defend the British farmer and we shall not relinquish that task.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 152.

Division No. 22]

[10.39 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Loyden, Eddie

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Maclennan, Robert

Beggs, Roy

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Beith, A. J.

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Bellotti, David

Paisley, Rev Ian

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Carr, Michael

Salmond, Alex

Cryer, Bob

Skinner, Dennis

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Stephen, Nicol

Fearn, Ronald

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Howells, Geraint

Wray, Jimmy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kennedy, Charles

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Livsey, Richard

Mr. Alex Carlile.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amess, David

Day, Stephen

Amos, Alan

Dixon, Don

Arbuthnot, James

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dunn, Bob

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Dykes, Hugh

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Farr, Sir John

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Favell, Tony

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bottomley, Peter

Forman, Nigel

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowis, John

Forth, Eric

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Franks, Cecil

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

French, Douglas

Bright, Graham

Fyfe, Maria

Browne, John (Winchester)

Galloway, George

Buck, Sir Antony

Gill, Christopher

Burt, Alistair

Golding, Mrs Llin

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Carrington, Matthew

Goodlad, Alastair

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Chapman, Sydney

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Chope, Christopher

Gregory, Conal

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Conway, Derek

Hague, William

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Couchman, James

Harris, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hayes, Jerry

Curry, David

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

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

Haynes, Frank

370

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Page, Richard

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Paice, James

Hordern, Sir Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Illsley, Eric

Pendry, Tom

Irvine, Michael

Pike, Peter L.

Jack, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Janman, Tim

Portillo, Michael

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Key, Robert

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kilfedder, James

Sackville, Hon Tom

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Shelton, Sir William

Knowles, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Latham, Michael

Shersby, Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lee, John (Pendle)

Stevens, Lewis

Lightbown, David

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

McAvoy, Thomas

Stott, Roger

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sumberg, David

Madel, David

Summerson, Hugo

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marland, Paul

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Thurnham, Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Trippier, David

Martlew, Eric

Waller, Gary

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wells, Bowen

Miller, Sir Hal

Widdecombe, Ann

Mills, Iain

Wilshire, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Mitchell, Sir David

Winterton, Nicholas

Monro, Sir Hector

Wood, Timothy

Moss, Malcolm

Younger, Rt Hon George

Needham, Richard

Neubert, Sir Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Mr. Tim Boswell and

Norris, Steve

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8356/90, relating to agricultural production methods, 7570/91, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 13th November 1991, relating to the development and future of the Common Agricultural Policy, and 8886/91 +COR 1,8950/91 and 9136/91, relating to amendments to the legal framework of the Common Agricultural Policy; and supports the Government's intention to seek reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which will make Community agriculture more market-orientated and efficient, will put more emphasis on environmental care, will reduce the cost of that Policy and will apply fairly throughout the Community.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

HOUSING
That the draft Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
Question agreed to.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That, during the proceedings on the Matter of the Urban and Rural Regeneration of Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the Matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Disabled People (Northern Ireland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
10.51 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Most people welcome the opportunity to have an Adjournment debate on matters of great importance. In this instance, I do not particularly welcome this debate, because I regret having to make these points tonight in this way.
I have made it clear to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), that in general terms I have every sympathy with the people in the Housing Executive and the Department of Health's occupational therapy department whom, in effect, I shall be criticising. I must also criticise a system that puts them in a position in which problems occur.
My debate is about the way in which grants are paid from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to disabled people to improve their environments in their own homes. They fall into two categories: people who own their own houses, the vast majority of whom have purchased their homes recently from the Housing Executive, and people who are Housing Executive tenants and require special adaptations.
The problem has been exacerbated by recent stringent cuts. The most recent cut of 16·5 per cent. in the Housing Executive's budget was announced on 28 November. That is estimated to cause a shortfall of £50 million over the next three years, which will eventually and inevitably make the problem worse.
I raise this matter also because my constituency has a high percentage of unfit housing. Although I am sure that these remarks will apply to all constituencies in the north of Ireland, I can judge only what is happening in the one that I know best, which is my own, where 3,344 houses have been deemed "unfit", as the Minister confirmed to me in a written answer in 1988. That is the background to this debate.
I shall raise four main issues, leaving aside the financial strictures and the policy itself, because such matters cannot be dealt with simply in an Adjournment debate. I refer to the problems in the system which I believe could be avoided. I repeat that I have sympathy with the staff of the Housing Executive and the Department of Health's occupational therapy department, but there are great problems that we must face.
The first is the average length of time between first receipt of an application and a visit. Most such applications come from people who, because of physical disabilities that are mostly associated with age, can no longer cope in their homes as currently structured. Most of the applicants require the provision of downstairs toilets and showers. A written reply last week confirmed that the average waiting time between the making of an application and the first visit or inspection is about nine weeks. If that is the average, we can take it that many will take longer than that. That is bad, but it could be dealt with. I cannot see any reason why that process cannot be speeded up within the system.
The second main problem relates to the delay in the occupational therapist's visit to assess the application. The applications cannot be processed by the Housing Executive unless they have been assessed by occupational

373
therapists from the Department of Health and unless recommendations are made by the occupational therapy department. Again a written reply last week stated that, in the Southern health board region, it took an average of four or five months before the occupational therapist gave an assessment, but in Belfast and in the Western board's region the delays were 11 months, with some being "very substantially longer".
We are talking about a system in which, on the admission of that written answer, a year can go by before that essential part of the process is undertaken. If one adds that delay to the average of about three months before the first visit is made, one is talking about a possible delay of one year and three months before the application starts to receive the attention that is required before it can proceed.
That in itself is bad enough. However, I tabled a written question some time ago about increasing the number of occupational therapists in Northern Ireland and was assured that that would happen. I know that it has happened in some regions, but that is certainly not evident in the areas of which I am most aware, where the problem seems great. Great difficulties arise if an aged person, who has probably just been released from hospital and who is very ill, cannot manage in what is usually a two-storey house where the facilities are upstairs, and has to wait 13 months before the application for downstairs facilities is even sanctioned. Those difficulties must be addressed.
Of course, there are exceptions and occasions when the process happens much more quickly—and others where it happens much more slowly—but I wish to outline the case of my constituent, Mrs. Patterson of 126 Dromalane Park, Newry, who received the Housing Executive's reply to her application on 2 October 1989, but was visited by an occupational therapist only last week. Almost two years elapsed before even the initial visit was made, making the applicant think that her application had been turned down. There can be no excuse for that. Something in the system must have gone very wrong. If that were the only such delay of which I knew, I would accept that there had simply been an oversight, but I am afraid that, in the circumstances, I cannot accept that.
Disabled people should be a priority in the system. They cannot be a priority if applications are so heavily burdened with bureaucratic requirements. There are not enough occupational therapists to do the job. Those who are doing it are grossly overworked. They have far too big an area to cover and far too many applications to deal with. The only way in which the position can be improved is to increase the number of occupational therapists.
The third problem is the Housing Executive's requirement under its warranted contractor scheme, which was introduced in 1987, that people who receive grants for this type of improvement employ a warranted contractor. Yet there is the anomaly that the Housing Executive employs contractors who are not warranted on major jobs. People naturally assume that a contractor employed by the Housing Executive is the firm to get, but then find that the contractor is not warranted. That is causing enormous delays. I know of several cases in which the proposals were sent in, the occupational therapist's assessment was given and everything was in order except that an unwarranted contractor had been chosen.
374
The people who make applications are not in a position to know who is warranted and who is not. The Housing Executive has the list in its offices. I should have thought that as a matter of course, when it sent out its communications to the applicant, it would include the list. The net result is that the lack of that information results in the application being delayed for many months. The application of Mr. and Mrs. Collins was delayed for 12 months on this score without the Housing Executive giving any idea of the reason for the delay. The application of another lady, a Mrs. Nan Lavell, who was very ill indeed, was delayed a matter of months for that same reason, without the Housing Executive giving any reason for the delay. That procedure should be streamlined as a matter of urgency.
People in such situations are reaching the age when they cannot cope physically or with the bureaucracy. Is not there a means of creating a one-stop application in such circumstances? The work does not involve major adaptations or renovation. By any standards the jobs are small, yet people have to make available three sets of plans for the planning department, three for the building control department, three for the Housing Executive and three for the occupational therapists department. If things are not just right, they have to go through that process all over again.
I have a case of a constituent in Newry, Mrs. Freda Williams, who has had two strokes and is bedridden. She very much needs the facilities that she has requested. After 12 months the relevant authorities are still asking for more copies of the plans that were submitted about nine months ago. There is something wrong there. That process could be speeded up substantially. I strongly request that the Minister consider a way in which a one-stop application could be made in such cases.
The fourth problem is delays in the payments for adaptations carried out. Perchance I was speaking by telephone this afternoon to a building contractor who specialises in this type of work. He mentioned to me several cases that were outstanding and told me that he and other contractors are stopping doing work involving a Housing Executive grant because they have to wait anything up to three months to wait for payment after the work has been done. Either the applicant must take out a bridging loan for that period—most are not in a position to do so—or the contractor goes without payment. That is the difficulty. Contractors will reluctantly say, "No, we simply cannot do your work because we cannot afford to be out of the money for that period."
In the cases that I have mentioned everything is in order —all the forms have been filled in and returned by the contractor, the work has been completed satisfactorily—but it is a long time before the cheque is processed and the contractor paid. In the present economic climate, he cannot cope with that situation.
There are a substantial number of cases before the Housing Executive concerning homes where major adaptations are required. I refer especially to the case of a constituent, a boy who cannot walk, talk, feed himself or do anything for himself, and will never be any different, as a result of meningitis at the age of three. He has to be carried everywhere by his mother and there are another five children in the house. That family has applied for a renovation grant on an old building. They were turned down because it did not fit the criteria.

375
As a result of advice from me and from others, the family has applied for a new replacement grant on the same building. However, as the criteria have still not been given by the Department to the Housing Executive, that case, among others, is waiting. Those criteria should be sent to the Housing Executive immediately so that it can begin to process such cases.
Will the Minister ensure that his Department study the criteria carefully? I know of no set of criteria that could be drawn up to include such a tragic case. It is impossible to write such criteria. Yet if there is no leeway within the system a tragic family like that will suffer most.
I should have preferred not to have to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate. I recognise that substantial staffing problems exist within the grants department of the Housing Executive, and I recognise the problems that that creates. I also recognise the fact that there are simply not enough occupational therapists. However, while I accept all those things and I have sympathy with those staff in the workload that they have to deal with, there are many ways that we could start to speed up the system. I have taken this opportunity to point them out to the Minister and I hope that something good will come of it.
11.7 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I welcome the opportunity to reply to the debate. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has raised issues of considerable importance to disabled people in his constituency and to all those affected by disability in Northern Ireland, who look to the grant scheme to work efficiently and speedily for them.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not wish to criticise the personnel involved in the administration of the schemes. However, in some of the cases that he mentioned it appears that there must have been some error, or they would have been dealt with more promptly.
In 1989–90 the total amount of grant was £33·8 million, in 1990–91 it was £31·2 million and for 1991–92 it is £29·7 million. In the region which covers the Newry and Armagh constituency, the grant was £4·85 million in 1989–90, £4·43 million in 1990–91 and £4·3 million this year. I accept that the figures are slightly down, but not enormously so. I hope that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, and other hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland, will agree that one of the absolute keys is to ensure that the money we spend gets to the people who most deserve and need it as quickly as possible. We had hoped to announce the new scheme for consultation today, but that has been delayed until tomorrow or perhaps the end of the week.
The present scheme must operate a priority list. I believe that the Housing Executive ensures that those who most need the grants are put at the top of the list. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh will be aware from his constituency that there have been problems with the preliminary investigations. Those problems were one cause of the delay that the hon. Gentleman described, but I have been told that the wait for that preliminary investigation is now down from six months to three months—the average in Northern Ireland. That time scale compares well with the rest of the country.
The length of the time that the occupational therapists take to complete their investigations is also down to about three months. In 1987, there were 28 occupational
376
therapists in the hon. Gentleman's constituency; now, there are 47. That is a significant increase. The total number of occupational therapists in Northern Ireland has increased from 206 to 277.
The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that, in his constituency, 12·5 per cent. of the grants given to the disabled are dealt with by the Craigavon and Newry offices. Two years ago, the maximum limit on the grants went from £10,200 to £12,600. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has added £2·6 million to this year's budget for occupational therapy, and about £500,000 has been made available to the Newry and Craigavon area.
Some of the delay is inevitably due to the way in which the applicant, having been through the preliminary investigation and the visit from the occupational therapist, considers the scheme proposed for him before proceeding to the formal application stage. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that takes some time.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that every conceivable thing that can be done should be done to ensure that the applicant—the hon. Gentleman was right to say that he may be old and slightly confused—is assisted in filling out the forms. The hon. Gentleman spoke about approved contractors—that application form clearly states the need for such an approved contractor.
Mr. Mallon: It does not say who they are.
Mr. Needham: No, because there are about 900 of them. Many more are coming on to the list.
The applicant can contact the Housing Executive or the grant officer to discover who is on the list. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that an approved contractor is important, because the grant is paid to the applicant. Nothing would be more serious than to have unapproved contractors receiving the grant. However, I shall study the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised about the length of time it takes for the grant to get to the applicant and then back to the contractor. The last thing we want is approved contractors having to wait too long for their money. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that is crucial that approved contractors are used to ensure that the work is done to the highest possible standard.
The new scheme is important. We will go out for consultation on the draft order in the next few days. The new scheme will allow specific grants up to the full cost of the work. At present, the maximum amount is 90 per cent. and it can be and often is 75 per cent., depending on someone's resources. There will be a grant of up to 100 per cent. of the total of what is required, following a test of resources. That is an important step forward. Naturally, I appreciate that it will mean that there will be gainers and losers, but the gainers will be the poorest and the losers will be those most able to afford a contribution toward what is required.
Nevertheless, I fully accept the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the need to be as quick as possible. The grant officer's job is specialised and needs someone who will look, particularly on major adaptations, at what is required. In addition, the occupational therapist needs to go into the appropriate scheme for the disabled person to ensure that the work is right for his or her requirements. I accept that, if there are unnecessary bureaucratic rules or

377
regulations or ways to get forms filled out singly rather than in triplicate, we shall do everything we can to speed up the process.
In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the time taken is being reduced, although it has not been reduced as fast as we should like. There are more occupational therapists, and the time that they are taking is also being reduced. Some delays are inevitable, and it is often difficult to get round them, but that is no one's fault.
378
The Government take the matter extremely seriously and want to ensure that grants go to those who most need them. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend and I give the matter a high priority. I shall take up the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman has brought to my attention and give as detailed an answer on them as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  English Teaching
  English Teaching
  Self-employment
  Self-employment
  Enterprise Allowance
  Enterprise Allowance
  Bank Holidays
  Bank Holidays
  Skills Training Agency
  Skills Training Agency
WALES
  Salmon (River Taff)
  Salmon (River Taff)
  Cancer Treatment, North Wales
  Cancer Treatment, North Wales
  Tranquillisers
  Tranquillisers
  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Water Rights (River Taff)
  Water Rights (River Taff)
  NHS Consultants
  NHS Consultants
  Employment Action
  Employment Action
  Roadside Trees and Hedges
  Roadside Trees and Hedges
  Secure Unit
  Secure Unit
  Mental Handicap
  Mental Handicap
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Shops (Thefts)
  Shops (Thefts)
  Exotic Birds
  Exotic Birds
  Disabled Staff
  Disabled Staff
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Police Station (Oakham)
  Police Station (Oakham)
  Committal Proceedings
  Committal Proceedings
  Brixton Prison
  Brixton Prison
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Police Vehicle Accidents
  Police Vehicle Accidents
  Mr. Kevin Bardsley
  Mr. Kevin Bardsley
ENERGY
  Disabled Staff
  Disabled Staff
  IAEA Safeguards
  IAEA Safeguards
  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
TRANSPORT
  Waterways
  Waterways
  Light Dues
  Light Dues
  Oil Tanker Spillage (The Minch)
  Oil Tanker Spillage (The Minch)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Knife amnesties
  Knife amnesties
  Domicile Law
  Domicile Law
  Probate Registry, Cardiff
  Probate Registry, Cardiff
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Crown Prosecution Service
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  The Gulf
  The Gulf
  Third World Debt
  Third World Debt
  Brazil
  Brazil
  Aid and Trade Provision
  Aid and Trade Provision
  Aid Programmes
  Aid Programmes
  Simple Truth Appeal
  Simple Truth Appeal
PRIME MINISTER
  Live Television Feed
  Live Television Feed
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  SERPS
  SERPS
  Maternity Allowance
  Maternity Allowance
  Poll Tax
  Poll Tax
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Disabled Staff
  Disabled Staff
  Secondary School Streaming
  Secondary School Streaming
  Anti-smoking Education
  Anti-smoking Education
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Disabled Staff
  Disabled Staff
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Yugoslavia
  Yugoslavia
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
HEALTH
  Medway District Health Authority
  Medway District Health Authority
  Nebulisers
  Nebulisers
  Juvenile Macular Degeneration
  Juvenile Macular Degeneration
  Home Help Service
  Home Help Service
  Hospitals, London
  Hospitals, London
  Patients Charter
  Patients Charter
  Secure Accommodation
  Secure Accommodation
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Quest Cancer Test
  Quest Cancer Test
CIVIL SERVICE
  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Director of Public Prosecutions
NATIONAL FINANCE
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Inheritance Tax
  Inheritance Tax
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Passenger Transport Executives
  Passenger Transport Executives
  Estate Values
  Estate Values
  Environmental Protection
  Environmental Protection
  VAT (Horses)
  VAT (Horses)
  Civil Service Relocation
  Civil Service Relocation
  Currency Transactions
  Currency Transactions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Water Extraction
  Water Extraction
  Consumers Committee for Great Britain
  Consumers Committee for Great Britain
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Exmoor
  Exmoor
  BNFL Springfields Works
  BNFL Springfields Works
  Set-aside Scheme
  Set-aside Scheme
SCOTLAND
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Squirrels
  Squirrels
  Environmental Protection
  Environmental Protection
  Live Television Feed
  Live Television Feed
  Motorway Statistics
  Motorway Statistics
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
ENVIRONMENT
  Broadwater Farm Estate
  Broadwater Farm Estate
  Housing Improvements (North-east)
  Housing Improvements (North-east)
  Council Tax
  Council Tax
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Non-metropolitan District Councils (Housing)
  Non-metropolitan District Councils (Housing)
  Wild Birds
  Wild Birds
  Housing Estates
  Housing Estates
  Carlisle Council Homing
  Carlisle Council Homing
  Green Belt
  Green Belt
  Local Authorities (Privatisations)
  Local Authorities (Privatisations)
  Water Regulation
  Water Regulation
  County Hall, London
  County Hall, London
  Planning and Compensation Act 1991
  Planning and Compensation Act 1991
  Poll Tax
  Poll Tax
  River Quality
  River Quality
  Urban Protection
  Urban Protection
  Incinerators
  Incinerators
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  EC (Visits)
  EC (Visits)
  London Residuary Body
  London Residuary Body
  Global Warming
  Global Warming
  School Cleaning
  School Cleaning
  Uniform Business Rate
  Uniform Business Rate
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Environmental Assessment
  Environmental Assessment
  British Nuclear Fuels
  British Nuclear Fuels
  Heveningham Hall
  Heveningham Hall
  Flood Damage (Calderdale)
  Flood Damage (Calderdale)
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Live Television Feed
  Live Television Feed
  Environmental Protection Regulations
  Environmental Protection Regulations
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  House of Fraser
  House of Fraser
  Disabled Staff
  Disabled Staff
  EC Funds
  EC Funds
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  RENAVAL Programme
  RENAVAL Programme
  Telephone Service (Premium Rate)
  Telephone Service (Premium Rate)
  Telephone Statistics
  Telephone Statistics
  DHL and Federal Express
  DHL and Federal Express
  Telecommunications
  Telecommunications
DEFENCE
  Bowman Combat Net Radio
  Bowman Combat Net Radio
  NATO
  NATO
  Hercules II
  Hercules II

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

Community Health Councils
Lord Carter: My Lords, in the absence through sickness of my noble friend Lord Ennals, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
Whether they will review the statutory rights of community health councils and their role in upholding the rights of patients and the public in relation to the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, there are no plans to review the statutory rights of community health councils and they will continue to carry out their important role of representing the interests in the health service of the public in their districts. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to wish the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, a speedy recovery.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Has he read the survey of community health council relations with National Health Service authorities published by the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales? Are the Government satisfied with a situation in which one third of CHCs have not been invited to comment on the NHS contract plans; nearly 60 per cent. have been excluded from commenting on the contract specifications; three-quarters suspect that district health authorities hold private meetings at which key decisions are taken; and half have the same view about meetings of the family health service authorities? How does all that square with the patient's right, as set out in the Patient's Charter, to obtain detailed information on local health services from health authorities, GPs or community health councils?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the report and I have read it. I am also aware of the conclusions that ACHCEW has drawn regarding the statutory rights of community health councils, but I had great difficulty finding evidence in the paper to support the conclusions that the association puts forward. A third of community health councils did not respond to the questions asked. Of those which did and which described their relationships with district health authorities, some 85 per cent. considered their relationships to be satisfactory or better. The number which considered their relationships with community health councils poor or very poor sank from 6 per cent. to only 1 per cent. The report states on page 20:
"Almost all CHCs were able to provide examples of joint working with their DHA".
The report gives various of those examples. I am confident that it is not necessary to make any changes.
222
We continue to build on the good work that has been done and to see improvements in the way that CHCs work with district health authorities.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that for 14 years I was chairman of a hospital management committee. I therefore know something about the NHS. Is he aware that most people do not even know the address of their so-called community health councils? He talks about the rights of patients. But how do patients get in touch with their CHCs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that any patient who wishes to get in touch with his community health council will find the address and telephone number in the telephone book.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister consider changing the name of community health councils? There is confusion with community medicine? Would it not be better to call them something like people's health councils?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take note of the interesting suggestion made by the noble Baroness. We discussed this matter during proceedings on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I am satisfied that the name is the right one, but I shall certainly pass on the suggestion to my right honourable friend and the Department of Health.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that both in Leeds where I was a Member of Parliament and in Manchester where I live community health councils are easily accessible, well known and easily identifiable? What is the role of community health councils regarding the new health service trusts that have been set up? Do they have the same approach to those trusts as they have to the area health authorities, bearing in mind their job of protecting the service on behalf of the customer; in other words, the patient? If they do not have the necessary facilities, will the Minister ensure that they are given them as quickly as possible?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that in both Leeds and Manchester people are aware of the addresses and telephone numbers of their community health councils. As regards the role of CHCs in relation to the trusts, their relationship should principally be with the purchasing authority—the district health authority—but they can visit the NHS trusts if they so wish because that is where the service is provided.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, do community health councils have a mandatory right to visit those trusts or may they do so only at the invitation or say-so of the trust itself?
Lord Henley: My Lords, community health councils have a right to visit NHS trusts that are managed in their district health authority area where provision is made by the district health authority to purchase services from the trust. If the district purchased from outside its area, the neighbouring community health council would visit the trust.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, will the Minister encourage community health councils to display their addresses and telephone numbers at clinics and doctors' establishments? That is where most patients are likely to find that type of information useful rather than having to search for it in the telephone book.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware that there is a problem in that respect, but if there is I shall certainly pass on that suggestion to my colleagues at the department and ask them to look into it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall the access to information Act of a few years ago? Is it still in operation and are community health councils still gaining access to information?
Lord Henley: My Lords, community health councils have a right to obtain relevant information from local NHS authorities. As regards attendance at meetings, they obviously have a right to attend public meetings. The meetings will be deemed to be public unless the health authorities consider that there are reasons why they should not be public. If a meeting is not public, it is a matter for the district to decide whether to invite the community health councils.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister said that he had read the survey. Following his answer, can he explain why, according to that survey, 10 per cent. of the CHCs do not receive agendas or background papers for meetings of the DHAs? Will he also confirm that the same figure applies to the meetings of the family health service authorities? They are just not sent the papers.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was trying to say that most health authorities —some 85 per cent.—considered their relationship with the DHAs to be satisfactory. Obviously some felt that it was not satisfactory. As a result of the document that we published last year, the number who found the service they receive from the district health authorities to be poor or very poor has declined from 6 per cent. to 1 per cent.

Farming and Wildlife Advisory Groups: Support
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the farming and wildlife advisory groups are supported by the statutory conservation bodies and if so, by what means.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the farming and wildlife advisory groups are supported by the statutory conservation bodies. Most of this support comes in the form of grant-in-aid towards the salary costs of adviser posts. Support is also given in the form of ecological advice and grant-in-aid for specific projects. In addition to this, three of the conservation bodies are subscribing partners to the national Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very full Answer. Is it not the case that when the farming and wildlife advisory groups began they had 50 per cent. of their costs paid by the Countryside Commission on a diminishing scale to end in six years' time? That six-year period is now over. Is it not a fact that the replacement grants come to only 33 per cent. of the groups' present costs? In view of the fact that farmers are in some difficulty at the moment and that ADAS, which used to give free environmental advice to farmers, no longer does so and farmers have to pay for it, does he agree that it would be a very good environmental gesture for the Government to ensure that a grant of at least 50 per cent. of the costs was maintained?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to say that the Countryside Commission grants have decreased over a period. The grant was intended to help establish new adviser posts in England. As she said, there was no commitment to support the ongoing running costs of those posts. Payment levels for each new post decline over a six-year period. There are no plans to end or decrease other forms of support currently given by the statutory conservation bodies and the Government will continue to support the provision of free conservation advice, currently provided through the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group and through ADAS. We shall be considering further funding requests for 1992, 1993 and beyond.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Viscount referred to the free advice given by ADAS. My understanding is that it has ended and that now all advice from ADAS must be paid for. Will he also take on board the fact that lack of security is the cause of a great deal of the problem? Apparently no grant is guaranteed from one year to the next.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we must look at funding commitments year by year as they are met. We are also examining this whole matter in view of where we wish to make advice available for farmers and in which area. As I said, we provide substantial sums. The budget of the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group is over £1 million a year and we shall continue to support it.
Baroness David: My Lords, from the Minister's Answer, I am not clear whether the Government are fully committed to keeping up the payments so that the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, which is very much respected and very much needed, particularly at the moment, will continue to operate to the same extent as before. Does he agree that if the Government want to keep their good name for environmental protection in the countryside, they should be willing to make that commitment?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said, we provide substantial funds. In fact we provide over half the budget of the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group and that budget is over £1 million. The Countryside Commission deal with specific grants to help establish regional advisers and those decline over the years.

225
That is a small sum in comparison with the large amount of money given directly by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a good deal of concern about the operation of the policies that he kindly sought to explain to the House? Is he further aware that ADAS, which I had the privilege to set up, was intended to help with advice in this field? Indeed, over a long period of years it gave advice which was appreciated throughout the farming community and by all those interested in the heritage. Could the Minister say specifically what assistance now comes from ADAS for that purpose?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not have before me the detailed figures for ADAS as the Question related to the farming and wildlife advisory groups rather than to that service. However, we are looking at the whole matter. We have commissioned a report to examine how the two interact and we shall be considering it in order to find appropriate mechanisms for continuing conservation advice.

Community Charge Shortfall: Surcharge
2.49 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that certain local authorities are imposing a surcharge on persons who have already paid the community charge in full in order to cover the shortfall caused by the non-payment of the community charge by other residents in their area; and whether they approve of this practice.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, in setting a community charge the local authority has to estimate the level of non-recoverable charges in the coming year and, to the extent that it made insufficient provision for non-collection in the current year, allow for that also. This does mean that the charge is set at a higher level than would be necessary if every local resident was prepared to pay his or her dues. Authorities must, of course, make every effort to collect the community charge from those who have not paid, using the wide-ranging enforcement powers at their disposal. People who are withholding payment must realise that there will be no amnesty for non-payers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive reply. However, will he indicate whether or not the demand for a second instalment from someone who has paid the charge in full is valid or whether it can be successfully defied?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, as I understand it, it is not a second demand. It is that one finds on the poll tax bill an item, I think under "other adjustments", which covers the charge that it is necessary to make as a result of unpaid community charge during the current year and an estimate of what might be the unpaid charges during the coming year.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I note the comprehensive reply that the Minister gave to his noble friend. However, he did not reply to the Question. The Question asks whether the Government approve of this practice.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with the greatest respect to noble Lords, the Question did not ask whether the Government approve of the practice but whether they were aware that certain local authorities were imposing a surcharge. Indeed, we are so aware because the law requires them to do so. If indeed there are unpaid charges in the current year, then the charge which appears on the demand has to cover the charges which are estimated to be unpaid in the coming year and the charges which have not been paid in the current year.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend has said that there will be no amnesty. I presume that that means that the Government still hope that the non-payers will pay, however fragile that hope is. If they succeed, and the non-payers eventually pay, will they pay the extra money back to the ratepayers who paid?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in that event the money which was received late from the people who did not pay at the time they should have paid would go into the coffers of the local authority and therefore would go some way towards defraying the next community charge or council tax, or whatever.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal be good enough to convey to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, my congratulations at his timing in introducing this Question on the very day after Mr. Michael Portillo, the Minister for Local Government, rejected an amendment to the council tax Bill from Tory Back-Benchers aimed at preventing councils surcharging for non-collection? Will he confirm that Mr. Portillo said yesterday:
"The move might mean the councils had less to spend on services than the Government thought they should, which would affect all their residents, including those who had paid".
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I was replying to a Question about the poll tax—the community charge. I have replied correctly that there is an item on the bill which deals with the situation where there has been non-payment. That certainly applies until any new tax replaces the community charge.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend look again at the Question and appreciate, first, that I specifically asked him whether the Government approve of the practice? Secondly, I asked whether it was the practice, after a full payment had been made of the demand originally submitted, for a later demand to be made by some local authorities simply to make up their deficit?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords. I referred to the first part of the Question, not

227
the second. I apologise to my noble friend. The last sentence of the Question asks me whether the Government approve of this practice.
I believe that I answered fully. The law requires local authorities to make up the lost revenue as a result of non-collection. I was not aware of any supplementary bills being handed out by local authorities. As I said, in the bill which local authorities issue they have to estimate the lost revenue in the current year and make an estimate of the lost revenue in the coming year.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal agree that the law is the law in regard to the poll tax? Does that apply equally to Sunday trading?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am absolutely sure of one thing. Even if I had misread the Question, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Sunday trading.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, although it is not within his immediate province, that the community charge this year in the Lothian region of Scotland is £444, and that in each of the past two years there has been an increase due to non-payment? In this year we are threatened with a further 10 per cent. Can he see any realistic end to that situation?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, if one looks at the figures for collection, they are encouraging. If one takes the financial year 1991–92, by 30th September of this year 39 per cent. of the budgeted yield had been collected. That was after bills had been sent out very much later than otherwise would have been the case because of the reduction in the headline charge which was announced earlier this year. For the financial year 1990–91, by 30th September of this year local authorities had collected 95 per cent. of the budgeted yield.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, outlined a policy being pursued by some local authorities. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House say whether what they do or propose to do is legal?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have answered the question on a number of occasions. In the Bill which legislates for the poll tax an addition has to be made for the unpaid charges in the current year and for an estimate of what may be unpaid in the coming year. No question should arise of any supplementary bill.

European Environmental Agency: Location
2.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect a decision on the location of the new European Environmental Agency.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government have been pressing for a decision to be taken on the location of the European Environmental Agency since November 1989 when the Environment Council agreed in principle to set up such a body. We expect a decision to be made shortly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful for that encouraging reply. Is it correct that the work of the new agency is being delayed by an attempt by the French Government to trade this decision for another decision—that Strasbourg should be the permanent seat of the European Parliament? If so, is there also any sign of a conclusion to that long drawn out argument involving Luxembourg?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right to a degree. The main problem is that the agency is one of a number of institutions looking for a home. The other two are the Community Trade Mark Office and the European Training Board. One of the location issues to be solved has been the future location of the European Parliament. The French are pressing for a commitment to Strasbourg, and that has caused difficulties for the package as a whole. However, it is important that the agency is set up and running as soon as possible.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we too support the idea of this agency, and we wish to see it working as quickly as possible wherever it may be located? Is there any intention to attempt to get other non-EC countries into it, especially the Eastern European countries, whose contribution to the pollution of the planet is considerable, and which need to be brought under some control as soon as possible?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that has already occurred: EFTA countries and our Eastern European friends have expressed a wish to join in the agency work, and we shall work with them.

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

Bingo Bill [H.L.]
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Gaming Act 1968 with respect to bingo and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill now be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a first time.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 4th and 11th December
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Ross of Newport and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead set down for 11th December shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that in the name of the Baroness Young set down for this day shall be limited to 5 hours.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lord Bishop of Peterborough be named of the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: 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 on Procedure of the House be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Ampthill,

L. Belstead,

B. Blatch,

L. Carr of Hadley,

L. Carter,

L. Cledwyn of Penrhos,

L. Colnbrook,

L. Denham,

E. Ferrers,

L. Goff of Chieveley,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Hayter,

L. Hesketh,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Mackay of Clashfern (Lord Chancellor),

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

L. Nathan,

L. Pym,

B. Serota,

L. Shackleton,

L. Stoddart of Swindon,

E. Strathmore and Kinghorne,

230

L. Tordoff,

L. Waddington (L. Privy Seal),

L. Wigoder,

L. Williams of Elvel.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a committee appointed by the Commons to consider statutory instruments; that the Committee have the same orders of reference, powers and instructions as that appointed in the last Session (3rd December 1990); and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Airedale,

L. Boston of Faversham,

V. Bridgeman,

L. Brooks of Tremorfa,

L. Marlesford,

V. Oxfuird,

L. Shaughnessy.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee for Privileges be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal be named of the Committee:

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Campbell of Alloway,

L. Cledwyn of Penrhos,

E. Ferrers,

L. Glenamara,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Hesketh,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Mowbray and Stourton,

L. Shackleton,

B. Stedman,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Waddington (L. Privy Seal),

L. Wigoder.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

GATT: The Uruguay Round
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to call attention to the Uruguay Round of GATT; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am introducing the debate this afternoon because I believe that the outcome of the Uruguay Round of the GATT is the most important issue facing the world today. I am delighted that a number of my noble friends taking part in the debate were themselves at one time engaged in previous GATT negotiations. I look forward greatly to hearing from them. I am also delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is speaking for the Opposition. I know of his interest because he introduced a short debate on the same subject a year ago, and I believe for the same reason.
The GATT Round is a very technical subject but the broad issues raised are those affecting both the industrialised countries and the developing world. They will have an impact on the lives of everyone. It has been said that success in the negotiations could add another 4,000 billion dollars to the value of world trade by the end of the century. In so doing it would create millions of jobs in industrialised countries, help consumers by lowering prices and enable millions in the developing world to escape from grinding poverty.
For Britain the outcome is particularly important. We export about 25 per cent. of all that we produce. Therefore, we depend more than most countries on the openness of the world trading system. Conversely, failure would mean not merely recession but slump. I say that because it is now recognised that the great depression of the 1930s was caused not so much by the Wall Street crash but by the steps which the industrialised countries took to protect their industries. As a result world trade in manufactures fell by 40 per cent.—an incredible amount —with the consequence that millions became unemployed.
A lesson was learnt. Towards the end of the war the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries met to find a better way of managing world trade. They envisaged a rule-based rather than a power-based international economic system. There was to be a framework of trade rules which would ensure non-discrimination and limit tariff barriers.
From that meeting emerged the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It was finally agreed in 1948. The trade policies of member countries were to have four features: liberalism, transparency, stability and non-discrimination. The success of the system soon became evident. Trade barriers were reduced. There was an enormous expansion of international trade and living standards rose. Indeed, the 1950s and 1960s have been described as the golden years of GATT.
One immediate spin off from GATT was the beginning of the liberalisation of trade in Western Europe. Marshall aid provided the leverage needed to push forward that process, thus paving the way for the European Community. In a sense the completion of the internal market by 1st January 1993 is the logical conclusion of it.
By the end of the 1960s problems were appearing. Little or nothing had been done to counter the rising tide of agricultural protection. Developing-country exports in textiles and clothing were restricted by the Multi-Fibre Arrangement of 1974. Developed countries experienced acute political problems relating to particular industries.
So we come to the present. The Uruguay Round began in 1986. More than 100 countries are involved and the round is ambitious and wide ranging. As regards agriculture and textiles, GATT is to be extended to new areas of intellectual property, patents, designs and trade marks as well as to investments and services. As we all know, what was scheduled as the concluding meeting of GATT broke up almost exactly a year ago because the United States and the Cairns Group of countries were unable to reach agreement on agriculture with the European Community. That failure meant that other aspects of the negotiations could not be concluded because many participants linked the liberalisation of trade in agriculture to their willingness to make concessions in other areas.
Despite that major set-back the round resumed this year. A breakthrough came on 9th November when under the aegis of President Bush at the EC/US summit both sides narrowed their differences on agriculture. The United States made considerable concessions. However, I understand that the follow-up talks in Geneva appear to have reached a stalemate. Perhaps in reply the Minister will give us the latest information on that.
Of course there are immense problems. I shall touch on only three. Obviously there are many more, but time does not allow me to go into them. Clearly agriculture is the most important problem. I shall not talk in detail about that because other noble Lords far more knowledgable than I will do so later in the debate. Two sets of figures illustrate the problem. It has been estimated that the Common Agricultural Policy adds £11 per week to the cost of food for the average family of four in the European Community. It is only too obvious that the least advantaged suffer the most. The OECD has estimated that the cost of agricultural subsidies in developed countries is some 300 billion dollars per year; a sum larger than the total amount given in development aid. It is the dumping of surplus food in developing countries at subsidised prices that has been so very damaging. All noble Lords might agree that it is an absurd system. I recognise that farmers are going through a difficult time at present. However, it is generally agreed that British agriculture, which is among the most efficient in the world, will benefit by liberalisation. Some progress has been made but we need to move a great deal faster and further along that path in order to reach a solution.
The second issue is the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. It is a major derogation from the rules of GATT. Its principle aim is to secure an orderly and equitable development of trade in clothes and textiles. It is justified as a temporary measure to allow industries in developing countries—our own included—to restructure in response to low-cost competition as it permits

233
industrialised countries to negotiate bilateral arrangements setting import quotas from the developing countries. At the same time the arrangement provides for guaranteed access and growth rates for textiles from the developing world. We in the United Kingdom, together with the European Community, have agreed that the Multi-Fibre Arrangement should be phased out. However, that depends on strengthened GATT rules and disciplines as well as a transitional period for adjustment.
The third big issue is that of services. As an industry it has expanded enormously during the past 30 years of so. The industry is now estimated to be worth some 1,000 billion dollars of world trade. It is an issue that is important to us because in 1987 we were the world's third largest gross earner from services. I believe that it is difficult to reach full agreement on full liberalisation before the conclusion of the GATT round. However, a basic framework needs to be established. Again, I hope that the Minister will tell us more about that.
What is at stake? The prizes are extremely high. The successful conclusion of the round would provide much needed non-inflationary growth to the world economy. For the United Kingdom it would give a boost to jobs and exports; for example, a 30 per cent. cut in tax would boost European Community exports by 1.5 per cent. and create 340,000 jobs.
It is estimated that liberalisation in services, which now account for 20 per cent. of all world trade, would increase trade by 10 per cent. For the developing countries, it would reinforce the process of liberalisation which is taking place in so many of them. The countries in the Pacific Ring—Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand—are frequently referred to as examples of a kind of economic miracle and yet the successful developing countries are those with a good export growth; they have depended on an open trading system. There are other developing countries which are liberalising their economies with considerable success—Mexico is a good example. They need the open world trading system to export and to prosper.
When I was a Foreign Office Minister I travelled to a number of third world countries. I shall never forget some of the distressing sights which I saw. For those countries to prosper, they need trade as much as, if not more than, aid. In turn that means that the industrialised world must buy what they can sell. Failure of that system encourages a dependency culture of the worst kind.
Nor are the problems of failure only economic; they are also political. We can already see some signs of that ii we look briefly at the vexed question of immigration into the European Community. Many people from the Soviet Union—and I am not quite sure that I should still call it that—and Eastern Europe in particular will inevitably want to come to work in the European Community, to say nothing of the millions in the third world who wish to do likewise. They want a better life and they will not be prepared to accept the hardships which changing their economies will bring.
One important way in which we can help them is by trade. If those countries cannot improve their economies and raise the living standards of their people, it is inevitable that more will wish to emigrate. That could have extremely unpleasant political consequences. We have all seen pictures on our television screens of the rise of the neo-Nazis in Eastern Germany and we all know of the growth of extreme Right-wing movements in France and more recently in Belgium. The excuse for those excesses is the influx of immigrants. Obviously it is in our self-interest as well as that of the developing countries that that should be prevented from happening.
Finally, the worst danger, as I see it, is the threat of a trade war between the great trading blocs of the United States, the European Community and Japan. That would mean a return to protection. Already voices in the United States are calling for more protection for their industries as are some in the EC. History shows us that competing trading blocs engage in a self-defeating battle in which all are losers.
Political will is now required. Those complex negotiations cannot be resolved by officials. I am glad that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave his personal leadership to the GATT round when he was in the chair at the G7 meeting this summer. I am very glad that after that meeting a commitment was made by all those present to the conclusion of the GATT round. It is important that with all the discussions and debates at the Maastricht meeting next week, the principle of the open trading system is high on the agenda.
Time is not on our side. Once we reach 1992 the Americans will turn their attention to their presidential and other elections. The conclusion of the round by the end of the year is still possible and we must not allow narrow sectoral interests to stop it. We have all benefited greatly from the end of the cold war. We must not allow a failure of GATT to take its place. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for bringing this Motion before us. The last time that we debated this matter was on a Motion standing in my name, but obviously with the agreement of my noble friends on these Benches, on 23rd January this year. In my view it is fitting that both major parties have tabled Motions with the same end in view. It is good to be able to use this occasion—unusual as it is—to express what I believe will be a general support for the Government in their efforts to persuade all parties to complete successfully the current GATT round.
In the time available to me, I propose to comment on some of the major issues. Indeed, they are the major issues which the noble Baroness has raised in her opening speech. I propose also to reflect upon the possible consequences of failure.
At the outset—and at the risk of repeating myself—I wish to make it wholly and unambiguously clear, although this is not in any sense a party matter, that on this side of the House we shall work in whatever

235
way we can for the success of the round. I only echo the words of the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, Mr. Norman Willis who said:
"Jobs in British industry depend increasingly on the expansion of trade and the growth of the world economy as a whole".
That must be our objective.
I know of no serious analysis of the post-war world economy which does not recognise the importance of the liberalisation of trade as a motor for growth. There is no analysis of which I know of third world economies which does not recognise how vital it is that the present round is successfully negotiated. As the noble Baroness said, I am afraid that we are some way from achieving that at present. The round was due to be completed by the end of 1990 to allow for the appropriate procedures to be followed in the United States Congress—known as fast track approval. The last bout of negotiations before the end of last year failed; we must admit that. We are now nearing the absolute and final deadline for the fast track process to operate. That is why the next few weeks are so important.
Quite apart from the politics, the issues are extremely complex. In today's debate we shall certainly not be able to do justice to all of them. After all, over 100 countries are participating in the negotiations and there are 15 major on which agreement is needed. I am sure that noble Lords who are to speak will roam across many of those areas. For my part, I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in identifying the three issues which seem at present to be top of the agenda for negotiation and to offer some thoughts on those.
As the noble Baroness said—and this will not surprise your Lordships—the first is agriculture. By way of background, it is now becoming quite clear that the United States is determined to reduce not only its own agricultural subsidies, which are playing havoc with federal finances, but also subsidies paid to European farmers and perhaps more importantly, when it comes to exports of agricultural products, to traders since the two problems are linked.
The Cairns Group, as it is called, led by Australia, has the same objective as those countries in the third world which wish to sell the products of their land. Let us not forget that in some cases it is their only product for export to the rich markets of developed countries. On the other hand —in these matters there is always another hand—in this country we must take note of the present dramatic decline in domestic agricultural incomes. It would be folly to destroy a major industry, which by international standards is extremely efficient, by reckless or ill-considered action.
There is no doubt—I say that with all deliberation—that the level of agricultural subsidy in Europe is too high. Moreover, we in Britain have a specific grievance; we are net contributors to the Community in agriculture and the CAP costs us dear. Of course we are paying through the CAP a social subsidy—there is no other word—to the small Continental farmer. But—again it is a large "but" —if we are to reduce subsidies to agriculture, it cannot be done indiscriminately and suddenly. The Community must be
236
prepared to phase out subsidies over an extended period of time. If, by doing that, we can enhance the cleanliness of our environment and the beauty of our landscapes, then that can only be a plus. But it must be properly planned. Simply relying on market forces will give us all the wrong solutions—a bankrupt agricultural community and a much poorer environment.
As the noble Baroness said, a deal on agriculture is only one of the elements of a successful negotiation. The second major obstacle I shall address is how to achieve freer trade in services. Ideally that means freedom of establishment for service companies in all countries as an ultimate objective. We must recognise that that will not be achieved over night. Many third world countries, let alone the United States and Japan, are instinctively hostile to that idea. The non-tariff barriers—if I can use that expression in this context—are severe. We must therefore work harder. But if we are to give on agriculture, there must be a corresponding give from others on services.
The third issue of importance—again I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young—is the integration of the textile and clothing trade into the GATT. To date that trade has been regulated by the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, which worked well in providing a framework for the restructuring of the textile industry worldwide. If that arrangement is to be discarded—and it is reasonable to argue that it should be —there must be adequate safeguards in the form of a longish phasing-out period. By "longish" I mean a period of 10 years or so. That is particularly important for Britain which employs almost half a million people in the textile and clothing business. Much of that employment is concentrated geographically.
I chose those three issues not because they are necessarily the most important in objective terms, but because they give the most trouble in negotiations. There are many other points on which agreement is near—protection of intellectual property, prohibition of local content requirements in inward investments, settlement of disputes and strengthening of rules on what safeguards are available to signatories to the agreement. Progress on those issues forms the basis for a sensible package if the major problems can be solved. However, that "if" still represents an open question.
The noble Baroness spoke of the consequences of failure. In our view it does not overdramatise the situation to say plainly that the consequences of failure will be disastrous. They will be disastrous for future growth in the world economy since there is little doubt that failure will spark off a trade war as well as the formation of protectionist blocs such as the North America and Mexico bloc or, for that matter—let us face it frankly, as did the noble Baroness —the European Community. It is not simply that world trade would suffer. The consequential effects on employment in the advanced countries, and on life itself in many of the poorer areas of the world, hardly bear thinking about. Furthermore, we in Britain would be major sufferers since such a high proportion of our national product goes to export and always has done.

237
It is therefore in everybody's interest to bring the negotiations to a successful and happy conclusion. However, in this matter there is something more than just self-interest, strong though that may be. What is at issue is the kind of world in which we wish to live. Is it a world that relaxes into protectionism; that lives by beggar-my-neighbour policies where richer countries show no responsibilities for their poorer brothers? As the noble Baroness pointed out, we had that kind of world in the 1930s and we all know where that led us. Or is to be a political world in which we have the political will to reach over frontiers and across seas? Is it to be a world in which we recognise that the world economy, with the advance of technology, is and must be single and indivisible and in which the world economic product must be shared out equitably among all its inhabitants?
That is the underlying and almost philosophical question posed by the present GATT round. However it is wrapped up in the technical jargon of trims and trips and rebalancing and import access, unless that underlying question is recognised, I fear that the technical jargon will triumph. Short-term self-interest will reassert itself and we will fall at the last hurdle. It is to encourage the Government to redouble their efforts to ensure that that does not happen that this debate is taking place this afternoon.
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House. Months ago I agreed to take part in a police seminar in Bedford this evening and shall therefore need to leave long before the end of the debate. I am deeply sorry that that should be so.
This will not be a normal party political debate. The difficulty from the debater's point of view is that there is such a wide area of agreement between us. Since it is not a party political debate I shall limit party points to saying what joy it is to hear both Conservative and Labour Members recognising the importance of a free trade policy. It is joy to the ears of those of us on these Benches whose party has preached it for 100 years. That is my only party point this afternoon.
The noble Baroness began the debate—absolutely correctly —by speaking of the industrial aspects of the Uruguay Round. When we are discussing the matter we tend to emphasise, almost exclusively in recent months, the CAP issue and the farming and agricultural problems connected with it. That has led to a failure to understand the enormous importance, in terms of our self-interest and our economic development, of the Uruguay Round for the industrial and services areas.
The noble Baroness gave us figures which illustrated how important it could be to possible expansion of trade in manufactures and services if we could win freedom through the Uruguay Round. Let us consider, for example, the insurance industry. It is waiting to obtain establishment rights in a number of countries in order to expand the work which is recognised as being of the highest order in this country
238
and therefore offering opportunities for development and for consequent wealth and wellbeing to this country.
We have a considerable interest in making the Uruguay Round work for our own industry, our own jobs and the development of those areas, such as services, in which we are recognised as being pre-eminent. That needs to be stressed a great deal more than it has been in the past because of our tendency to speak only as though the issue centred around agriculture.
I wonder whether something more can be done, arising from this debate, to get the point over to the country as a whole. It is difficult to see that there is any widespread understanding in the country as to why this subject is important in terms of jobs, increasing the wealth of the country and its ability to carry out all the programmes it wishes to put into effect. It is difficult to see a connection between those factors and success in the Uruguay Round. I hope that this afternoon we shall not be just talking within these four walls, but that the Government will find ways of giving much greater publicity to the issues involved in the Uruguay Round which do not make the pulse of the public as a whole beat very much faster than it otherwise would when it hears that such issues are being discussed.
That said, the issue of agriculture and the CAP is very important and difficult. It has had publicity because it has been a sticking point in the negotiations until now. It seems that because we cannot get everything otherwise real progress would be made if we could overcome the agriculture and CAP difficulties. It is an absolute nonsense that we should be hung up on this particular issue. A dwindling proportion of the people of this country and in the EC earn their living in agriculture. I do not know why we have had to bow before them to the extent that we have for political reasons, which in reality must be becoming less and less important. We should come to grips with the issue. It is very difficult to understand why we have to bow before them to the extent that we do.
As we all now know, in France and particularly in Germany, a high proportion of farmers are part-time farmers. They are only a small proportion of the whole. Many of those farmers would do very well even without the support of the CAP. There are rich farms in Picardy and in the northern and central parts of France which do not need subsidies in order to do very well indeed. It is true that there are problems with the smaller farms both in Germany and France, but the numbers are not very great. It should not be a problem which it is beyond our wit to solve.
The noble Baroness also referred to the developing countries and the effect of failure in the negotiations on them. It is on that point that I want to dwell in particular, both from the point of view of the developing countries and of our own country and European civilisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, made reference. The differences in the standards of living in a world in which people can see what the differences are, are not going to be accepted indefinitely in the poorer countries. If we do not give

239
those countries the opportunity to sell not just their primary products, but the opportunity to turn those primary products into semi-manufactured or manufactured goods to sell in those countries, the results will be disastrous. The developing countries will be in gravest poverty.
Last year I was in Kenya, where half the population is under 15 years of age. As your Lordships will recall, the world population as a whole is due to double by the year 2030. Ninety-four per cent. of the increase will be in developing countries. That is the scale of the problem that we are facing. The Kenyan officials said that in 10 years' time they can neither employ nor feed them. If one has a population which can be neither employed nor fed one has one of the most explosive mixtures that the world can ever see. What will those populations do? The people will not just sit there, but will attempt, as the noble Baroness said, to emigrate to other countries.
We are facing a very serious immigration problem with the countries of Eastern Europe. Those countries want to share in the standard of living of the West. However, the Eastern European countries are not in hardship in comparison with the current and future position of the developing countries unless they can trade. There is a need to open up our markets to the goods coming from the developing countries. That is of the greatest importance to them and to us. We have seen already the rise of racialism in Europe. As the North African immigrants cross the Mediterranean into the southern European countries the position will become nastier and nastier. People will not come because they want to, but because they have to in order to eat. It is in their interests as well as ours to see that they can stay at home and eat there too.
The Uruguay Round is important for our own industry, our own unemployed and our own future prospects. It is also important for the mutual well-being of the varying groups in what is a world economy today. Unless trade opens up the result will lead to disaster. As I said a few moments ago, the most important matter is that this message should go far and wide outside this Chamber. It is not understood. We need real publicity to explain to people why this issue matters so much and why failure would be so disastrous. As the noble Baroness said, there is no other issue facing this country which is as important as the success of the Uruguay Round and the real development of world trade.
I hope that we shall get an answer from the Government and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not being here to hear it. What can the Government do to get the public and the voters to understand? We are now coming up to an election, with all that that implies. They must be made to understand just how important this issue is. The stakes are enormously high and we cannot afford to lose.
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who has a busy life, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. To come to this House and hear three
240
speeches of the quality that we have heard from the two noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is very encouraging indeed. I look forward to the debate in order to learn of some of the technicalities of this immense problem which I confess are not at my command.
The debate is extremely timely. Perhaps I may corroborate what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the need to get across the issues of the GATT round to young people. Development education has often been regarded as something that should not be taking up time in schools and colleges. I believe that that is misconceived because I believe that we cannot live in this world without understanding the fragile interlocking system which is the world economy to which we belong. I should like to see much more time and resource given to helping towards a better understanding of the issues at stake.
The debate is timely because with the preoccupation with Europe which has possessed us in the past two years or more, the global economy and the related issues have tended to be removed from our agendas. The imbalance between the northern and southern hemispheres remains a contemporary injustice which we must not tolerate.
We have the poor in our own society; but the poor in the societies in the northern hemisphere tend to be the "left behinds" of an otherwise affluent community. There is no comparison with the poverty that exists in the third world. As has been so rightly said, if this GATT round is not completed, the small kerosene lamps will go out; the herds will become thin and emaciated; and they will over-graze. There will be over-cultivation which will leave in its train famine and disease. Not only that, but I am told it will even have an effect on the climate.
The plight of the poor and the poorest countries is growing. I am told that 20 years ago we could talk about one-third of the world's population having access to two-thirds of the world's resources. Ten years ago that became one-quarter having access to three-quarters of the world's resources. I am told on good authority that today one-fifth of the population has four-fifths of the world's resources at its disposal. We know that that must include the oil-rich nations.
However, we in Europe, where in our history people have gone to the stake in order that justice might be done to individuals within the nation, must surely realise that a similar anxiety for justice must possess us as we look at the international scene. We must all welcome the lead given by our own Prime Minister in Harare in promoting the cancellation of debt of the world's poorest countries. That is a lead which is required. It is not enough to negotiate in such a way that the powerful can always call the tune.
Furthermore, as has been implied already, so often self-interest dictates that which justice demands. Disraeli in the "two nations" saw that an economically divided nation is rendered weak and ineffective. As has been said, a world where the gap between the rich and the poor is widening must surely be a destabilised world, a world where people are vulnerable to the

241
extremists and those who defy civilised standards because they feel they have no other way of being heard.
I apologise for quoting a report which came out 12 years ago. But noble Lords will remember that it was a principle of the Brandt Report—a report which, like all reports, had its shortcomings—that we cannot cure our own recession if we do nothing to activate the markets of the poorer nations.
I am told that 6 million jobs in the northern hemisphere—the countries of the West, if you like— have been lost because the so-called third world countries have sunk deeper and deeper into poverty. I recall, when I was working in Kent, the laying off of skilled rolling stock workers in Ashford at a time when in Tanzania it was a common occurrence for trains not to reach their destination because the rolling stock was so antique.
In the last stages of the Uruguay GATT round there must surely be a case for establishing to a point special and differential treatment for developing countries. Not to a point beyond which trade is distorted. I could take Members of this House to the village where I live in Hartlebury in Worcestershire to see enormous mountains of grain which cost every taxpayer a considerable sum every year to maintain. We all know that in order to avoid the cost of that, the temptation is to dump them on the world market, thereby depressing or undercutting the price. Rightly the United States is seeking the liberalisation of the world market in order to stop the subsidies which create the growing mountains.
There is a difference in the poorer countries where, for example, in Zimbabwe there has been up to 50 per cent. subsidisation of food growers which has been not to create surpluses but actually to enable the agricultural industry to survive. That has been very successful. Other pieces of good news of this kind can be found. Can we therefore urge that a distinction be made between the kind of common agricultural policy subsidies which have so often reinforced the big farmers, and the subsidies for survival which some of the poorer nations ought to be encouraged to apply in order that they can move towards a certain self-sufficiency; but I agree it should not be to the point where trade is distorted.
There is also the need for survival for the least developed nations—the very poor nations—to have import assistance with their food. That is not to make them a dependent culture, but so that they may survive. There is little chance of making them over-dependent when the small percentage of the gross national product in official aid in the northern hemisphere is only 0.35 per cent. I am sorry to say that in the United Kingdom it is only 0.27 per cent. We are 14th in a list of 18 countries.
A further reassurance from the GATT negotiators is that the countries which have weaker economies should have a longer timetable for the abolition or the reforming out of subsidies so that it may be carried out not in five years, as has been suggested, but in 10 years or even more. Can we be reassured that the Multi-Fibre Arrangement—and not only that, but also other unilateral so-called voluntary arrangements
242
—will be no longer allowed? They are arrangements whereby poorer countries may not export their commodities by which alone they could get rid of some of their unemployment. They must not do this because the richer nations do not like processed commodities brought into their midst. It is a situation where the powerful are able to call the tune. I feel that should be abolished in the name of justice.
As I have already said, I greatly look forward to hearing this debate and learning some of the technicalities required for a free and just market-place which other noble Lords will no doubt understand but which as yet I do not. I am grateful to have been able to contribute a small comment on this vital issue. I believe that the future well-being of the whole of humankind depends on the success of the GATT round. I hope and pray that it will not end there. If it succeeds in coming to a conclusion, I hope that the situation will continue to be monitored as the years go on.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, I am delighted to rise and speak for a few moments on this subject. I am all the more delighted to speak in a House which is so united on a great subject, a subject which is going to have immense effect upon the future of everybody in this country.
Thirty years ago I was in Geneva at the Hotel Beau Rivage leading for the British nation on the subject of GATT. I regarded it then as complicated. It still is, but it is not so complicated as the right reverend Prelate suggested. It is not the complication of detail but the principle that matters. It is the determination of people; it is common sense. Then, as in this round, we went on longer than we thought we should. The hotel keepers in Geneva were on the verge of trying to kick us out. If the same principle were adopted in Uruguay we might be urged on towards the end of these discussions.
The negotiation I had was I think successful but it was not universally popular. It is only fair to point out, in a House that is united about these matters, that 30 years ago the Conservative Party was not in favour of GATT. It followed with passion a very different line of country. It favoured imperial preference. When I returned I remember going to the Cabinet in November to find, as a young President of the Board of Trade, that the distinguished gentlemen there assembled did not think that I had been up to much good while passing my time in the Beau Rivage. They argued passionately against me and suggested that when a motion was put down at the party conference against the GATT we should accept it. I argued strongly that we should fight our corner and said that I believed that we could win. Of all the many delightful things that I remember in my life, I remember Winston Churchill saying at the end of it, "Let him try". He was a remarkable man to serve under. At any rate we went to Blackpool, we argued the case and we won. That was the last time imperial preference was argued as a main principle for the Conservative party. From there we moved on to the system of wider trade and

243
payments, which we follow in the main today and which, through this debate, we seek to follow in the future.
The battle at that time was not due to any eloquence of mine. It was due to what was happening in the world of those days. The world in which we live today is not a world in which Australia sends grain to us and we swop it for manufactured goods. Australia wanted to sell goods to Japan and to get Japanese manufactures in return. When world opinion and tastes change one cannot hold on to artificial and outdated ideas. Thank God we threw them over, to the immense benefit of trade in this country and throughout the world. I shall not repeat the point except to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, how grateful we are to her for raising this subject for debate today and arguing it with such clarity.
Clarity is what is wanted. Half this country does not understand a word about the GATT. Half the world does not know what is going on. We discuss the most fascinating questions about the grouping of nations for trade, about a new Europe, about the Pacific Basin and about new areas of trade to be set up around America and Mexico. Every day I read new ideas for trade, but I hardly ever hear an interesting discussion about what is the main strategy of trade. The GATT is the main strategy. The GATT lays down the rules. It ensures that there is not differentiation in preferences between one country and another and that we treat each other the same.
The amount of free trade on that basis has grown out of all knowledge. Instead, we talk about larger and larger narrow groups. If the world turned into one in which one group was in Japan, another was in Europe and a third was somewhere in the Americas and there was no overruling law such as we have today about the way trade goes on, it would be a disaster. We should lose all the considerable benefits, or most of them, that we have today and we should turn the opportunities which we have enjoyed and are enjoying today into something narrow and protectionist.
I am delighted to hear not from one side of the House but from all sides that it is seen with absolute clarity that to turn back now to that narrower world would be the worst course that we could adopt. I hope that we in this country, speaking together and having the same ideas and the same objectives, can talk broadly, boldly and successfully in favour of what is said today.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I was one of those who listened to his great conversion of the Conservative Party conference to GATT at Blackpool in October 1954. That is nearer to 40 years ago. It was a remarkable performance. We were converted rather earlier than some people may realise.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I must first apologise for the fact that I may not be present at the end of the debate as I have duties elsewhere. That explains why I have been pushed up to an unexpectedly high number in the batting order for today's debate.
I have been impressed by the enthusiasm your Lordships have shown for a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round and the widespread recognition that such an outcome is crucial to the well-being of more than 100 nations that are expected to be signatories. The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, suggested that half the population was unaware of the significance and meaning of GATT. While he may have exaggerated a little, that state of affairs is partly our fault. It is very often the practice of politicians and bureaucrats, whether intentionally or otherwise, to obscure the crucial importance of an international negotiation from the public view by adopting impenetrable jargon. Such indeed is the case for the Uruguay Round, which I must admit sounds like a football knockout competition where the odds would be expected to be heavily stacked against the visiting team, a sort of non-tariff barrier.
The merits of free trade and their crucial importance to the United Kingdom should be widely proclaimed so that the process is enthusiastically supported in the country. One of the greatest benefits of free trade is that, like the quality of mercy:
"it blesseth him that gives and him that takes".
There can indeed be an equality of benefit. Free international trade can open markets for the produce and goods from both the developing and the developed countries. It can spread wealth to developing countries and can provide them with the manufactured goods and technology that they need to build their economies.
For the developed world, free trade brings a wider choice of goods and access to food and consumer durables at world prices rather than prices inflated by subsidy and protectionism. Further, the advantages and disadvantages which each country possesses by virtue of its climate, its location, its resources and its skills can be offset and balanced through world trade.
In its 44-year existence, GATT has been a singular success and a triumph of international accord. It has provided a systematic and effective framework for growth in world trade. During this period world trade has grown by 6 per cent. annually. That has led to increased prosperity, higher employment worldwide and has provided the third world with some of the foreign currency that it so desperately needs for investment.
A successful outcome to the Uruguay Round can provide the much needed stimulus to the world economy at a time when recession is inflicting considerable damage both in the developed and in the developing world. An increase in world trade offers the prospect of growth and increased employment without inflation. In the developing world, where agriculture employs more than half of the population and accounts for a quarter of GDP, the opportunity to increase exports of agricultural produce to the developed world can provide a desperately needed

245
lifeline to economies and societies, many of which are on the brink of collapse. In other words, free trade can be a powerful force to help remove poverty from the third world and can stimulate growth in the recession-hit developed world.
What has been the British Government's contribution to the Uruguay Round of discussions? Frankly, it has been rather disappointing. In the past year, our Government have been far too preoccupied by other matters to play an effective and forceful role in the negotiations. I believe that their priority has been to square away their own internal problems rather than invest their efforts to pursue the most advantageous outcome to the Uruguay Round for Britain. The Government have used up their store of political capital with our European partners in a desperate effort to secure an opt-out clause at Maastricht to ensure that they can ignore the social charter and to avoid the use of the dreaded word "federal". This political capital could and should have been used in the national interest to secure a thoroughgoing reform of the common agricultural policy. The CAP has proved to be a major stumbling block in the GATT negotiations and it continues to impose a heavy burden on Britain's food bill.
In 1990, agriculture accounted for 63 per cent. of the Community budget. That whopping £20.3 billion sets off the absurd chain reaction of over-production, massive surpluses, expensive storage followed by heavily subsidised sales on to the world market which sadly, in turn, inhibit and undermine the development of agriculture in the third world. In order to pay for the high guaranteed prices for agricultural goods and for the export subsidies, food prices throughout Europe are believed to be 15 per cent. higher than competitive world prices. The National Consumer Council has estimated that this is equivalent to £14 per week on the average food bill for a family of four. That is a burden which falls disproportionately on the poorest in our community. In turn, that surcharge reduces the standard of living of non-agricultural workers throughout Europe and, to the extent that high food prices are reflected in higher wages, European industry is placed at a disadvantage in world markets. The abolition of the CAP would reduce food prices and provide an enormous competitive boost for European industry. By failing to press for radical reform of the CAP, our Government have failed to act in the best interests of either the consumer or the business community. Indeed, we appear to have ended up with the worst of all worlds. The way agricultural subsidies are now expected to be distributed will discriminate against Britain's large efficient farmers in favour of the smaller, less efficient, farmers in Ireland and continental Europe.
I should now like to turn to the proposals to include the service industries in the GATT. The inclusion of services and intellectual property rights in the Uruguay Round is of vital importance to the United Kingdom. More than 60 per cent. of our GDP is now contributed by the services sector and it is an area where we have an international proven competitive advantage. I should declare an interest. I work for a company which is busy developing its financial and
246
information services businesses around the world. The UK, with its successful services sector, can be a big gainer if the GATT accord includes comprehensive agreement to liberalise and to open the market for services around the world. Our Government should be pushing hard to eliminate barriers and to set in motion a process of further negotiations that will eventually lead to a free trade in services. They should also be alert to American attempts to withdraw such important areas as telecommunications and shipping from the negotiating table.
It is, I suspect, inevitable that once the ink is dry on the agreement at the end of the Uruguay Round—and, based on recent reports, there is now some optimism that an agreement may be achieved by the end of this month—the signatories will be tempted to find ways of improving their relative commercial positions. Your Lordships will know that it is often the small print which is the most important part of a contract. It is, I fear, in the small print where some of the benefits of a successful agreement on free trade may be eroded.
My experience when seeking to establish new businesses in overseas markets has been instructive. Many countries pay only lip service to opening their markets. In reality the rules of the game, as they are interpreted in that country, can present a series of insurmountable, or at best very costly, hurdles which the unwary inward investor must clear before the new venture can be established. Bureaucratic delay, tortuous regulatory requirements, the imposition of unnecessary and often quite unsuitable joint venture partners are only a few of the methods used to fob off and deter the investor.
We in this country hold the view that we not only play by the rules but that we also play by the spirit of the rules. Although this view has, possibly, taken a knock with the recent developments on Sunday trading, I still believe it to be broadly correct. However, I have to tell your Lordships that not every country takes that view. I urge the Government to be alert to the real dangers of these non-tariff barriers and to scrutinise the fine print of any agreements to ensure that as many as possible of the well-known and well-tried loopholes are firmly blocked.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in politics as in war, good timing is almost everything. For that reason, I think that one must particularly congratulate my noble friend Lady Young on the really admirable timing of this debate. It comes at what is very nearly the decisive moment on this issue. It comes when we are nearly at the end of what had been hoped would be the final year of the Uruguay Round and at a time when it is still possible to achieve agreement, but when it is only just possible. It gives the Government the advice of your Lordships' House on an all but unanimous basis as to what should be done. I am sure that not only your Lordships' House but also the Government and the country should be immensely grateful to my noble friend for taking this initiative.
I shall only comment for a moment on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick. I thought that

247
he was extremely unfair to the Government on his allegation of the lack of criticism of the CAP. As far as I know the Government have been extremely active in trying to secure an improvement in the provisions of that monstrous policy. I have heard them doing their best again and again. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, was less than fair in his general response to the Government's attitude in the matter.
I do not want to waste further time on that topic, because what is important is that we should hear from my noble friend the Minister that the Government fully realise the great urgency of the matter. Once we get into next year, we are in the year of the American elections. Once those elections start, various pressure groups, interest groups and the rest will be pressing the American Government for concessions in the direction of protection. Equally, as we get into next year, the enthusiasm which has been felt, not just in the United States but in a great many other countries, will begin to diminish. Public opinion tires of any issue, however important, if nothing appears to be happening. If nothing appears to be achieved, public opinion is apt to write off the matter. So it is of the utmost importance that the issue should be settled, and settled quickly.
I agree with much of what has been said by almost every noble Lord: this is the most important issue facing the world. It is far more important than the adjustments to the European Community which are apparently the basis of the forthcoming Maastricht talks. I express the hope that our excellent Prime Minister, and his team at Maastricht, will take advantage of the presence of the Europeans at that meeting to urge them to move quickly, and quickly to achieve agreement. It is still possible, but it is only just possible. It requires the impact of the strong personality of our Prime Minister, backed by his Government, to secure that we move quickly, even at the cost of certain compromises, to complete the round. It will not be completed, of course, in the sense that every detail can possibly be settled. That would be unrealistic. It is vital to have the issue settled in principle. That is why I rejoice enormously at the way your Lordships' House has discussed the matter, because I believe that it will interest the Government.
I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, holding forth, justifiably, that her party had always been in favour of free trade. I must confess that I was not. When I was a young candidate, I was a protectionist, but as the years passed and the situation changed, I was convinced that high protection lowers the standard of life of most people involved, and that the more free trade one can have, the better. Confession is said to be good for the soul, and as the noble Baroness prided herself on her life of rectitude, it is perhaps appropriate that I should confess that at one time I did not attain that standard.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it was not my rectitude; it was my party's rectitude.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness tempts me with that remark, because there are one or two examples which, if I had the time, I
248
might bring forward which suggest that rectitude has not been the most conspicuous mark of the Liberal Party over the years.
The crucial issue that must be faced is that of the common agricultural policy. I thought that several noble Lords rather underrated the difficulty of resolving that issue. If one thinks about it, the strength of the French devotion to the CAP is the result of factors that have operated for a long time. It goes back, in fact, to the Code Napoléon. Under the Code Napoléon, as your Lordships will recall, when someone dies, instead of having a system of primogeniture for inheritance as we have in this country, one's property is divided by the number of children one has. As a result, France is full of a large number of small fanners. That has two consequences. One is that they cannot earn a living unless prices are maintained artificially high and protection of one sort or another is given. Equally, it has the consequence that there are an enormous number of voters in France who have an interest in agriculture. The number is out of proportion to the number in this country and many other countries.
One must therefore realise that the French Government, with the best will in the world—I am sure that one has the highest regard for their ideas—are in a difficult position and require to be pushed hard to persuade them not to give way to that significant number of voters. We sometimes ignore the fact that after 150 years the Code Napoléon is indirectly causing us considerable damage.
The situation is such that we depend for the future prosperity of this country and the world on getting the Uruguay Round moving. I am especially enthusiastic for its extension to the service field. To extend it, for example, to insurance will be of the greatest benefit to this country, and it is right, because it would not just enable our insurance companies to operate freely in countries where their activities are now forbidden, but it would give to the world the advantage of the high professional calibre and quality of the British insurance industry. Its extension to services is an important aspect of the Uruguay Round. This country will undoubtedly benefit, but so will the world, from that change when it takes effect.
The right reverend Prelate dealt properly, as one would expect from a holder of his important office, with the poverty which exists in many parts of the world. But to reduce obstructions to trade, to reduce the dumping of goods, and to reduce restrictions of one sort or another will benefit, above all, the ever-increasing numbers of poor in the southern hemisphere in particular. Therefore the intelligent thing for the northern countries to do is to press ahead with that change. I am not denigrating the giving of relief. I am sure that we should continue to give relief and help, but the soundest way of helping the poorer sections of the world is to get world trade going, and to get it going effectively.
We have, for a few weeks perhaps now, but only a few weeks, a golden opportunity to achieve a big move in that direction. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will tell us that they are determined to seize it.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I must also apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, in that he is being required to listen to me again, as we always seem to be paired on occasions such as this. I hope that this time he will agree with me.
As I see it, there are three overwhelming reasons why the Government should exert themselves to the maximum to achieve a Uruguay Round agreement before it is too late. First, the Uruguay Round affects, as has been said, the trade and welfare of over 100 countries and about 20 times as many human beings as are directly affected by the war of words now going on over Maastricht which involves, when all is said and done, the affairs of one bit of one continent only.
Secondly, a GATT agreement would most of all benefit the poorest countries of the world by lowering barriers against their exports to the advanced countries.
Thirdly, it would very substantially benefit the United Kingdom by lowering the costs of our imports of food which have been a major burden on labour costs in this country since we had the common agricultural policy forced on us in the 1970s. It is probably the major cause of the huge deficit in our visible trade with the EC which was as high as £10 billion in 1990.
These GATT negotiations have now been going on for five years. They ought to have ended a year ago. In an Answer on 20th November in this House, the Minister told us that the Government hoped for agreement by the end of the year. What has gone wrong and has apparently been holding matters up since then? Of course it is true that many other issues are involved in this argument than the extreme protectionism of the CAP. But everyone knows that by far the greatest obstacle to agreement has been the refusal of the Continental countries, led by the French, seriously to moderate that protectionism.
Nor is it just the United States, as it is sometimes made to appear, which demands further liberalisation, but also the 14 nations of the Cairns Group, including Australia, Canada and Argentina, and a wider group of South American, African and Indian countries.
Therefore, for all those reasons, the United Kingdom Government ought to be taking the lead in the European Community in calling for the concessions necessary for success. The Prime Minister tells us that one advantage of being a member of the EC is that we can influence its policies. I hope that we can do so in this case. However, if we are influencing it, there is singularly little evidence of it.
The public utterances of our Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Gummer, sometimes give the impression that it is all a matter of British agricultural policy. Of course any agreement must be fair to our own agriculture, which incidentally received a much fairer deal under the deficiency payments system before 1972 than it has received since. Even so, it is also true that about 2 per cent. of our population are producers of food and 100 per cent. are consumers.
The latest snag now reported in the press is that the French have discovered a new obstructionist tactic: to
250
alter the base year for calculation of proposed cuts in subsidies. Manipulation of the base year is one of the oldest tricks in the statistician's surgery. I am reminded of the occasion in the programme "Yes, Minister" which we all enjoy, when Sir Humphrey advises one of his juniors: "If all else fails, alter the base year".
Surely we shall not allow that kind of thing to wreck this vast undertaking. One cannot help feeling that if one-third of the effort and time that has been lavished on the Maastricht machinations were devoted to saving the agreement, success would soon be achieved.
Surely rather than accept failure, if this week's efforts by officials fail—and I gather that they are now discussing matters in Brussels—the heads of government and others concerned should meet together and not go home until a final practical compromise has been reached. They should do that at an early stage.
I urge the Government, even though their voice in this affair is unhappily muffled within the Commission, to make up their mind that agreement must be reached soon, and ensure that it is. If they do that, I am sure that it will have the unanimous support of the House.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jay, as I frequently do, and particularly when I find that I am in closer agreement with him today than has often been the case in the past. I am sure that the whole House will wish to thank my noble friend Lady Young for introducing the Motion today so well and also for securing support from almost all quarters of the House.
As has been said by others, the problem with GATT is that it is not recognised by many of the public. People are not sure what it is or what it does. If we mention the name, they think it probably barks or bites. If we say that it is in some way coupled with Uruguay, that does nothing to add to its credentials. If on top of that people read that it has been going for five years, all sense of its importance vanishes straightaway. It is a problem, as has been rightly said, and I am sure that there should be far more public recognition of what is at stake in the matter.
What is at stake is enormous. My noble friend Lady Young referred to what happened in 1929–30 following the Stock Exchange slump in the United States and the wave of protectionism that followed it, with the introduction of the tariff laws. There was the Smoot Hawley Tariff Bill which came in in 1930 in the United States and which led to the terrible wave of depression which went on for so long.
I do not predict that if the present GATT round fails we shall have anything quite so disastrous, but the damage would be very severe. There would be the setting up of a number of bilateral blocs. I can see the extension of the USA-Canada Fair Trade Agreement spreading to Mexico. I can see Japan trying to secure a ring fence around itself and part of the Asian territories. The Community will become more protectionist, building fences around itself. The damage would be extremely severe.

251
Protectionism is a most insidious infection from which most of us have suffered now and again when it affects us and the goods which we like to possess and the things that we like to do. At one end, the local milkman will object strenuously when someone else goes on to his round. At the other end, a large British airline will protest violently if some foreign airline is allotted a slot at Heathrow. That is the range of protectionism that is in-built in many of us. The result is that the customer suffers and at the end of the day so does the supplier.
It is remarkable that, I believe, 108 nations have almost but not quite reached an agreement. It is tremendously important that an agreement is reached quickly. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to what would happen if the agreement were not reached by the end of this year or certainly by March when the fast-track procedure, which Congress has allowed in the United States, will cease to operate. Presidential elections will be taking place and the term used is that all the work that has been done so far would probably unravel. So it is tremendously important that something should be done quickly.
As has been pointed out, there are a number of sticking points. The main one appears to be agriculture. Much of the blame is attached to the CAP which is an economic disaster. It is a nonsense. It directly opposes everything that was in GATT; it is in direct opposition to GATT in its protectionist approach. It is extremely expensive and unfair. However, we must also, in all fairness to the CAP and those connected with it, remind ourselves that other countries—including the United States of America—have a degree of agricultural protection which is nearly as bad as, and as regards some countries even worse than, CAP.
The problem with the common agricultural policy is that it makes negotiations on GATT almost impossible because the European agricultural scene is cluttered up with a great range of conflicting objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to that matter in her speech. The CAP attempts to cover a whole range of non-agricultural issues. It tries to deal with economic, social, employment and environmental problems. It attempts to deal with the problem of security of supply. At the end of the day it touches on agriculture. The CAP attempts to solve all those problems in relation to 12 countries as disparate in agricultural terms as Greece and Denmark for example. Such a situation is absolute nonsense.
Taxpayers within the Community are then charged to support the subsidies and payments which are given to attempt to achieve the objectives that I have mentioned. Such a situation makes it almost impossible for any sensible agricultural proposal to be put forward to make negotiations on GATT possible. We must strip down the CAP to its basic objectives. As regards the environment, clearly anyone who occupies or uses land should be prohibited from destroying the environment. On the other hand, someone who attempts to improve his land and builds ponds and installs copses should be paid for doing so. He should not, however, be paid out of the
252
agricultural budget. Such payments should come from the environmental budget. I believe that the latter is called a green box. Such environmental matters have nothing to do with GATT and nothing to do with agricultural production. If we can reduce agriculture and the CAP to the bare essentials, we could then get a sensible deal.
If the German Government want to keep part-time farmers and small farms in Germany—as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned—we should allow that government to do so. However, that government should pay for that measure. A charge should not be imposed on the CAP, or on the agricultural budget. If we strip out these nonsenses from the CAP, I see no reason why agriculture should present any more of a problem in terms of GATT than is the case with most other traded items.
I also believe that if everyone competed fairly in agriculture and if everyone avoided the practices of dumping and subsidies—those are fairly big "ifs"—the UK's agriculture would hold its own. Instead of that, today our farmers are not allowed to produce and sell all the milk that we in this country consume. They are allocated quotas. Farmers are paid to set aside part of their fertile land although we are only 73 per cent. self-sufficient in produce—produce that we are quite capable of producing in this country. Those are the kind of nonsenses that have crept in and which have made agricultural negotiations in GATT so difficult.
Due to the time factor in obtaining the GATT settlement, there is little hope of achieving a major reform of the CAP on the lines that I should like. To achieve a settlement of GATT without that reform will not be easy, but it must be achieved. I hope that can be achieved without sacrificing the British farmer who has already suffered greatly from certain proposals issued in Brussels.
A sensible conclusion of the GATT round is essential—that has been mentioned by every speaker today. It would be highly desirable if GATT could be extended—as is being sought—to cover services, trade related intellectual property rights and trade related investment, to which my noble friend referred in opening the debate. Such a situation would constitute a real bonus. However, there are problems in settling those matters within the short time that is left. It may not be possible to reach solutions in every case. I hope that we do not risk losing all that has been nearly achieved by trying to go a bridge too far.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, every speaker today has stressed how vital the GATT negotiations are. Therefore I hope your Lordships will acquit me of discourtesy in wanting to make a brief contribution to the debate in spite of being unable to stay until the end of it. I apologise that a longstanding commitment prevents me from doing so.
This is easily the most important round of the GATT negotiations since their inception. Its breadth is far greater than before, embracing agriculture, financial services, intellectual property and other issues. This makes it possible to seek a wide-ranging

253
liberalisation of trade which should afford opportunities to developed and developing countries alike. The negotiations, which have at times appeared perpetual and at other times to be teetering on the brink of failure, are approaching a climax when the world economy looks fragile. It is therefore more important than ever that the negotiations are successful. Therefore it is heartening that, after the apparently muted efforts to avoid failure last year, there is a much stronger and determined political impetus to ensure success. A breakdown of the talks, which would foster protectionism and regionalism, would carry great risks to the world economy. By contrast, the liberalisation of the trade system will contribute to global economic growth at a time when we are most in need of it.
Agriculture, as has already been said—this will no doubt be highlighted again—has been one of the more intransigent stumbling blocks. It is unnecessary to dwell for long on the absurdities of the common agricultural policy. Its history is a classic illustration of why we should avoid protectionism. Powerful farming nations first agree to subsidise their own farming interests. They are then forced to impose barriers to cheaper imports. Then, when their subsidised farmers increase production, they have to create forms of export subsidy. This not only harms other agricultural countries but also means that according to the OECD the agricultural sector in developed countries has become subsidised by taxpayers and consumers by no less than the monstrous sum of 300 billion dollars a year.
I have perhaps said enough on the inequity of the common agricultural policy for the most necessary and welcome recent impetus given by President Bush and M. Delors has pointed the way to a compromise in the GATT talks as regards the key sticking point of agricultural subsidies. I do not seek to debate whether this compromise goes far enough. It possibly goes as far as can be practically achieved. However, its important effect is to unlock the door to a consideration of the other areas on which an effective agreement to liberalise markets is also so important. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, when he said that if the European Community is to give as it ought on agriculture, there should be give from others on services.
Crucial as the common agricultural policy is, there are also other areas which are of great significance. The avowed intention of the agreement for financial services will be to secure liberalisation. In the area of financial services the European Community can speak with some conviction and authority since, in the second banking directive, it has committed itself to a notably liberal policy. As your Lordships know, this directive provides that within the European Community any subsidiary of a bank from anywhere in the world which has been accepted as eligible to bank by the regulatory body in any country of the Community, can trade anywhere else within Europe. This regime will apply from 1st January 1993.
For the purposes of the directive, banking includes dealing in securities; so the directive recognises an
254
ability to secure complete geographical coverage of the Community and, where one regulator has granted consent, an ability to engage in universal banking.
However, one understandable and reasonable concern arises where lack of reciprocity exists. To that end, the directive provides that the Commission may propose limitations on the future rights of banks from a particular country which may apply in the future to operate in Europe. As it exists, that limitation would enable some persuasion to be brought to bear on countries which are notably less liberal in their approach to foreign banks than is the Community.
By contrast, there is doubt as to the extent to which the likely GATT agreement contains enough of an impetus to countries with relatively closed financial systems to persuade them to widen access to banks or, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter mentioned, insurance companies from other countries. The basic agreement is likely to contain a provision, described perhaps somewhat quaintly as a most favoured nation clause, which requires each party to accord immediately and unconditionally:
"to services and service providers of other parties, a treatment no less favourable than the treatment it accords to like services and providers of like services of any other country".
As I understand it, that means that any concessions made to any one country will have to be made multilaterally right across the board regardless of whether some of the countries which thereby benefit have themselves liberalised their own laws at all. That provision, well-intentioned as it is, could prove a charter for tardiness and minimalism.
At the same time as the overall agreement, countries are tabling the initial offers as to the terms on which they will grant access to the markets. It could well be that, against the background that I have described, many countries will table little more than an offer of what is in fact just a standstill against the introduction of more restrictive regimes. That would be far from positive.
Banks in this country, and I believe in the whole European Community, would hope that greater energies will be devoted in the final negotiations to liberalising commitments in the financial services area from other countries in exchange for the concessions that are made in agriculture and elsewhere. A combination solely of national standstill agreements, plus the "most favoured nation clause," will make many countries see no need to open up their markets soon. There will be just an incentive to sit back and seek to ride pillion on the backs of those who, through liberalising their own markets, open the doors to everyone.
That point has perhaps greater force for us because the GATT agreements will circumscribe European Community action in that area. In particular, it will become more difficult in future for the Community to use its right to require better terms from other countries as a condition of allowing their banks to enter our markets.
There is time to address those points in negotiations. I should be grateful if the Government would indicate the extent to which they currently believe that the financial services regime will be effectively liberalised under this round of negotiations.

255
Are they anxious about the likely course of negotiations over offers and requests? Are they positive enough? What negotiating stance are they encouraging the Community and the United States to operate in that area? Do they share the view that, as matters at present stand, the Community's ability to act legitimately in its own interests may be circumscribed in future? It would be a pity—perhaps your Lordships would say an irony as well—if, in an area where our Community is conspicuously liberal and which is of such importance economically, we should not be able to seek the same approach from other countries.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not think me churlish to have concluded by asking him a number of questions when I am extremely sorry that I shall not be here to hear his reply, but I look forward keenly to reading it with the greatest possible care.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for having introduced this subject this afternoon. For almost the first time since I came to your Lordships' House some 15 or 16 years ago, I found myself in almost entire agreement with the argument of the noble Baroness. She put forward the case with a clarity to which I have not been privileged to listen for some considerable time.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, referred to the fragility of the world economy at present. There has been the virtual collapse of the economies of the centrally planned states in the Soviet Union and the eastern states, but equally in the doldrums at present are the principal free enterprise and free market economies of the world. That includes the United States and Japan, which has not achieved quite the performance that it has shown over the past four or five years. As for the European Community countries, as Mr. Banham of the CBI pointed out only last week, their performance has been distinctly disappointing: output is down, the balance of trade has deteriorated and unemployment has risen.
Those matters are of the utmost importance for us to consider, particularly within the context of the remarks that fell from the lips of the right reverend Prelate. On the one hand, there are millions of people in the world, including the Western world and the EC, with unsatisfied, urgent needs, not for luxuries, but for the bare necessities of life. Yet, on the other hand, there is what even in pre-war, 1930s terms may be called mass unemployment, with all the consequences that may flow from that condition. Not all your Lordships were with us in the Thirties, although quite a number were. However, I am bound to tell your Lordships that there are considerable similarities between the state of the world economy now and its state in the Thirties. We would do well to ponder the consequences in terms of the preservation of peace and, as ultimately in the Thirties the outbreak of war, of mass unemployment in the highly industrialised countries, to which must now be added large-scale unemployment and widespread poverty in the
256
developing and undeveloped countries of the world. Therefore, anything that contributes to freeing trade and increases the demand for and production of goods and services must be good.
That is why GATT is of great importance. If a general agreement is achieved—I accept what my noble friend who is no longer with us said about reading the small print—it will undoubtedly provide a great stimulus to the enlargement of world trade. By so doing it will at the same time free the fiscal resources of the richer states so as to be able to develop aid programmes for the developing countries. That must be taken as an additional bonus to increases in trade which may take place.
I rarely find myself in such agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. He described very accurately the massive effects and the utter folly of the present common agricultural policy. I shall read what he said so that I may borrow his invective for the next occasion on which I participate in a debate on the EC. However, there can be no question but that the continued existence of the common agricultural policy in its present form will be a bar to the achievement of an agreement at GATT. Therefore most urgent attention must be paid to this matter.
I also find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The achievement of a GATT agreement is indeed far more important than an agreement at Maastricht and is of much more urgency. At Maastricht we shall be dealing in part with the machinations of bureaucrats and the ambitions of not a few. We are dealing with a matter of reorganising what threatens to become Fortress Europe—one of the more protectionist parts of the world which works in essence and particularly but not exclusively through the CAP against the operation of GATT.
More than that, I am afraid that, unless some changes are made, the United Kingdom may find itself locked within Fortress Europe and locked within a Continental system which may inhibit its independent operation for the essential achievement of GATT aims. I regard that as just as much of a menace as the existence of the CAP itself.
The Prime Minister, supported by the Leader of the Opposition and, I am sure, by the liberal parties—a very impressive degree of unanimity—said that he wants this country to be at heart of Europe. I believe that we have a more important role. We are one of the principal countries and the leader of a Commonwealth of 50 nations spread over the whole world. Many of them are developing countries. If they were assisted by growing trade and aid perhaps on the scale of our net contribution to the EC itself, they would bring enormous benefits to both themselves and the United Kingdom.
One cannot have one's heart in two places at once. We should endeavour to regain our place at the heart of the world economy, not merely of Fortress Europe. I am quite convinced that we should co-operate fully with our European colleagues, preferably under conditions of unanimity. But I am also convinced that our historic role in the future is to promote the ideals

257
of GATT, and to promote aid to the developing countries to the lasting benefit of those countries and ourselves.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking most warmly my noble friend Lady Young not only for magically choosing this day for the debate, which is so vital this week in the development of the GATT, but also for laying down the ground rules for the debate this afternoon and explaining so ably, clearly and succinctly the many issues which arise within the negotiations at present taking place in Brussels.
On a personal note, I should like to say how privileged and pleased I was—as indeed I am sure were many noble Lords —to hear my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft remind us of the role he played (he claimed a very modest role but indeed it was very important for the country) at Geneva in 1954 during the early negotiations of the GATT. From these Benches I must say how delighted I was to learn that by his own conversion he was able to convert our party to the right way of thinking with regard to trade.
I should also like to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who is not in his place at the moment. He complained that the Government were not doing enough in the GATT round. I strongly disagree. If he knew anything about the Treaty of Rome, he would know that the Commission has the task of negotiating on behalf of member states. In this particular negotiation member states are closely following each stage of the negotiation and the Commission cannot take any further steps or take any different views than those agreed by member states. The Commission is in the forefront of the negotiation. Consequently it attracts the media, to which I suppose some noble Lords direct their whole attention and so are not aware of what is going on. I should certainly say, as many noble Lords on this side of the House have said, that there is nobody more aware, keen and anxious for the GATT round to succeed than my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As chairman of the group he has taken the opportunity to remind all members of the G7 that they must work for the successful conclusion of this round. It would not be right in my way to criticise the Prime Minister or the Government for failing in their full duty of trying to reach a successful conclusion to this negotiation.
I want to recall the preamble to the GATT. It refers to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment, the growth of real income and effective demand, developing the full resources of the world and expanding the production and the exchange of goods. There is universal agreement in this House that those are excellent objectives and that everything should be done to achieve them. Nobody would deny that. But more is at stake. By this trade system we should achieve economic stability. That economic stability, which is achievable through GATT objectives, underpins political stability. They are interrelated. Rarely, if ever, is there economic growth where there is political instability. Economic growth is achieved only where there are democratic processes at work.
258
That emphasises and underscores the importance of the GATT system not only from the point of view per se of the economy but of the general political stability which we hope will spread. That is basically what the GATT aims to achieve.
Many noble Lords mentioned that the agreement covers new issues at this time: agriculture, services, trade-related intellectual property and trade-related investment measures. They are evidence of the faith that 108 countries have in the effectiveness of the system. If they did not believe that the system had worked well so far, they would not be introducing the new issues in the new GATT round. Again that is a source of encouragement. No one doubts the immense benefits in terms of increased world trade—with especial benefit, I would add, to the developing countries as well as the industrialised countries—of a successful conclusion to the negotiations.
At a recent meeting which I attended there were many representatives of SADCC, the 10 front line states. Members pressed urgently the need for a successful conclusion of GATT. They are optimistic that they will benefit from the process. They recognise that aid is no longer the answer to their problems. About 3 billion dollars were given in aid to the SADCC countries in 1989; yet only two of those countries had positive economic growth, one of those being only 1.5 per cent. They want the negotiations to succeed. That should encourage those who recognise the role and need of supporting developing countries to ensure that this negotiation succeeds.
The UK is a trading nation. Many noble Lords have touched on the 25 per cent. GDP that we obtain from exports. The success of the GATT negotiations, with every increase of exports by 1 per cent. in this country leading to 300,000 new jobs, must be a prize worth fighting for.
As we know, there are certain sticking points, in particular the agricultural problems between the US and the European Community. Both are the biggest export markets for each other's products, with the EC being the world's biggest importer of food—a fact that is sometimes hard to believe when one considers the surpluses that we produce; but those are the statistics—and the world's second biggest exporter. Therefore it is crucial for us to have a settlement. It is not sometimes realised that the proportion of agriculture to world trade is only 11 per cent. Nevertheless everyone is affected by agriculture's success or failure.
The US was the first country to demand big reductions in agricultural subsidies, such subsidies to be eliminated over 10 years. It should not be overlooked that the US also heavily subsidises its farmers by up to 20,000 dollars per head compared with the Community's 8,000 dollars per head. The House recently debated the excellent report on the development and future of the CAP. Many of the matters touched upon are the subject of current negotiations. Reform of the CAP, recognised as essential, cannot overlook the changing background not only of Eastern Europe but of events in the Soviet republics (if I may still call them that), and changes in Southern Africa, so that the concept of regionalisation and remedies to the imbalance in agricultural products

259
are taken into account as well as the understanding that those areas all want access to EC markets. In that connection it is worth considering the triangular mechanism, which is sometimes introduced, of EC financial support rather than direct aid to buy produce from areas of surplus for transmission to areas of food shortage.
All parties have agreed within the EC context that a substantial and progressive reduction of agricultural support is necessary. I am sure that that will be cheerful news to many noble Lords who have spoken on that issue. However, at the present time in the middle of negotiations it is not possible to do other than to indicate the direction in which it is hoped they will go; that is, improvement of import access, substantial and progressive reduction of export subsidies and substantial and progressive reduction of internal support. Those have all been areas for negotiation. The reduction of support prices for agricultural products would have the effect of reducing food prices, reducing the cost of export refunds, and facilitating access for imports. Reduction of intervention prices would or should lead to curbing excessive food surplus as well as reducing overall costs of transport, storage and waste, to say nothing of the costs to the EC of fraud arising from the current methods of implementation of the CAP, with special emphasis on export refunds.
There will be new mechanisms, for instance, with the removal of import controls such as quotas and levies. Some measure of control would be possible under the system of "tariffication". That is another new jargon word—something that always seems to occur within the Community. Tariffication is an import tax which would replace the control restrictions.
Overall, new arrangements in the agricultural industry can bring benefit, provided, first, that there is adequate and appropriate compensation to be degressive. That would give time to those farmers who would be hit by changes in support prices to adapt to new products or new land use on the principle that market prices and social needs are clearly separate considerations. Many noble Lords have attacked the CAP but one cannot do so without giving alternative support to enable those farmers who would suffer from the change to adapt to the new situation.
Most noble Lords will accept that the CAP has now become a disaster. I must confess that I was a great supporter of the CAP when I had to feed young children with very short rations. After the Treaty of Rome was signed the CAP supported farmers. It gave them a chance to attain a viable living off the land. To produce food at reasonable prices was an achievement that anyone who had been through the war would have greeted with great acclaim. We all understand that the scheme has now become out of control. Most governments, in particular those with large farming communities, were not able, through a perfectly respectable democratic process, to answer the farmers in a satisfactory way and to reduce the costs of the CAP. We have to recognise the historical role of the CAP and the point that we have now reached.
260
The GATT negotiations have achieved what member states' governments and the Commission have been unable to achieve over the past six years. At last the CAP will have to be reformed to implement the provisions which will be contained in the new trade agreement. It is that way round: the GATT will be signed and the CAP reforms will follow, probably early next year, in accordance with the agreement made by all member governments at the conclusion of the GATT round. That outcome, for which we all devoutly hope, will benefit not only the European Community but also the United States which will have access to a large single market, with all the benefits that that allows, including EFTA countries now within that area.
I believe that it would therefore be appropriate to conclude with the words of Arthur Dunkel, Director General of GATT, to whom I am sure your Lordships will pay the greatest respect and admiration for the way in which he has conducted the negotiations over the past six years. He said:
"The successful conclusion of the GATT will mean a guarantee that world trade will continue to grow. Trade creates new business, [and] new jobs".
5.6 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, about a fortnight ago that small proportion of the press which devoted a small part of its space to the subject which we are discussing as the most important issue before the human race began to prepare us for an important statement about a great breakthrough, or progress of a substantial nature, to be made on Friday of last week. Since then the only reference that I could find is a headline in the Financial Times today, which states, "Last chance for Uruguay Round". I believe that that is the sinister background against which we hold the debate. It is ominous for two reasons: first, the hoped-for and—as noble Lords from all sides of the House said—last minute progress is not yet available; and, secondly, that lack of advance is a matter of such extraordinary indifference to almost the whole of the media of this country and, for all I know, those of other countries.
There are two analogies for the GATT process. One is a battle of Titans; the other is a supremely complicated game of chess. The Titans are the European Community and the United States of America—and Titans they are. In 1986, between them comprising about 10 per cent. of the world's population, they had cereal reserves of 316 million tonnes. That figure is two and half times the total international volume of trade in the year, and—in a bizarre statistic —it represents a quarter of all cereals eaten in a year by the whole population of the world and its livestock. That gives an indication of the extent to which those Titans travel the world and dominate local markets.
For some time they have been locked in a rather unedifying, old-fashioned trade war. It began when the Soviet Union had recourse to heavy buying when the world production levels of cereals were at a slightly reduced level in the 1970s. In 1974 the World Food Conference was convened. It was announced that there was a world food crisis. Both Europe and the

261
United States responded with alacrity to meet that challenge and to increase production, at a hideous cost to taxpayers, as has already been said.
Between 1980 and 1986, the United States farm budget was increased 10-fold to almost 30 billion dollars. The EC budget doubled during a shorter period to 22 billion dollars. It is important to remember that CAP is not the only obstacle to progress in this field, although it is that on which we can have the most influence. Farm price protection increased at a rate double that of domestic demand during that period. In consequence surpluses were pumped into or dumped onto the world markets. The principal tool for jacking up the United States' production was the 1985 United States Farm Act designed, according to the United States Agricultural Secretary of the day, to:
"squeeze [the] CAP until the pips squeak".
It was indeed an old-fashioned, unedifying trade war. It cut United States domestic cereal prices by 20 to 30 per cent. and was accompanied by a 5 billion dollar export enhancement programme. By the end of 1986 18 billion dollars was being spent to export grain and cotton. Again I mention the figure because it is a bizarre illustration; it was double the value of those goods in the market place. We could have accepted that as largesse but we responded in kind. By 1987 export subsidies equalled half of European Community cereal spending and 38 per cent. of the common agricultural policy budget. In the words of one commentator, world trade had become reduced to a subsidy battle between the treasuries of Europe and America. Who paid those treasuries? We and the other taxpayers of those countries paid at a rate which my noble friend Lady Young has set at £11 per family per week.
I said that the struggle was unedifying. I suppose that the argument about whether the United States' system of intervention should be excluded as being entirely virtuous while the EC system of intervention is entirely wicked seems to bring the whole argument into disrepute. Surely there must be one worldwide standard of what constitutes a trade-distorting practice. That should be the same on both sides of the Atlantic.
The other analogy is a game of chess. It is hugely complicated. At least three boards are in play, although we are looking at only one. That is the most active one of GATT. Games are in progress on the World Bank and IMF tables and also on the United Nations table. However, GATT is the most important board. There are more than 100 players, although not all in tidy groups such as the United States, the European Community, the Cairns Group or the Nordic countries. There are incessant exchanges and even sacrifices of pieces. Some vital moves are simply ignored in the main negotiation. Major liberalisation programmes have taken place in Mexico, the Philippines, Costa Rica, Tanzania and Kenya since the outset of the Uruguay Round but they have counted for nothing within the round itself. Those countries are not Titans and they are the losers by it.
The complexities of existing GATT articles and the agreements under them are huge and well known.
262
Perhaps they are greater to me than to my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft because I have not spent an illuminating time in the Hotel Beau Rivage and fulfilled distinguished engagements from there as he did. My briefing is four inches thick and I do not propose to go into it. Your Lordships are seized of the complexities and might agree that in the debate we should be looking for the simplicities.
The complexities are such that for many of our writers and broadcasters they have obscured much that is important; they cannot see the wood for the trees. One ought to say that they cannot see the woods for the trees because it all started in Bretton Woods. It was the product of that previous most terrifying world recession in the 1920s and 1930s. I leap with alacrity to the unfamiliar pleasure of agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—he has had the pleasure of agreeing with everyone else on this matter—that it is to that issue that we must look in order that subsequent generations will understand what is at risk. Our present situation will soon be "in the previous century". Soon I shall no longer be a young man by your Lordships' standards, which means that I am an old man by the standards of the rest of the world. We have a duty to keep the reality of that experience before the consciousness of succeeding generations lest they slide into the awful experiment of doing the same thing again. That means education. We do not need to educate the poor of the world; they can see on television whenever they want the rich enjoying their riches. One of the first things that governments of poor countries appear to do by way of improvement is to provide televisions for their people. They do so for two reasons. The first is for entertainment, as the Romans provided bread and circuses. The second is as a means of propaganda to the people by the government. What the people see are soap operas produced by American companies which are often connected with the companies which set up the television network. I sound as though I am becoming anti-American but I wish to correct that impression. The Americans provide us with a good impression of what we ourselves do wrong and perhaps I take the easiest examples to hand. What is shown to people in poor countries is sumptuous consumption with no political comment—the political comment can be added locally.
The best way to illustrate the very delicate and explosive situation in which we now find ourselves is to ask your Lordships what has been the most dramatic event of the current year. It will not have been the failure of the attempt to dislodge Mr. Gorbachev; it will be the spectacle of 6,000 young Albanians trying to enter the lush pastures of the common market. That is a stark illustration of the extreme differences between comfort and discomfort, between wealth and poverty, very close to home. The right reverend Prelate was absolutely right to say that there is a close analogy and coincidence between the moral imperatives which that and so much else in the world lays upon us and the path that intelligent self-interest would counsel us to take.
If we do not accept the modest discomforts which a change in the present regime of world trade will

263
bring to us now we, and more particularly our children, will be faced with a far greater price to pay in the years to come. That price will not be merely in money or standards of living. We are talking about a sector of the world which may be poor in resources but which is in many cases well developed to act. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what the United Nations inspection teams discovered when they went into Saddam Hussein's factories. Your Lordships will realise that the existence of an impoverished, embittered and desperate population in two-thirds of the world represents an extreme danger to the remaining one-third. That and the moral imperative between them make an advance in the negotiations essential. It is a matter of education.
I conclude by commending to your Lordships the One World Week organisation started by the Churches in co-operation some 13 years ago. It was designed to allow local communities to become aware of their identity with communities throughout the world, their shared interests and what should be done about that. It sends out 7,000 packs from the Shetlands to the Channel Islands, each pack going to a group which learns from it. The groups can talk to their Member of Parliament and thus engage in the proper process of democracy which my noble friend Lady Elles suggested to your Lordships should be the governing matter in this as in all things.
My noble friend Lady Young has done the House so much good by introducing this debate. I have no more than five seconds in which to say that your Lordships should be deeply grateful to her for her contribution, as my party should be to my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft for that critical steer which he gave to his policies all those years ago at Blackpool.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I join with those who have congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on making this debate possible. She was right, in her very challenging speech, to underline the immense importance of the subject.
It is clear that on all sides of the House we are united in our desire to see a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round, it is hoped, by the end of the year. As the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, powerfully reminded us, another breakdown in talks at this late stage would have disastrous consequences for world trade with incalculable political and social consequences. Conversely, as my noble friend Lord Williams argued, success could mark the beginning of sane management of human society in which outmoded concepts of national interest are as dangerous as they are irrelevant.
What do we mean by "successful"? The round will only be concluded once the complex and difficult issues facing negotiators have been satisfactorily resolved. To be judged a success, the final package must genuinely enhance the economic prospects not only of the developed world but also—and crucially—of the developing world where the overwhelming majority of humanity struggles to survive.
264
Never has the need for that been greater. We are faced with the greatest humanitarian crisis in history. It is the crisis of famine and grinding poverty faced by millions of people throughout Africa, Latin America, Asia and even now in parts of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Republics, A successful Uruguay Round will be crucial in achieving the sustained relief of that suffering. An "unsuccessful" conclusion to the round could, in the words of Thomas Ogada, the Kenyan representative to the United Nations:
"sound the death knell for Africa".
In terms of its potential success I suggest that there are two main worries about the Uruguay Round: one is the impact that it will have on the ability of people in third world countries to feed themselves; the other is the impact that the round will have on the global environment.
In relation to the first worry, it is now widely accepted that greater food self-reliance is a key factor in achieving food security. Relatively weak trading nations, especially those dependent on a narrow range of primary commodities for which prices have been extremely low for more than a decade, cannot rely on world markets to furnish food supplies to their populations. That is why the Economic Commission for Africa has stated:
"Africa's viability resides, above all, in its ability to feed its own people from its internal resources".
Therefore, a deal on agriculture must allow food deficit developing countries to do what we in Europe have been doing for decades; namely, to subsidise food production and protect farmers from cheap food imports. It is vital that the GATT unambiguously recognises the fundamental distinction between subsidies used in the North, which perpetuate overproduction and export dumping, and subsidies used in the South to raise self-sufficiency, protect rural employment and promote environmental sustainability.
A successful Uruguay Round will also ban comprehensively the agricultural export dumping to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred. That has been at the root of the anarchy in world markets over past decades. It has caused developing countries chronic trade and food security problems. Efficient producers of commodities such as cereals, sugar and beef, have been forced out of markets and have seen their prices collapse. Staple food producers have seen their household incomes slashed with US and EC surpluses flooding into local markets at prices well below production costs for locally produced cereals.
With regard to the treatment of environmental issues in the GATT round, there is reason to believe that in its present form the GATT is not only ill-equipped to address pressing issues of ecological resource management but, through the use of unrestrained liberalisation measures, it could undermine national efforts to encourage sustainability.
As the Bruntland Report emphasised, trade is an environmental issue. A successful GATT agreement will recognise that. It will allow governments to use trade restriction or subsidies for environmental purposes; for example, rain forest conservation. It will

265
not infringe either existing or future international agreements or national efforts to raise environmental standards.
Once the round is concluded, we must look to the future and renew our commitment to multilateralism in world trade. That will involve giving serious consideration to urgent reform of the GATT itself. The Uruguay Round has shown that the GATT is ill-equipped to deal with the formidable problems facing developing countries. Not only that, successive rounds have, by and large, failed to control the growth in protectionism.
In short, I believe that we now need to consider whether there is not an urgent need for a more open and democratically run organisation that does not lay itself open to accusations of being a rich nations' club. Such an organisation would not treat trade in isolation from other financial considerations which are of critical importance to the developing world, such as the debt crisis and high interest rates. It would have much wider objectives, including protection of the global environment which I suggest within our lifetime is rapidly becoming the most urgent and strategically significant issue facing political leadership across the world.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, as one who on Monday was sitting on a tractor ploughing some ground in preparation for next year's harvest—and I shall be doing the same again on Friday—I listened with enormous pleasure to the opening remarks of my noble friend Lady Young to whom we are so indebted. She referred to the enormous importance of agriculture. I then listened to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter saying how crucial agriculture is. If they had stopped at that point, I should have been a happy man. However, they went on to say, in a slightly different way, how very important and crucial it is that a GATT settlement should be achieved.
It has been said many times this afternoon that agriculture is the key issue. I can see no likelihood of a favourable result without an agricultural accommodation. It is probably the most complex and most contentious issue of all. For many years now fair trading has been made virtually impossible as nearly every country in the world uses various means of supporting its agriculture—you name it: quotas, tariffs, export subsidies and so on.
The impression is often put about and widely believed that this country and the Community is more guilty than most. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has published an interesting document entitled Our Fanning Future in which it gives a table prepared by the OECD. That shows the total value of forms of support and protection given by various countries as a percentage of the value of their total agricultural production. It was staggering to see that Japan goes to the extent of 71 per cent.; New Zealand, at the bottom, was no surprise at 6 per cent.; the OECD averages 43 per cent.; and the United States 30 per cent.
Farmers have been longing for a level playing field—an expression I fully expected to hear used in the
266
debate this evening. We were supposed to get one when we joined the Common Market. But for most of the time farmers in this country have been disadvantaged by a totally incomprehensible thing called the "green pound". I used to know a little about it; I have long forgotten the intricacies. Certainly the new proposals by the commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, are the last things that will give us a level playing field.
One of my recreations—being a perpetual optimist as all farmers are—is a game of golf. Without doubt the MacSharry proposals are exactly like a golf course on which one is almost certain, whatever one does, to drive into a bunker. Although most noble Lords watching the great golfers on television will have noticed that they appear to get nearer the hole when playing out of a bunker than when playing off the fairway, in my experience and that of most of my friends once one drives into a bunker it takes a tremendous amount of time to get out. That is why farmers in this country are extremely and understandably anxious, and indeed considerably jaundiced, at the thought of the new slant being put on the common agricultural policy.
Like many other industries, farmers are retrenching. The machinery people at the Smithfield Show were in deep despair. Farmers are normally good customers for the shopkeepers of the market towns and factories which turn out a host of different goods. But the ripples are beginning to spread fairly widely. If the GATT round can eliminate the inequities of the support that I described, then at least some measure of fair competition will result. We would know what we had to do. No farmer in any sector is afraid of competition in this country provided that it is fair. After all, who can grow cereals more cheaply than the best of the cereal growers on our arable farms?
A moment ago I mentioned New Zealand with her minimal agricultural support. I want to conclude by remembering an episode in 1971 when the negotiations for the Common Market entry were in full swing. New Zealand sent over Mr. Jack Marshall to negotiate on its behalf. He gave a press conference at Heathrow. Somebody asked him, "What will it be like for New Zealand, Mr. Marshall?" He said, "It is going to be unbelievably tough but if it is going to help the old country we shall muscle in". "It" was the Common Market and the Community's use of export subsidies. Those factors are now virtually strangling the economy of New Zealand. Around 61 per cent. of its export earnings come from the land. New Zealand farmers in company with other farmers deserve a better deal, and I profoundly hope that as a result of the GATT round we shall all obtain it.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, let me first join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the opportunity to discuss GATT. It also gave me great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, as he recalled his and his party's conversion to the idea of free trade. I confess that I, too, am a late arrival in my belief for, at least, "freer" trade rather than "free" trade.

267
As my noble friend Lord Judd said, for a long time it was believed that GATT was a rich man's club; it was a club for rich countries because it concentrated on the manufacturing trade for the richer countries. In that respect it was a great help. Let us not forget that the Kennedy Round and the Tokyo Round were a great help to the trade and manufacturing of developed countries. The main feature of the current round of GATT is that by now the middle income members of the developing countries have been converted to the benefit of freer trade. It is they who took the initiative in this round of GATT, which is why it is called the Uruguay Round.
In my speech this afternoon I wish to concentrate on the angle of the developing countries rather than of the developed countries, which has been well covered by other noble Lords. In one sense the quantifiable benefits of the Uruguay Round are not large. It must be remembered that the best calculations of the World Bank show that the success of the Uruguay Round will, at most, add three-quarters of 1 per cent. to the growth rate of industrial countries and something smaller to the growth rate of developing countries. We must consider not only the benefits, but also the dangers from its failure. The losses are much greater and more serious to contemplate than the quantifiable or non-quantifiable benefits. It is from that point of view that we must recognise that the success of the Uruguay Round is important for the developing countries, no matter how large or small the benefits.
A dangerous trend through the 1980s was that the developed countries adopted a number of quantitative restrictions—called among other things "voluntary export restrictions"—which were used to block the manufacturing exports of the developing countries to developed countries. That trend was widespread in the US and to some extent in the EC. Indeed, in economic literature it goes under the title of, "strategic trade policy". Strategic trade policy is old-fashioned protectionism under another guise. It is in order to reverse that dangerous trend that we should wish for the success of the Uruguay Round.
We hope that finally the Uruguay Round will get rid of the Multi-Fibre Agreement—a major example of the specific restriction used by developed countries for many years to block developing countries. Major benefits to the developing countries from the Uruguay Round arise from the relaxation of the textile restrictions that take place. In return for that, in the current GATT round the third world countries have taken on board intellectual property for the first time. Up until now they have been pirating, copying or stealing intellectual patents and not paying any price for them, and so they have benefited. It will cost them something to accept that the trade-related intellectual property (TRIPS as they are called) will have to be paid for. In return for that they will receive concessions on textiles and some on agricultural products.
The swap is a good one but we have to remember two things. Through the 1980s, partly because of a debt crisis and partly because of the goading of the IMF, many developing countries unilaterally adopted
268
liberal trade policies. The GATT negotiating structure is such that if you have behaved well in the past there is no concession made in return for that. If you have been a free trade nation you cannot offer anything in return for a reciprocal cut. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, many of those countries which have liberalised their trade have nothing more to offer in bargaining for a reciprocal cut from the developed countries.
In any future reform of the GATT procedures we should give countries credit points for past good behaviour outside the GATT process. People should not have to wait until the GATT negotiations start to begin behaving well. The procedures actually subsidise bad behaviour because if a country behaves badly until the GATT round starts then concessions are offered. That is also partly the reason why the negotiations themselves seem so complicated and dull. Many commodities are being negotiated simultaneously and some of the negotiations are absolutely bizarre.
One major problem with the benefits of liberal trade is that by and large they benefit the better-off countries. Even among the poorer countries, those which are to benefit from GATT negotiations are the middle income countries of Latin America and East Asia and some of the major textile producers of South Asia. Africa stands to gain very little from the GATT negotiations. Therefore, we have to remember that while freer trade is good, and I welcome it, we shall have to find other factors in the international economy to reach the very poor nations because they are countries which do not trade very much. What they do trade are commodities for which, if I may use the jargon, the elasticity is too low for them to benefit by cutting tariffs or prices.
When we consider the GATT process, while it is clearly a very important one, we notice that both this and the Tokyo Round have each taken six years to negotiate. That is clearly a very long time. We also notice that this time there are very many more countries involved in the GATT process and many more subjects being taken on board. Uncertainties caused by the GATT process while it is taking place may have their own costs. I believe that once the Uruguay Round is out of the way we should seriously consider whether there is not a better and more flexible process for conducting international trade negotiations. It should be a process which will give a place as much to the developing countries as to the developed countries. It should also be remembered that in the next round we may have the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union joining GATT. We shall have to find procedures which will be speedier and more beneficial all round.
We recall that GATT has arisen only because of the reluctance of the US Senate to sign the Havana Charter. We need to revise the process by which the international trade organisation is to be set up along with the IMF and the World Bank. We need new institutions, but in the meantime I welcome the opportunity to say that the GATT process should succeed, but if it fails it will cause great damage to us.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend Baroness Young for bringing this debate before the House. I wish passionately to support all those who believe so implicitly that a successful negotiation of GATT and further international trade is essential to the wealth of all of us. However, although we need to see a successful outcome to GATT which makes everyone wealthier, that would not be so attractive if we end with an outcome in which some become poorer so that others grow richer. We need to be able to utilise the trade of all the world to make us all better off.
I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to some information which is in the latest edition of Agra Europe which deals with the agricultural situation in Europe. Already it has been agreed within the Commission that translating GATT into reality will mean that the exports of grain and wheat from the EC will drop from 17 million tonnes to 9 million tonnes. However, the export of grain from the United States which reached 47 per cent, of the world markets in 1981–82, will increase from that level by 16 per cent, to 20 percent. Recently there has been a confidential Commission report which says that as a result of the CAP reforms brought about by GATT negotiations, land set-aside plans will take 4.4 million hectares of arable land out of production in the EC. It is estimated that out of 4.6 million landholders, 250,000 will take the early retirement pay-off very soon. It is also calculated that about 7 million hectares of land for agriculture will be abandoned altogether.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to those factors because there is a downside to having a much more competitive world where we all should be doing better if in fact the competition, as other noble Lords have said, means that some are disadvantaged. It seems that if we are now moving into a much more competitive world the last thing we should be doing with our agriculture is to make it less efficient than it has ever been and at the very time when we are going to be competing with many more countries, which it is quite right that we should do in a free market. We do not want to be making life more difficult for those of us who are trying to operate in this more and more competitive world.
Many noble Lords have suggested that the CAP has been a disaster. I remind them that many people in Europe have benefited enormously from it. There is a choice and range of food throughout Europe which nobody else in the world has except the United States of America, which has a similar system of support. I also remind the House that many noble Lords show great concern about the environment and how we can utilise land to make this country a better place in which to live. That is a luxury that we can afford only if we have supportive agriculture. Nobody worries very much about the environment in some of the countries to which noble Lords have referred and which want to move into our market place.
If we are to be put into a world market place and compete, as I strongly believe that we should, then we have to be very conscious of the fact that we cannot expect our agriculture reductions to be carried out
270
with a great deal of restriction which does not apply to our competitors. Over the past 10 years the United States of America has increased its milk production by 4 per cent. The result of quotas has meant that milk production in Europe has fallen by 12 per cent. That is not brought about by the market place, but because society in general and the EC in particular have felt it right to put that restriction on European agriculture.
Many noble Lords have complained during the debate about the export of commodities and export refunds. In fact, 65 per cent, of the export of foodstuffs from this country is in added value branded products, it is not in commodity products at all. In order to achieve those added value branded products, some 600,000 people are employed in the food industry in this country, which makes a very important contribution. Therefore, when we talk about agriculture we are not just talking about the 2 per cent. to which the noble Lord, Lord Jay, referred—which does not seem to be very important. We are talking about many more people than that, and vast industries which make an enormous contribution to the well-being of everyone.
Therefore, although on the one hand I firmly support the GATT negotiations, I also firmly believe that we have to move to free world trade in products that give the underdeveloped countries in particular the opportunity to move into our market places. Give them the opportunity and they will. Eastern Europe is already sitting on the borderlines waiting to push forward products as soon as they can negotiate their way into the European market place. They are going to be a lot cheaper than we have seen here up to now. Just two weeks ago, Hungary negotiated an agreement to send several thousand tonnes of duck products into Europe. If those people who complain about the way we farm in this country saw how they farm ducks in Hungary, we would not be allowed to get anywhere near. Yet suddenly we are having to compete with products that are produced very much more cheaply but under conditions which we and maybe the rest of Europe would not accept.
Therefore, as we tackle the world problem, I feel that it is most important that we go into the freer world market which is so essential in a strong position to compete in that world market and should not find that we are marginalised in everything we want to do. One of the noticeable changes that we see in food production enterprises in more competitive parts of the world where they do not have support is that the added value to food production is made in the rural community and not in the urban areas, as happens so commonly in this country. That is a very good thing for the rural community because it adds value.
As we go to a more competitive world, as we undoubtedly shall, then the same pressures will arise in our market place. Already we see changes in the milk industry in this country because of potential changes in the Milk Marketing Board which are essential. We see pressures on individual milk manufacturers, or people adding value to milk, to move nearer to their milk supply. If they are to compete with eastern Europe they will have to get nearer to their milk supply. What stops them? Suddenly there is an

271
enormous outcry from everybody that we must not have a milk value added factory in the countryside because that spoils our view. If our view becomes more important than our competition with eastern Europe, then we shall fail.
So there are many important factors of which we must be aware, not just as a Government but as a nation, in what will happen as we—and I hope that we will—negotiate a much freer market for products throughout the world. We shall also open ourselves up to the competition from which the CAP and other walls around Europe have protected us for so long. It will affect our industry at all levels. It will enormously affect anything to do with the manufacture of food. We have the United States of America ready to pump much cheaper food into the European market place. We must see that as an opportunity and not a threat. However, we can only see it as an opportunity if we realise the pressures it will exert on our industry and do what we have to do to compete. If we wish, we can become an importer of grain from Europe to which we can then add value in this country to put value added products into the rest of the EC. However, it is no good when that is coming into say, north-west England if suddenly a stop is imposed because we say that we must not build any more factories in the North West as that is not what we want to see.
There is a balance in everything we have talked about and, although I strongly support everything that noble Lords have said, I hope that we shall also be aware that we shall have to make fundamental changes in our own attitude towards many of the things which are going to have to change as the world grows more and more competitive.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for introducing what has developed into a most interesting debate. I should love to be tempted to follow my noble friend Lord Wade down the highways and byways of the agricultural policy. However, I shall resist that in the main, but I want to say that he makes a valid point which I can best sum up by saying that there are more to barriers between nations in trading terms than just tariffs. There are other non-tariff barriers and I shall come to some of them later in my speech. However, he has mentioned some of them in the simple way of how we in this country—and indeed in the European Community—expect our fanners to produce their products and how we seem to be pretty lax about expecting the same standards when we import products from other parts of the world. My noble friend makes a valid point.
I want to move a little from agriculture to the processed industries that derive from agriculture. I do not think that calling the processing industry that processes cereals into Scotch whisky quite does it credit and properly savours the product. Noble Lords who were here on a Friday will perhaps recall that in the Second Reading of the Finance Bill I discussed how the United Kingdom Government was not entirely fair in the way it taxed spirits, namely Scotch
272
whisky, and for this purpose I am quite happy to allow all the other lesser spirits to come along in its wake. We unfairly tax spirits as against beer and wine. I suggested that the Chancellor might improve on our record in that regard. That is important when it comes to the European Community, where there are equal imbalances between the way our European partners tax beer, wines and spirits. Indeed, some of our principal European partners do not tax wine at all and they tax spirits very heavily indeed.
Our interest in Europe, as it is in the rest of the world, is that we are the major spirit producers so far as concerns our food processing industry. Therefore it falls more heavily on us if tariffs around the world are unfairly placed on spirits, and on Scotch whisky in particular. I certainly hope that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be fighting hard, as he promised he would, to make sure that the minimum rates laid down by the Community for spirits will not be punitive on Scotch whisky and will not be at such a level that the price of Scotch whisky in the southern European Community countries will actually have to be raised in order to meet the levels imposed by the Community, especially when the Commission has said that wine-producing countries can have a zero rate on wine.
Where that spills out on the rest of the world is that if we do not treat these matters fairly and equitably in the Community we are on slightly shaky ground when we go outside the Community into GATT negotiations, or even into one to one negotiations, and attempt to ask other countries to treat whisky and European spirits more fairly than they do. That aspect of the GATT Round is what I want to spend a minute or two looking at.
As these negotiations come to what I hope will be a fruitful conclusion I hope that the processed goods from agricultural production, whether they be biscuits, confectionery or whisky, are not forgotten in the negotiations and in the desire to get a solution.
I make no apology for concentrating for a few minutes on Scotch whisky because, as I pointed out to your Lordships some months ago, it is a very important industry. If my recollection serves me rightly, it is the fifth most important export earner for the United Kingdom; it is the top one for Scotland; it employs not huge numbers of people but 16,000 people in Scotland—largely in rural areas, but not exclusively. And of course in the Scotsman's view—and probably in your Lordships' view, I trust—it brings a lot of goodwill to Scotland and to Britain from all over the world.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I might get agreement on that, my Lords.
One of the problems in the Scotch whisky industry, as in so many other industries around the world, is that when we try to export we find ourselves up against severe tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers. Perhaps I may give examples of one or two of the non-tariff barriers. Brazil and Mexico require onerous documentation. Canada and South Africa have chemical analytical requirements which are pretty

273
tiresome to meet. Thailand and the Philippines carry out pre-shipment inspections. Noble Lords will notice that I have chosen my examples to range from some of the most developed and richest countries in the world to some of the less developed and perhaps poorer countries. I have done so to illustrate that the problem is not confined to certain nations.
There are 40 instances of discrimination in favour of locally based spirits. Japan is quite bad in that regard, although I am happy to say that, thanks to the efforts of my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher when she was Prime Minister, major progress was made in Japan in 1988–89. Indeed exports of Scotch whisky to Japan rose by around 27 per cent, after those efforts. Korea, which ought to be a trading nation, is another example of what I have in mind. My goodness, I keep on seeing when I do my shopping, as no doubt other noble Lords do, products made in Korea. What is the Korean view of fair trading? A 35 per cent. tax is put on the local product but 150 per cent, tax is put on Scotch whisky. If we were to impose such a tax on some of the products that we see in our shops from Korea—I am not suggesting that we should—they would suddenly be by no means some of the cheapest items in the shops.
Then of course there are the tariff barriers which involve import duties or Customs duties. The list of countries with such barriers is quite considerable. It includes Korea, Japan, Brazil, the United States of America—which sometimes in this GATT Round has tried to appear as the whitest of white countries—Hong Kong, India, Australia and New Zealand. Those countries all have some form of import tariff on Scotch whisky. I very much hope that the Commission—as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, reminded us, the Commission negotiates on our behalf—will not forget that it has a responsibility to the Scotch whisky industry as it negotiates for fair and equitable arrangements around the world.
I doubt very much whether we shall ever remove all these impediments to trade. However, what the Scotch whisky industry would like—preferably, in one-to-one negotiations inside GATT—is to negotiate a zero-for-zero tariff arrangement. We in the European Community are fair and equitable to the import of spirits from abroad. We then expect foreign countries to be equally fair with our exports to them. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to assure us that the Government will be doing all they can to encourage the Commission to take a reasonable lead on this matter and to look in particular at the common Customs tariff of the Community itself.
The Community must look at some of its trading arrangements if it expects other people to do likewise. The Community must see to it that there is a reasonable rate on all bottled and bulk spirits imported into the Community, that they are treated alike, that the duty is levied on the basis of alcoholic strength—I have been over that ground before—and that no other import duties are allowed on any imports into the Community. In that way, with whisky
274
as with many other products, we should be able to persuade other countries to have much fairer arrangements for the import of our products.
My noble friend Lord Wade mentioned export refunds. I very much hope that the Government will not allow the Commission to think that any trade-off can be made between a reduction in tariffs around the world and the export refunds given to the Scotch whisky industry. The industry has to use the very much higher priced European and British cereals. Its competitors in the United States who make bourbon buy cereals at a much lower price. The export refund is for that purpose and is not to compensate for the tariffs.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to another industry of equal importance to our country which is often looked at from the point of view of needing protection but which in fact is very important in the international trading scene. I refer to the textile industry. In the United Kingdom the product is worth around £16 billion. About a quarter of that total is exported. In Scotland we do slightly better. Of the £1.5 billion output almost half is exported. It is important for the textile industry that there are level playing fields around the world. I do not just mean in some of the poorer countries—I mean in some of the richest markets or in some of the improving markets around the world.
We should like to see the prohibition of trade distorting subsidies. South Korea has just given a £2.5 billion subsidy to its textile and clothing industries. We should like to see protection of brand names. In Taiwan and Japan that is not done very well at all. The United States of America has a 36 per cent, import duty on our exports to it of wool cloth. What I have illustrated there and in the whisky examples is that some of the richest countries, including the United States, which wish to see themselves portrayed in regard to agricultural products as whiter than white, are in fact fairly protectionist. What we need is a freeing of world trade.
My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft in his powerful speech made it perfectly clear that over 30 or 40 years the freeing up of world trade benefits every single person. I hope that the European Community does not turn itself into a fortress behind whose walls we all shelter, and will in fact take a leading role in liberalising and opening up world trade for everyone's benefit.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I wish, first, to apologise to my noble friend Lady Young for not being present when she opened the debate on the Uruguay Round of GATT. Nevertheless I thank her for enabling the debate as a whole to take place. I was not sitting on a tractor reflecting on the world scene, as my noble friend Lord Stodart was the other day, but I was very much involved in the Smithfield Show. I say that particularly, and I say it in the context of this debate, because there one sees the finest examples of the products produced in this country and throughout Europe. One sees the products of British agriculture and British industry. One sees the high quality stock,

275
machinery and technology. One sees the many overseas visitors who have been pouring into London over the past few days to look for business, to look for opportunities and to look for the expertise that can be offered by agriculture in this country. It is in that context that we should consider the development of trade in the more competitive world into which we are moving.
As I am sure many noble Lords have said, agriculture lies at the very centre of the GATT negotiations. British agriculture, together with European agriculture, must be free to compete on fair terms, and any solution that may be reached in the GATT or any settlement made must apply equally to competitors worldwide. A settlement in GATT is imminent and therefore this debate is timely.
I do not believe that we can ever move towards that level playing field to which many noble Lords have referred. I am not sure that we have ever had a fully level playing field in the United Kingdom. We certainly do not have one in Europe. Nevertheless, on fair terms, we can compete. We should therefore welcome the initiative already taken by the Director General of GATT who has come forward with a detailed framework which I hope will allow the negotiation of a final agreement.
His proposal puts forward a number of elements which would bring about an agreement to reduce trade distorting support measures and protection over the period of the rest of this decade. He claims that that would cover the border measures, to which reference has been made, the export assistance and the internal support which, together, go towards distorting trade. If we accept that policy, it is crucial that each country in turn accepts the discipline of such an agreement and that within the European Community, as part of the overall deal, no discriminatory measures are taken between producers.
A GATT settlement will set the guidelines for a CAP settlement and CAP reform. I do not believe that it is overdramatic to say that the positions which now need to be reached on both the reform of the CAP and on food and agriculture in GATT will indeed cast a shadow forward to well beyond the end of this century. If we produce the wrong answers, then we could see lasting damage done to our ability to compete on fair terms both in Europe and in world trade.
As I see it, the risks are real and the problems deep. No one can argue against the need for those major reforms. The United States and the European Community, together with Japan and many other developed countries, have been subsidising each other out of the market over many years. That has forced world market prices down and, as has already been said so clearly, the sufferers have often been not those countries which are exporting but the developing countries whose market has been undermined.
Therefore to avoid that lasting damage, agreements must be made progressively to reduce the level of trade distorting support measures that we have seen operating over the years. Forms of internal support exempt from such reductions, assuming that they do
276
not distort trade, could include: programmes which provide general services to agriculture research; disease control; general marketing and promotion; retirement and retraining programmes; the transfer of technology; infrastructure building; bona fide food aid and disaster relief, together perhaps with crop insurance and public stockholding for food security reasons. As I see it, there has to be flexibility to allow programmes for regional development, environmental protection and conservation and restructuring of agricultural sectors.
Food safety and animal welfare, as my noble friend Lord Wade said earlier, is a major concern in a world of more liberalised trade. There is always the danger that regulations can be applied and used as non-tariff barriers to protect the individual market. Therefore, we should make sure that there is agreement to enact rules to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary regulations are based on scientific criteria, and not just on political expediency which often happens or indeed on emotion.
Therefore, in any agreement progressively to reduce direct export restitution and indirect export assistance, there has to be a tightening of rules and disciplines so that the assistance does not exceed the difference between internal and external markets. For example, export subsidies from the European Community have often been higher than the value of the product. That is of no direct benefit to the producer/farmer who is concerned to produce for the marketplace, not for the intervention store. High quality beef, for instance, soon becomes low quality beef after freezing for long periods of time.
Perhaps another area of concern which we cannot ignore as we consider world trade agreements relates, as so many noble Lords have said, to the problem in many developing countries. It is an irony is it not?—that we continually highlight the areas where we have surpluses, yet half of the world's population is either starving or suffering from malnutrition. Special provisions for developing countries and countries undergoing transition to market systems to allow appropriate development programmes and a slower timetable for reductions in border measures and trade distorting internal support have to be made. Many of those countries, including those we see developing in Eastern and Central Europe, are experiencing short-term and long-term problems in financing the normal levels of commercial imports. I believe that they should be eligible to draw more easily on the resources of international financial institutions.
I believe that it is imperative that governments should take all the initiative necessary to ensure that a satisfactory agreement on agriculture in particular is reached during this round and that the round itself is completed as soon as possible. Indeed, it would be an appropriate goodwill message to the world as we enter 1992. It would help to restore some of the confidence that is currently sadly lacking.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may at the outset express an apology on behalf of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for the fact that he had

277
to leave the House shortly after completing his speech. He was unavoidably required to be elsewhere. Certainly no discourtesy was intended, and I am sure that the House will understand.
As has already been said, the House must be indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her notable contribution and for her initiative in bringing forward what on any terms has been a very remarkable debate. Several former Ministers, leaders in industry, banking and other significant fields of activity have participated. We even heard about Lord Stodart of Leaston's problems with bunkers. We also had a notable contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who was a very distinguished President of the European Parliament. I was very glad to have participated in debates there under his guidance.
If I single out one speaker, I am sure that the House will understand. I say that because for me it was a pure joy to hear the humorous, yet purposive, reminiscences of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, about the part that he played in advancing the cause of GATT in those early days and also about the part that he played in demolishing some of the ideological prejudices of his party. I happen to feel that he is needed again in that regard, but there it is. I believe that significant lessons may be learned from the powerful and passionate speech that he made.
In my view the common denominator of this debate—and much agreement has pervaded the House today—is the recognition on all sides of the significance of this Uruguay Round and of the fact that time is of the essence. Yet, in the very limited time available, so much more needs to be done if we are to achieve success Of course it is right that, historically in this regard, deadlines have been set before and extended. However, it seems to me that this time most people feel that the deadline which has been set is for real. The stakes are indeed high. I believe it was Carla Hills who said that if the negotiations prove to be successful the world stands to gain about £2,325 billion in terms of world output.
If there is failure, then, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said at the beginning of the debate, there will be a loss of trade, unemployment, trade wars and disaster for the poorest of all. All that will ineluctably follow. In that context, it is as well to remember the prudent words of Mr. Barber Conable, the President of the World Bank, who said:
"Protection of the industrial nations costs developing countries more than twice as much as they receive in aid".
The present negotiations, and indeed the debate, have focused inevitably on agricultural issues and the common agricultural policy. I wish to put on the record, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and myself, that we struggled manfully in the Commission to try to get some sense into the policy. However, we did not always succeed. Other major issues too are critically important. Banking is important, alongside beef. Copyright, textiles, telecommunications, transport, tourism and shipping are critically important in the negotiations. It is as well to observe that the United States itself, while complaining bitterly as it does about the CAP, engages in appalling discriminatory and restrictive
278
practices in terms of shipping; notably as a result of the long-established Jones Act which is still iniquitous, however long it has been part of United States law.
The difficulty with the development of the negotiations is that they have tended to obscure the penalties of failure and the significance for other players on the GATT stage. There is a lack of balance about the negotiations. I refer to the way in which the issues are portrayed, especially in the context of relations between the United States and the European Community—in parenthesis I have to say that on the whole the United States has come off rather better, at least in the PR battle; the way in which the interests of the developing world have been addressed, or, perhaps, more correctly, have not been addressed, as my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Desai said (of course everyone pays lip service to the interests of the developing world); and then there is the failure to take account of environmental issues, so eloquently depicted by my noble friend Lord Judd.
It is noteworthy that the GATT does not take account of environmental issues, although there is competence there, because a committee was set up in 1971 to examine the relationship between trade and environmental issues. That committee has never met. It is also noteworthy that the Nordic countries, Austria and Switzerland have called for that committee to be revived and to sit. I should like to know from the Minister whether the United Kingdom Government support those endeavours. More than that, the GATT rules forbid environmental protection measures being accompanied or supported by restrictions on trade. I should like to know from the Minister what is the Government's attitude to those issues. For example, how can the Montreal Protocol on CFC emissions be reconciled with that situation? The Montreal Protocol insists that there should be trade restrictions to protect the environment. It was right for all the European member states to support that protocol and to inspire the reaching of that accord.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to the Commission being the negotiator there, and rightly so. Nonetheless, it is important to take account of the fact that the Commission has to negotiate according to a mandate which is set by the member states; and so it is relevant to ascertain from the Government what is their position on some of those matters. What about the CITES regulations which impose restrictions on trade in endangered species? What of those many developing countries which are not self-sufficient in agriculture and look for food security? Are they to be placed in the same position as rich countries in being required to phase out subsidies to farmers and farm import controls? How would that impact on third world powers if they were to lose their only source of income? What then of the concept of sustainable development?
Those are serious issues which, in the light of massive hunger, poverty and indebtedness (all so indivisibly connected) must be faced, or are we to shelter under the insubstantial argument that it is not the business of the GATT to address those problems?

279
A number of your Lordships have expressed, in reasonably polite terms, the belief that the CAP is iniquitous. If we had all been farseeing when the Community was established, we might have had some influence in shaping a more rational agricultural policy for the whole Community. There may be a lesson in that too as we approach the IGCs at Maastricht. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who, if I may say so, made a characteristically good and robust speech—we expect that from him—seemed to suggest however that success at the GATT and success at Maastricht were somehow mutually exclusive. I cannot accept that doctrine.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, certainly. I thought that I would provoke the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Lord so misunderstood me, I must have expressed myself badly. All I indicated was that success over the GATT round was more important and more urgent than success over the other matters which will be dealt with at Maastricht.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I was not that far wrong. In my judgment, at least—perhaps I differ from the noble Lord—they are equally important. Success at Maastricht is important, but so, of course, is success in the world wide negotiations. Perhaps there is not so much between us after all.
It is right also to observe that not much less iniquitous than the CAP has been the deficiency payment system used in the United States—the main source of United States exports subsidies. In the negotiations, certainly in the PR battle at least, we have tended to lose sight of that fact.
I shall say a few words about the consequences of failure. Stronger protection for individual property will go; the liberalisation of trade will suffer; investment in services will be jeopardised; the developing countries will be denied protection against the dumping of vast food surpluses at prices which make it impossible for them to engage in efficient food and agricultural production. So the test for the Community in relation to agriculture is not merely whether we recognise the need for reform—even the most unlikely people seem to understand that today—but whether we can formulate, agree, and then enforce detailed proposals. There is a sorry story to be told about enforcement so far.
As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, we should not underestimate internal political problems posed for so many in the negotiations: the United States presidential elections; our general election next year; the change in the presidency of the Commission; the new post-Maastricht situation; in Germany, where battle has been joined by the German Economics Minister and Herr Kiechle, that champion of small, inefficient, moonlighting farmers whose appetite for unrealistic farm support is insatiable—I can only hope
280
that Herr MÖllemann will succeed; and in France, where there have been violent demonstrations by farmers. There are worldwide internal contradictions.
I wish to say in conclusion that the European Commission has a major task in seeking to formulate a united position. But it must do so if we are to succeed. Concessions here are self-evidently conditional on the United States in particular making much greater concessions in the services sector, on anti-dumping and subsidies. We are so close now to the end of the Uruguay Round that we have to ask, will it be failure or success? Will it be beggar-thy-neighbour policies or better-thy-neighbour policies? Will it be international humiliation or international hope for the future of peoples right across the globe?
6.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for introducing this debate. I do not think that I have ever taken part in a debate in which there was a greater degree of unanimity. There was hardly a dissentient voice, hardly a discordant note, only faint traces of partisan speech in a general recognition of the importance of this issue and the need for us to reach an agreement before the end of the year. That was very welcome to me.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—GATT—has served us well for over 40 years. It has provided a framework of rules for the conduct of trade relations and the settlement of disputes without the need for recourse to damaging retaliation and counter-retaliation. It has also provided the forum for negotiating trade liberalisation. It is a framework within which world trade has grown and prospered.
Its success is demonstrable. Since GATT was formed in 1947, tariffs in the industrialised countries have dropped from an average of 40 per cent, to an average of 5 per cent. World trade in goods has grown nearly twice as fast as world GDP. When recession came, as it did in the mid-1970s and again in the early 1980s, the world trading system held up, unlike the disastrous falls in trade and output which occurred in the 1930s, resulting from protectionist legislation in response to the Wall Street crash.
At the same time an increasing number of countries have come to realise the benefits of liberalising trade. When the GATT began it had 23 members. Membership has now grown to over 100 countries, with still more applying to join. GATT members now account for nearly 90 per cent, of world trade.
However, in recent years the GATT system has been coming under increasing strain. There has been a growth in protectionist pressures and in grey area measures which circumvent the GATT system and thus undermine it, even if they are not directly contrary to it. In addition, GATT does not cover important new areas of increasing importance to trade, such as services, investment, and intellectual property. Moreover, new rules are needed for textiles trade and for agriculture. It is for these reasons that GATT members embarked on the Uruguay Round of negotiations to modernise and strengthen GATT. We

281
believe that a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round would bring great benefits both for developed countries and for the developing world.
British industry stands to gain considerably from trade liberalisation which will open up more opportunities for exports. Participants in the Uruguay Round have set themselves the objective of reducing tariffs by an average of 30 per cent. It has been estimated that if this objective is met, it could boost British exports by more than £700 million.
As far as service industries are concerned, liberalisation in this important area would provide major new opportunities for the British service sector. The European Commission has suggested that European Community exports of services could increase four-fold. At the moment services account for 60 per cent. of advanced countries' domestic economic activity, but for only 20 per cent. of world trade.
The introduction of GATT disciplines into the field of intellectual property protection would also yield important benefits to industry. At present, the lack of such protection loses our drug companies £50 million a year; and it costs our record industry perhaps as much as £1 billion a year. These figures give some idea of the importance to our industries of an agreement which protects them against piracy, counterfeiting, and illicit copying.
More and better opportunities to invest overseas will be opened up if we can achieve an agreement on removing trade-distorting conditions on investment such as minimum export requirements. This is of major significance to a country such as the United Kingdom, which is the second largest outward investor in the world after Japan.
Proof of the value to our industries of a stronger, more open international trading system lies in the fact that British industry has consistently lobbied hard on the need for a successful round. I am greatly encouraged by the support which it has given the Government in our efforts to promote a successful outcome. Representatives of British industry and commerce have also joined their colleagues in other European countries and elsewhere to ensure that the Commission and other governments are left in no doubt of the importance they attach to a substantial agreement.
However, we must not think that it is only producers who stand to gain. The consumer too will see major benefits. Liberalising markets will promote competition and offer the consumer greater choice. It should also bring lower prices, by reducing protection. Protection of the textiles industry costs United Kingdom consumers alone £1 billion a year. This is equivalent to an extra 5 per cent. on retail prices. Let us not forget that it is the poorest members of society who are hit hardest by higher prices.
As my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Alexander of Weedon reminded the House, the OECD estimates that agricultural subsidies in OECD countries cost consumers and taxpayers some 300 billion dollars last year. The common agricultural policy is estimated to cost EC consumers and taxpayers 130 billion dollars a year. Of course, these costs will not disappear overnight. But reform would
282
put in place a mechanism which will enable market-distorting subsidies and barriers to agricultural imports to be progressively reduced.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, brought out in a forceful speech, the benefits of a successful Uruguay Round will not be limited to producers and consumers in the developed world. Developing countries also will benefit from a general reduction in tariffs. At the moment, developing countries suffer more from the exclusion of their products from markets of developed countries than they gain from overseas aid. A Uruguay Round agreement will give them better access to developed markets. To give an example, improving access for tropical products provides one means by which the developed world can help developing countries. In this context I am glad to be able to say that as part of the Uruguay Round negotiations the European Community has found itself able to reduce the tariffs it levies on such products and has offered further reductions. Reduced tariffs will encourage increased trade flows, not only between north and south, but between south and south, that is between developing countries themselves.
Developing countries will also benefit from agreements on services, intellectual property rights and investment. The presence of GATT disciplines will make western firms more willing to supply services, technology and investment in developing countries, and this in turn will provide new skills and promote domestic research and development in those countries.
I mentioned the costs of textiles protection to our own consumers. Many developing countries are major producers of textiles and clothing. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, reminded us, we must not forget the obstacles which protectionism puts in their way in this sector above all others, as they seek to increase export earnings and create employment opportunities. I am happy to say that negotiators are close to an agreement which would entail phasing out the Multi-Fibre Arrangement over a period of about 10 years. At the end of this transitional phase textiles trade would be brought fully within the normal rules and disciplines of the GATT, as strengthened in the current negotiations.
I should like to turn to this subject of strengthening existing rules and procedures. Improved rules covering trade in all sectors are necessary to ensure that producers are not subject to unfair competition. But we are also pressing to ensure that these rules are not abused for protectionist motives. In the case of anti-dumping, for example, we believe that there is a need for anti-dumping provisions to deal with unfair trade, which GATT members should not be able to circumvent. However, we also believe that there is scope for tightening up the rules to ensure that when action is taken this is done on the basis of criteria which are as objectively assessed as possible.
We are also seeking a strengthened mechanism for the settlement of disputes over breaches of GATT obligations. Under the present consensus principle, the consent of all GATT members is required before the findings of panels hearing cases brought before the

283
GATT can be adopted. This means that parties to a dispute can block decisions which go against them. We need to reform procedures so that this is no longer possible. If such a reform is implemented there would no longer be any justification for unilateral trade measures.
The most difficult issue in the Uruguay Round has, of course, been agriculture. Disagreement over cuts in agricultural support and protection was a major cause of the breakdown in negotiations at what was to have been the final meeting in Brussels last year. Since then participants have gone a long way to resolving their differences. The European Community and the United States are much closer to bridging the gap which exists between them. This time last year the US was demanding cuts of up to 90 per cent. in agricultural support. The two sides now seem close to a more realistic figure of 30 to 35 per cent. reductions in support over five or six years in each of the separate areas of domestic support, export subsidies and import access.
Four outstanding issues have yet to be resolved in the agricultural negotiations. First, negotiators are still discussing how reductions in export subsidies should be measured. A commitment based on a reduction in the total value of export subsidies would be simple to measure and is favoured by the European Community. However, if the gap between world prices and domestic prices narrows and the subsidy per tonne therefore decreases, a budgetary limit might actually allow the quantity of subsidised exports to increase. The United States is therefore looking for a commitment to reduce the volume of subsidised exports.
My noble friend Lord Wade has seen press references to substantial reductions in EC exports occurring as a result of GATT. I believe the figures he has seen are rather high, but I emphasise that nothing has yet been decided. A compromise solution incorporating both budgetary and quantitative commitments would seem a sensible solution and may well be possible. The second key issue is how to convert import barriers—
Lord Jay: My Lords, what is the British Government's attitude on agriculture and what proposals are they putting forward in the negotiations?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are not responsible for that matter in the GATT negotiations as they are conducted by the Commission. I shall discuss agriculture further in a moment.
As I was saying, the second key issue concerns how to convert import barriers, such as quotas and variable levies, into fixed tariffs which might then be subject to a reduction commitment. Tariffication as this is known, is now accepted in principle by most contracting parties, but the precise methodology for calculating tariff equivalents is still under discussion.
The third issue involves what is known as rebalancing. When the European Community put forward its original offer of 30 per cent. cuts in total subsidies, it also proposed to introduce new protection
284
for certain cereal substitutes, such as oil seeds. The Community accepted that such an increase in protection would need to be matched by correspondingly larger reductions elsewhere to meet the overall 30 per cent. cut. In our view, however, the Uruguay Round is not the time to introduce new protective subsidies, and we argued against including rebalancing in the European Community proposals. Predictably, rebalancing has not proved acceptable to other contracting parties, and I believe the European Community must now be prepared to moderate its position if we are to get movement in other areas.
Fourthly, negotiators still have to determine the precise nature and scope of the green box; that is to say, those subsidies which will be exempt from cuts. There is general agreement that some measures which are not directly linked to production, such as set-aside or environmental payments, should be placed in the green box and be exempt from reductions. Although these policies transfer government funds to agricultural producers, they do not encourage excess production. Other policies which offer price support or production subsidies clearly should not be in the green box. Between these extremes the precise boundaries of the green box have yet to be decided. In particular a decision has yet to be taken on the situation regarding direct payments to producers, such as the compensation payments proposed by the Commission as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy. We would like to see exemptions from cuts kept to a minimum to ensure that the agreement results in effective overall reductions in support, not only in the Community but in other countries too.
Of course, it is not enough for the European Community and the US alone to reach agreement. Any deal on agriculture must be acceptable to other GATT members, including Japan and the Cairns Group of agricultural exporting countries. The agreement which seems to be emerging from these negotiations may seem disappointing to some contracting parties. However, the crucial point is to get an agreement which locks agricultural subsidies into the GATT system once and for all. The remorseless application of the GATT ratchet has brought tariffs on manufactured goods down by seven-eighths since GATT began and I am sure that future rounds of negotiations will produce further reductions in agricultural tariffs.
As my noble friend Lord Plumb pointed out, inflated agricultural subsidies cost us dear in higher taxes and higher prices, and yet the full benefit of this sacrifice is not passed on to the farmer. All too much of the subsidy goes on storage, refrigeration and disposal costs. Also, returns on farming are higher than they would otherwise be and this perversely drives up the price of rents, land and other inputs.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that in Europe production will be limited. Is he aware of any other participants in the GATT negotiations who, in addition to reducing their tariffs, will also put a limit on their level of production?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that matter is part of the general negotiations. A general reduction in subsidies will not necessarily adversely affect farmers as much as they may fear. This is particularly true of British farmers whose greater efficiency will be rewarded by increases in their competitive advantage as market distorting subsidies are reduced.
I was pleased to hear the confident assertion of faith of my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston in the ability of British farmers to meet the demands of a more open and fairer market. I share that faith. An agreement on agriculture is in all our interests. It will pave the way for agreements in other sectors, for agriculture is not the only unresolved issue.
Negotiations are continuing on reductions in tariffs. The UK has strongly supported the Community position on the importance of cutting high or peak tariffs. This is because high tariffs are more of a barrier to trade than low tariffs. The European Community has largely given up relying on high tariffs. Our highest industrial tariff is 22 per cent. Once the Community tariff offer is implemented, the highest rate will be 19 per cent. Initially the United States focused on its zero for zero proposals under which each participant would completely eliminate tariffs on certain items. However, these proposals would only result in the elimination of tariffs in cases where rates are already very low. However, cutting peak tariffs and eliminating low tariffs are not mutually exclusive options. It is looking increasingly likely that it will be possible to reach a compromise covering elements of both approaches.
In the field of services good progress has been made. All the major parties accept that the most favoured nation principle should be the long-term objective for all forms of services. This principle, which means that no nation receives more favourable treatment than that available to other nations, is a principle which has been a powerful mechanism for promoting free trade. It is vital that it should apply in the agreement on trade in services.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Young on the importance of achieving a framework agreement for services. Good progress is being made although the detailed work on specific commitments for each service sector will continue into next year after the main package of Uruguay agreements has been settled.
Having gone through the principal areas in which work remains to be done, let me now turn to the overall state of the negotiations. Attention is focusing on the talks between the European Community and the United States. The European Community/US summit early last month underlined the determination of these two parties to reach agreement. It also did much to bring that agreement closer. Since then high level negotiations have continued. Meetings have been taking place in the Hague today following preparatory meetings which took place in Brussels yesterday. The talks have widened to include all aspects of the round, rather than focusing exclusively on agriculture. While differences remain, these are gradually being resolved.
Further progress in these bilateral negotiations would act as an additional stimulus to the multilateral
286
negotiations in Geneva where progress has fallen behind the timetable set by the GATT Director-General, Mr. Dunkel. He had originally hoped to table a draft agreement in mid-November. However, the negotiating committees failed to produce the sectoral agreements which would have made that possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, queried whether an agreement would be possible this year. We believe that we can still achieve the necessary breakthrough before the end of the year. Once that is achieved, there will still be some detailed work to do. It should be possible to complete that work in time for the final agreement to be formally approved by March next year, but agreement on the principles of a comprehensive package covering all areas of the negotiations must be reached this year. If a breakthrough on agriculture is achieved in the next few days, Mr. Dunkel hopes to achieve an overall agreement by 20th December.
Perhaps I may now respond to some points raised by other noble Lords which I have not touched on or have touched on only briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, raised the matter of textiles. I am grateful for his support on that matter and for the support that he promised generally from his side on the matter. It was well illustrated by his extremely constructive speech. Perhaps I may add to what I said on the subject of textiles by making it plain that the Government have always been committed to liberalising trade in textiles, but it is equally our aim that the rules and disciplines should be strengthened by improvements, all or most of which would come in before completion of the MFA phase-out.
United Kingdom industry rightly attaches great importance to progress in the areas of safeguards, subsidies, intellectual property, dumping and better access to all markets. The right reverend Prelate expressed his anxiety about the dumping of agricultural products on the third world. We all share that worry. The reductions in agricultural support and export subsidies to which I referred should make such practices unnecessary as well as undesirable.
On the issue of the reform of the common agricultural policy, several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Boardman, the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the urgent need for reform of the CAP. I can assure the House that the Government continue to be committed to secure a genuine, fair and sustainable reform of the CAP. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for recognising the Government's strong line on the CAP reform and for protesting at the failure of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, to do so. I should have thought that our efforts to secure reform of the CAP were fairly widely appreciated. We believe that changes which make European agriculture more market-oriented, cut the costs of the CAP and lead to a closer integration between agriculture and the environment are vital, regardless of what happens in the GATT Uruguay Round.
I am grateful to several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Young and Lady Elles, for

287
recognising the role played by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Throughout those important final stages, he has played an active role in the round through the contacts with his counterparts in other key GATT countries. As chairman of the G7, he recently wrote to all his colleagues reminding them of their commitments and emphasising the need for everyone to face up to the difficult decisions involved. That gives the lie to the accusations of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, that Her Majesty's Government have not done enough to advance the negotiations. Moreover, it must always be remembered, as my noble friend Lady Elles reminded us, that it is the Commission which negotiates on behalf of all member states.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that the whole subject of GATT should be given a wider airing and a higher degree of public awareness. I agree with that, but I do not see that if that matter does not achieve success it can be blamed on the Government. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his predecessors have constantly sought to bring this subject to public attention. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made a major speech on the subject only two days ago to the Institute of Directors. This I strongly commend to your Lordships, although those who pay close attention to my speech will have less need to read his.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon asked about the liberalisation of financial services as a result of the Uruguay Round. The United Kingdom and the European Community want to see the maximum possible liberalisation by other GATT members in that sector. As my noble friend said, the Community is already fairly open. The offers by other GATT members and currently on the table certainly fall short of what we would ideally want, although we must remember that this is the first time that services have been covered in GATT. If we get a sound framework agreement in place, it can be built on later. My noble friend is not in his place, but, as he said, he will read the debate in Hansard and I can assure him through that medium that I shall reply to his other questions in writing.
Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend and clansman Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on the subject of Scotch whisky and, as he put it, the lesser spirits. We are well aware of the importance of gaining improved access to third country markets for Scotch whisky producers and for other spirit producers. We have consistently supported the Scotch Whisky Association's position on that issue. We are also aware of the association's support for the United States proposal for multilateral elimination of tariffs and non-tariff measures on distilled beverages. We have made its views known to the European Commission negotiators who will respond to the United States. However, that is only a small element of a much wider United States proposal whose implications will need to be considered carefully in the context of our overall aims for the negotiations.
288
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, sprang several questions on me to which I shall reply in writing. However, I can tell him that the GATT working party to which he referred has recently been re-established.
It was a privilege to listen to one of the players in the GATT story. I refer of course to my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft telling us of an important moment in the development of free trade thinking in British politics, a moment in which he himself played a most significant role. I agreed with my noble friend in what he said about the urgency of reaching a conclusion.
All the major parties agree that the round must be substantially concluded this year. If we do not reach an agreement this year, there is a risk that we shall never reach one. We must be absolutely clear that we cannot afford another failure like that of last December. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, we have now a golden opportunity. We are nearer a deal than we were this time last year. In key areas of the negotiations, the agreements will be more robust and comprehensive than they would have been had they been signed last December. The extra time has enabled negotiators to improve on draft texts and to agree more tightly drawn-up provisions.
The GATT Director-General has put the onus for resolving the final difficulties firmly on the participants, where it belongs. If we shirk that responsibility and avoid taking decisions, however difficult they may be, we risk seeing an increase in protectionism, restrictive bilateral agreements, and the creation of inward-looking trade blocs, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft warned us. We would not simply return to where we were before negotiations began and we would lose much more than the chance to open up new areas of trade. People would lose faith in GATT. At a time when developing countries and the countries of Eastern Europe are adopting market economies and seeking to participate more fully in international trade we cannot fail them by allowing the framework which safeguards that trade to be destroyed.
Finally, a successful Uruguay Round will cement world peace. Whereas in the 1930s protectionism led to the Great Depression which was the prelude to war, free trade can provide the framework for peace. We can, and must, ensure that the international trading system, which has served us so well in the past can provide the basis for fair and open trade into the 21st century, to the greater prosperity of all mankind.
6.59 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it remains for me to thank everyone who has taken part in this important debate today. Unfortunately, neither time nor the conventions of the House allow me to respond to all the points raised or to say all the many things that I should like to do, but I too shall read Hansard very carefully.
In thanking all noble Lords who have taken part, I should like particularly to echo what my noble friend Lady Elles, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and, a few moments ago, my noble friend the Minister said about my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft. He made an extraordinarily moving speech. He gave us an

289
insight into an important piece of history and the role that he himself played. We should all be very grateful for what he did on that occasion as well as for his speech today.
This debate has been unique in my experience too by the very wide measure of agreement in all parts of the House. Every noble Lord who spoke agreed on the vital importance of completing the GATT round. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Williams of Elvel, for their support as well as to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The GATT round is of importance not only for the industrialised countries but also for its effect on the third world. We all listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who spoke from his great experience of the matter.
Several important messages came forward to the Government. First, the agreement needs to be made quickly. I was most interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister said on that point. Secondly, the importance of what is at stake in the GATT round needs to be much more widely known. That is always difficult to achieve. I recognise that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made a number of speeches on this matter. But people find it very technical and difficult. As my noble friend Lord Boardman said, they are bewildered by it. However, it is something which affects us all. That point was made also by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester.
Much of the latter part of the debate turned on the issue of agriculture. I listened with great care to what was said by my noble friends Lord Wade and Lord Stodart about the importance of a level playing field. I am quite certain that no one will be able to drink a glass of whisky again without understanding exactly what is meant by a non-tariff barrier. It was helpful also for my noble friend Lady Elles to explain so clearly the reasons for the development of the common agricultural policy and to draw our attention to the importance of the role of Mr. Dunkel. We certainly wish him well. I should like to add my recognition of the value of the high standards of British agriculture. Like all those who have taken part in the debate, I hope that my noble friend Lord Plumb is right and that a settlement is imminent.
I conclude by thanking my noble friend the Minister. He gave a very full and extraordinarily interesting reply. I was pleased to hear where we stand in the detail of the negotiation and I felt greatly encouraged by what he said. I hope that in his turn he will take back a message from this debate about the strength of unanimity of view in all parts of the House. Everyone spoke from both knowledge and experience. Quite properly we want to support the Government at this time in all that they do to press the Commission for a settlement of the GATT round. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.
Strathclyde Regional Council Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Boxing Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
First, I should explain the purpose of the Bill. It is quite clear; it is to ban professional boxing in this country. There may be some comments to be made on the Bill's clauses. It is a rather simple Bill and any amendment to it to clarify its purpose could be made at Committee stage. I sincerely hope that it will reach Committee stage.
This Bill has an interesting history. It was moved on 10th May 1962 by Lady Summerskill. On that occasion it was defeated by 27 votes to 22 votes—a rather thin House. Ten years ago, almost to the day, I introduced the Bill to this House. On that occasion there voted Content 47 and Not-Content 77. The Bill did not receive a Second Reading.
However, recent events in the ring have certainly encouraged me to reintroduce it. There is growing concern on the part of the public about those recent events. I am aware that the British Boxing Board of Control has tried to make the sport—if it can be called a sport—more acceptable. Looking at the changes that it is making in the affairs of boxing following the sad events of 10 weeks ago, it is obvious that anything done is done to improve the treatment of boxers after they are knocked out and not before. It is after they have been knocked out that the authorities will make an ambulance available and will have a doctor at the ready and there will be no ringside or in-the-ring interviews. That does not deal with the basic problem of boxing and the objections to boxing as a sport which I have and which I hope are shared by this House.
Ten years ago I put before your Lordships three basic propositions. The first was that anything that perpetuates violence is an evil and anything that glamorises violence damages the fabric of a civilised society. I know that Members of the House of Lords have been gravely concerned—and have had many debates—about the growing level of violence in society. There can be no doubt at all that at boxing matches, with all the hype and excitement that surrounds the spectacle, violence is glamorised.

291
Secondly, and now justified by the evidence of the British Medical Association, I claimed that boxing frequently results in brain damage and sometimes in death.
The third proposition was a challenge to our moral conscience. We must ask ourselves: what is the justification for organising for our entertainment a public spectacle whose main object is for one human being to knock unconscious another human being? I cannot accept that there can be any moral or ethical justification for that kind of situation.
With regard to brain damage, there is now abundant evidence provided by the British Medical Association of the extent of such injury. There is an article in tonight's Evening Standard which some of your Lordships may have read. It links head injury to Alzheimer's disease. No one who has seen sufferers from Alzheimer's disease can fail to realise what a miserable condition it is. Anything that contributes to Alzheimer's disease must be condemned.
The BMA is concerned about the problem of brain damage. In 1982 it passed a resolution which stated:
"In view of the proven ocular and brain damage resulting from professional boxing, the Association should campaign for its abolition".
In 1987 it said:
"In view of the continuing serious ill effects on the health of boxers, this Meeting requests the BMA to pursue government with renewed vigour until there is a ban on boxing".
There is abundant evidence from the BMA of ill effects on boxers.
Experience of people in the ring shows the damaging effect that boxing has on the brain. Following our last debate 10 years ago, I received a call from New York from a young man known as Sugar Ray Leonard. He asked, "Are you the guy who wants to stop boxing?" I replied that I was. He said, "I'm coming over to England. I want to meet you eyeball to eyeball". I did not offer him five or 10 rounds but I was glad to meet him on the terrace of the House of Lords. We discussed the problem of brain damage in relation to boxing. He is a beautiful young man, a perfect athlete and highly intelligent. I said to him, "I know that you have a detached retina". He said, "Do you know how much they are offering me for my next fight? Twelve million dollars". That was 10 years ago. I said, "I don't think your eyesight is worth 12 million dollars".
Sugar Ray Leonard went back to America. Not entirely on my advice, he retired from the ring. I regret to say that he has now re-entered it; I have no knowledge at present of how much damage that has done. However, his illustrious predecessor, Sugar Ray Robinson, on whom he modelled himself, was a victim of Alzheimer's disease. He is now dead. All of us have seen the pathetic spectacle of the shuffling, mumbling, former wonderful athlete, Mohammed Ali. Consider what boxing has done to him when remembering him in his prime.
Frank Bruno entered the ring the other day. I was interested to note that the medical doctor of the BMA did not attend the fight because he did not believe that Frank Bruno should have another fight since he had
292
recently had operations on his eyes. That does not suggest that the British Boxing Board of Control is controlling the sport as it ought to do. There are many cases—some of us know of them—of boys who enjoyed the glamour, excitement and rewards of boxing and who ended up mentally damaged and frequently in the gutter. In my view it is not a sport which should be encouraged or supported.
In boxing it takes some time for the ill effects to become evident. They are not immediate. In the case of Michael Watson there was immediate concern because he simply clung to life and no more. He has not fully recovered by a long chalk. I hope that he will recover. But there is little likelihood that he will ever enjoy a return to normal faculties.
I have suggested that there is no moral case which justifies our encouraging, or paying for, entertainment to watch two young men each seeking to knock the other unconscious. People will say, "That's interesting, but should we ban it? Is it not an intrusion on personal liberty to ban personal boxing?" In our society we occasionally take steps to prevent certain abuses. It is a long time since we abolished cock fighting. We felt that the spectacle of cock fighting was demeaning. We have taken steps recently to ban fighting between pit bull terriers and other dogs which are trained to fight. We have banned animals fighting in a ring, yet we seem to be less sensitive to the greater problems of young men in the ring.
Violence in the ring affects young people; ask anyone who advertises on television. They know that by advertising on television one attracts people to imitate and act in certain ways. With the code of conduct which governs the BBC and ITV we ensure that there shall not be gratuitous violence in programmes on television. At the same time we permit the spectacle of boxing matches on television. That glamorises violence.
People will say that other sports such as rugby football, soccer and motor racing are sometimes dangerous. But in no other sport is there intentional violence. It is only in boxing that the purpose of the exercise is for one man to knock another unconscious. There is no doubt about that decision. On a points verdict there is always conflict about the decision. If one wants to win one has to knock the other fellow out. In no other sport is that the purpose of the exercise.
I hope that we shall give the Bill a Second Reading today. First, boxing glamorises violence. Secondly, it causes brain damage and sometimes death. Thirdly, there is no moral case which would justify our encouraging and paying for such a spectacle. In those circumstances I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have often admired the constructive approach to many problems that have been raised in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. However, I cannot support him in this legislation.

293
I think it is excellent for children to learn a little about the art of boxing and self-defence. At school I was a very shy person. However, I remember my instructor telling me very firmly, "Now you've got to look at your opponent eye to eye. Only in that way will you know where to hit him". I believe that through that advice, perhaps more than anything else, I lost my shyness.
As I understand the position at present, under English case law stemming from a court decision of 1882, a boxing or sparring match with gloves, fairly conducted under recognised rules, is not illegal. Homicide in the course of such a contest is not manslaughter unless it results from a foul blow or one struck with the intention of causing serious injury. That is according to a court decision made in 1865. However, a contest in which the men have to fight on until one is incapacitated by exhaustion or blows is not a legal contest. The fact that gloves are worn is immaterial, for in such a case the contest is virtually a prize-fight. That was a decision taken in the case of R v. Orton 1879 (14 Cox County Court, 226).
A prize-fight is often considered to be a fight where gloves are not worn. However, even if the fight is with gloves and the contest is decided not upon the skill of the competitors but by one or the other being rendered incapable of fighting any longer, the promoters are guilty of an unlawful assembly. If in such a contest death ensues, the surviving combatant and the backers are guilty of manslaughter. However, I should add that in the case of R v. Coney (8QBD, 534) the court decided that the presence of persons at a prize-fight was not enough to sustain a conviction of assault against those persons.
I am not an expert on English law but the word "profit" is usually connected with land or tenancies of property. Without a definition of the word "profit" I believe that the Bill will make any boxing match illegal where any charge is made for ringside seating, or where there is any spectator entrance fee or even a sweepstake. I hope that the Bill will be withdrawn because we shall drive this sport either underground or overseas.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, was most eloquent in introducing the Bill. He spoke primarily about what he regarded as the moral dilemma of having two people indulging in a sport the aim of which was to inflict damage on each other. I had always assumed that the aim of a boxing match was to establish a superiority in a skill. That involves the landing of a series of blows on a target area. That can result in injury. I suggest that if we begin to look at the sport in that light its colour begins to change.
I fully appreciate the fact that a degree of injury will result, but that is inevitable in the vast majority of sports. Indeed, I play rugby, which is a game in which one is almost guaranteed to be injured by the numerous people against whom one is playing. Deaths have occurred in virtually all sports. Any sport involving an element of physical contact risks damage and in turn death. We must look at the matter in that
294
context while appreciating that the aim in boxing is to deliver a blow. All sports have a similar risk if not the same concentration.
I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a major failing in the Bill. It refers to boxing but it does not refer to contact martial arts. The fastest growing sporting activity in this country is full-contact martial arts; for instance, Thai boxing and kick boxing. They might be covered by the provisions of the Bill, but I suggest that the organisations which wish to continue with the sports will change their names rapidly. Those sports are more dangerous than boxing for the simple reason that they involve kicking. One can inflict far greater damage with a kick than with a punch. Furthermore, they result in people being struck more often because they are technically likely to be more open.
It is true that the British Martial Arts Association has tried to modify its laws so that there is not the same degree of danger in this country as in others. In Thailand Thai boxing results in dozens of fatalities. Steps have been taken to try to reduce the damage inflicted. For instance, blows such as the elbow to the temple and the knee to the groin have been taken out of the sport. The degree of brutality in the sport has been lessened. However, unless the Bill deals with the whole range of full-contact martial arts we are on a hiding to nothing. If interest in such sports is growing but we deprive people of boxing, where will the potential audience go?
I suggest that the idea of encouraging people towards violence, even the theatrical American wrestling which we now see, is another issue that we should investigate. I suggest that to try to convince children that picking up a man and slamming him head first onto a canvas mat or a floor will cause no damage and that he will be ready to fight again next week, is far more dangerous than showing them that if someone is hit it hurts. I believe that films must show that if people are shot they die painfully and unpleasantly rather than showing people shot in the arm and wandering about for three or four days. We should let people know the truth about such things. Violence in the raw might be more acceptable than glamorised violence.
I suggest that the Bill misses its target. If we expand the debate to cover all dangerous sports we shall stop most sports. The current death toll from boxing is not the highest. If we wish to stop violent sports the Bill will limit the number of sports available. Those involving a degree of humiliation for the loser involve the skill of the martial arts—indeed, physical-contact sports—and fall short of the Bill. I suggest that it is inappropriate to continue with consideration of the Bill.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I was greatly moved by the sincere and obviously earnest way in which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, moved that the Bill should be read a second time. I felt it right that I should try to draw to your Lordships' attention certain well-acknowledged and well-recognised medical facts which are significant in our debate. Perhaps

295
I may congratulate the noble Lord for bringing the matter to our attention and allowing the debate to take place. However, I must apologise to him and to your Lordships for the fact that, having been compelled to postpone a long-standing commitment that I had arranged for the early part of the evening, I may be unable to stay until the end of the debate.
Since my childhood I have had a deep interest in many forms of sport, both as a participant and as a spectator. Of course I appreciate that many of those sports can result in serious physical injury. Whenever I have an opportunity and time allows I watch rugby football, association football, tennis, golf and many other sports with avid interest. I must confess that there have been occasions on which, perhaps through some kind of basic primitive urge, I have found myself glued to the television watching a professional boxing contest. My head has told me that I should not do so but my heart has compelled me to continue to watch.
As a doctor and primarily as a neurologist I must say to your Lordships that the effect of professional boxing and, as the noble Lord has just said, of many other contact martial arts is to produce a degree of brain damage in certain circumstances which I believe to be unacceptable in a civilised society. Of course it is true that people die driving motor cars on a race track. Sometimes people are paralysed as a result of a collapsing scrum on a rugby football field. Some work carried out in my own department of neurology some years ago in Newcastle upon Tyne by Dr. Foster demonstrated that repeated brain injury as a result of many falls by steeplechase jockeys resulted in the punch-drunk syndrome. It is well recognised that that occurs. However, the primary aim of those sports is not to injure one's opponent, as is the case in professional boxing and certain other sports.
I confess, too, that many who have been professional boxers over the years, like Henry Cooper and Frank Bruno, have a certain homespun charm which attracts the public at large. One accepts that entirely. One must accept also that many professional boxers have completed their careers without demonstrating evidence of that kind of progressive and serious brain damage which admittedly afflicts only a minority.
In passing, I must refer, as did the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to the fact that according to press reports the chief medical officer to the British Boxing Board of Control, Dr. Adrian Whiteside, apparently wished that Frank Bruno had not had his licence restored, but he was overruled by the board. I accept also that that board of control and its medical advisors have done a great deal to introduce techniques of neurological examination with brain scans, magnetic resonance imaging scans and other techniques for examining boxers prior to their entry into the ring in an attempt to reduce the toll of damage which occurs as a consequence of the sport.
All that is commendable. The reports carried out over the years by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians have shown that the sport is to some extent unique in that the consequence, purpose and objective is to apply a sufficient number
296
of blows to one's opponent to inflict physical injury and, despite what the noble Lord has just said, the objective of most boxers in both the professional and amateur ring is to knock one's opponent unconscious if possible.
There is powerful neurological evidence to indicate clearly that a severe blow to the head, however caused, not only causes concussion, which is the consequence of the jarring of brain tissue within the skull cage, but it almost inevitably results in the death of a small number of brain cells and the division of a small number of fibre tracts within the brain. That information is now available from neuro-pathological studies.
In the course of my professional neurological practice I have seen too many men who have gone on too long in the professional ring, who have been allegedly, according to the press and to others, marvellously brave at taking punishment. In consequence they have suffered progressive brain damage which has led not only to atrophy, which means shrinkage of the brain, but also to enlargement of the cavities or ventricles of the brain, and to a loss of the central structure which separates those brain cavities called a septum pellucidum, which is a characteristic effect of the brain damage of boxers. They have gone on to develop a progressive deterioration or degeneration of the intellect, called dementia, combined with features of Parkinson's disease and that slow, sombre shuffling gait which is so much a hallmark of the punch-drunk syndrome. I have seen that far too often to believe that this so-called sport can be justified as a spectacle in a civilised society.
I appreciate that, as has been said, other sports cause injury. However, that is not their primary objective. There are those who say that were the sport to be banned, ultimately it would be driven underground. I ask them to produce evidence that that has happened in countries where it has been banned; that is, Sweden, Norway and Iceland.
I am not so sanguine as to believe, however powerful the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the Bill will ultimately reach the statute book. One recognises that there are many vested interests, financial and otherwise, which are likely to oppose the Bill in its subsequent stages. Having said that, I am in no doubt that the day will come when professional boxing will be banned in this and many other countries throughout the world because its objectives are intolerable and its effects unacceptable in a civilised society.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, as I understand it, I have just listened to an irresistible case on the basis of the medical evidence which, it seems to me, must be incontrovertible and decisive. I add very little from my own competence, which is marginal, to the experience of those who have suffered damage from repeated activities in the ring. I shall attempt to support the moral argument in a rather wider context than that in which it has been referred to already.

297
I begin with a reminiscence which your Lordships will permit because it is germane to what I have to say. As an unregenerate youth, I was an ardent boxer. I had some little competence in that field. I was immensely proud of the fact—I have not been able to verify it since but I believe it to be true—that I was trained by one of the trainers of the the immortal, or at least well known, Jack Johnson. I wore that almost as a badge of competence.
Therefore I am compelled to say that the aura of pleasure and the sense of satisfaction has not diminished in my old age. I find it difficult to turn off the television when a programme of boxing is on the screen. Occasionally I turn it off but it is a struggle. It is a struggle because the watching of boxing and the participation in boxing bears witness to one element which is not bad; that is, the sense of power which is a legitimate desire on the part of those who seek it and want to use it.
The question which must be answered is whether or not violence is one exercise of that power which is permissible. I do not believe it is. Having come to the conclusion that boxing is one experiment in the field of illegitimate power, it is my responsibility as a would-be Christian to say "No" to it and to campaign for its abolition, at least professionally.
I am able to tell the House that, generally speaking, I may be in consort with the Churches, as far as I am aware of their position. I can at least speak confidently with regard to the Methodist Church which has taken the view I have already briefly tried to express. However, I invite your Lordships to listen for a short while to an extension of the moral argument.
I believe in what has been clumsily called the ubiquity of violence in modern society. I do not wish to shiver any of your Lordships' timbers when I remind myself that there is a unique characteristic with regard to power in contemporary society which is totally unprecedented. Those people who see violence see it in the context of a terminal condition which may be as thorough for the human species as another kind of terminal condition was for the dinosaurs.
I know that it sounds melodramatic to some people to talk about the prospect of the end of the world. But I have the unfortunate and uncomfortable feeling which almost reaches conviction that, unless we get rid of the menace and generality of violence, we shall be preparing ourselves for an irresistible change which may be final. I do not say that with any great authority, though ecclesiastically and from the biblical standpoint it is worth saying and I wish more parsons would say it.
I am concerned to say this. The widespread concept of violence epitomised in the various forms of violent sport about which we have already heard, that perpetuation of violence, must be dealt with from where it can first and most satisfactorily be approached. Though I am a pacifist I do not believe that in my lifetime the concept of pacifism is likely to reach the dimensions of a coercive programme. But I believe that in other areas where violence is now practised we can do two things. We can remove the glamour which I remember as a child. At the same time we can break into that continuity, that ubiquity
298
of violence which is one of the most contemporary and dangerous situations that the human species has ever faced. We have that opportunity, dramatically and inexorably presented in medical terms which are overwhelmingly convincing as far as I am concerned. I believe that from the standpoint of the damage that is done we have no right to think of a body as a commodity, liable to the vagaries of a market and constituted within the framework of a capitalist society. Worse still, I believe that there is a continuation within the areas of literature and the media to celebrate violence as though it were a commendable acceptance of something which belongs to our better nature or indeed to our survival.
We have an opportunity to strike a blow; to deal with a specific expression of violence. I hope that we take that opportunity. The opportunity to break into that continuity is denied to us if we make a broad and general attack on the whole concept of society and of violence without at the same time epitomising and analysing aspects of that violence which are within the competence of intelligent and moral people to deal with now.
It is an argument which is an extension of the argument that it is immoral to take part in professional boxing—as I believe it to be. But that immorality is conditioned by the fact that we contribute to the general area, the miasma of violence, which infects everyone who is partaking of the opportunities of violence. His lungs are contaminated by the irresistible force of the air he breathes. I want a purer air. If I cannot have it all today, I believe that here is one way in which we can break into the continuity of violence and I hope that the Bill receives a Second Reading.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I do not believe that I can follow the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in his philosophical and religious discourse. Though I am sure that when I read his speech I shall probably agree with about two-thirds of it, I am not sure that I can accept the whole of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is certainly tenacious in his opposition to professional boxing. I emphasise that the Bill is against professional boxing. If it receives a Second Reading and practitioners of the amateur sport are worried, they can always table an amendment at Committee stage to protect their amateur sport.
To use possibly an apt expression, I should like to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on being a bonny fighter. As he himself said, it has been 10 years since he last introduced a Bill on the subject. I shall certainly support him in the Lobby. However, since he introduced his Bill 10 years ago I have experienced certain doubts, not on the matter of professional boxing and the damage done to the participants, which is part and parcel of this barbarous sport (if we can call it such) but rather on making illegal something which for many years has been legal. Nowadays far too many people in this country—I do not include the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—want to

299
stop other people from doing what they want to do. Unfortunately, the number of such people is increasing.
Turning back to boxing, it may be argued that if two men, of their own accord and abiding by certain fairly stringent rules in the presence of a referee, wish to knock each other insensible, they should be allowed to do so. I strongly believe that such an activity should not be encouraged. I confess that I do not know whether or not there is a case for making it illegal. In society as it is developing today I feel that the police have sufficient to do.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Walton, places another construction on it, nonetheless it is proven that over a length of time boxing results in the condition known as being "punch drunk". Men become stupid and eventually they go mad. Those are simple layman's terms. Professional boxers ought to know the risks that they are taking. I understand from conversation outside the Chamber that they do. But money can pay for almost anything, including self-destruction.
I agree with those who think that a heavy responsibility rests on the press and television for the publicity that they give to professional boxing. The lives of prominent and successful boxers are well known; they become public figures and are written about in the press and so on. But as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, less is known about the way in which those lives end.
Finally, one must remember that in professional boxing fights go on for 12 three-minute rounds. In amateur or army boxing there are only three three-minute rounds. I believe the rounds were cut from 15 to 12, but that is still a murderous ordeal for any man. It is no wonder that it often results in serious injury or even death.
I personally believe that it would be the best thing in the world if this sport ceased to take place. I would like to see it end for many reasons although I have expressed doubts about the wisdom of bringing it to an end by making it criminal. As I have said, I shall support the noble Lord in the Lobby tonight because I feel that by doing so this House will have set down a marker showing what it feels about this sport. I salute the noble Lord for bringing attention to a very real evil. I hope that his efforts over many years may assist in ending it.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said that this is the time to strike a blow against professional boxing. How much I agree with him! The other day I was discussing this subject in the dining room with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I said that I could not understand why anybody would want to pay what Mr. Desmond Lynam of the BBC calls "funny money" for a ringside seat at a big fight because for one thing it might all be over in a few minutes, as happened the other day in the big fight. There is also usually the opportunity to watch the match on television from an armchair where one probably gets a better view than from a ringside seat.
300
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, said "Yes, but you are forgetting something. With a ringside seat you have the added thrill that you might be bespattered with blood".
The crowd certainly seems to enjoy the bespattering of blood. One can hear the spectators, from the shelter of their seats well back from the ring, react to the added excitement that occurs when the blood starts to flow. Of course the spectators say that they are not there to watch anybody being hurt; they are there to enjoy the skill. If that is so, why is it that all the big fights seem to be between big men? Surely the lightweights exhibit as much if not more skill than the heavyweights, but the lightweights do not seem to attract the audience in the same way.
It was in the days of the bare-knuckle fights that the worst of the facial injuries and the blood-letting occurred. In consequence of that the boxing glove came along as a protection. However, I fear that it has turned out that the boxing glove is the villain of the piece. One does not need the expert knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, with his medical experience, to tell one what are the precious parts of the human body. Nature has shown us, for instance, that the eyes are precious because they are indented in the face for protection. We may be quite sure from examining the human skull and the thickness and hardness of it, that something must lie inside which is very important so that it receives the utmost protection. The boxing glove strikes the skull with a far heavier blow than the boxer could bare to inflict with bare knuckles. The boxer would break his hand if he inflicted the kind of blow which is inflicted by the boxing glove.
One partial solution to the problem might be to say that in the ring the boxer should wear the same head protection as I believe he customarily wears in training. However, I do not suppose that that idea would appeal very strongly to the box office. I very much hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I am an administrative steward at the British Boxing Board of Control; I am a member of the Welsh area council of that board and I am the patron of the Welsh ex-boxers' association. I believe that ex-boxers would be very hurt indeed if they were to hear it suggested that they or their sport were in any way allied to the increasing violence that we see all about us. Indeed, I believe that they would say that if some of the young people who were causing the violence were to attend boxing gymnasia to be trained in the discipline that they were trained in, we would see much less violence than we see today.
I was not trained by Jack Johnson's trainer, but I do share a distinction with Rocky Marciano. He was a former heavyweight champion of the world. He boxed 49 times and won 49 fights. That is a 100 per cent. record of course. I boxed in four fights and lost four. Whatever way one looks at it that is also a 100 per cent. record. I would like to quote an extract from a letter to the South Wales Echo, which is the evening

301
paper which covers South Wales, an area which has produced many great champions in the past and where there is a tremendous following for boxing. The letter was inspired by what happened on that awful night at White Hart Lane when Michael Watson was knocked out.
The letter says:
"It is good news that Michael Watson is coming out of his coma. I hope and pray that he will recover as my family and I know what a terrible traumatic time his family is going through.
"While I have every sympathy with Michael and his family, I do not have any sympathy towards those who jumped on the bandwagon calling for boxing to be banned after this unfortunate fight.
"Every boxer who goes into the ring knows the risk he is taking. To ban boxing is NOT the answer. If it was banned it would only result in the sport going underground and becoming even more dangerous. If this were to happen you would not have the rules and conditions governing boxing that we have today. Instead of banning boxing we should strive to make the sport safer".
That letter was written by Mr. Dick Owen who was the father of Johnny Owen of Merthyr who died in an attempt to win a world title 10 years ago. I believe that Mr. Owen is right.
Reference has been made to the way in which rules and conditions of boxing have changed over the years. Although the boxing records list bare-knuckle fighter James Figg as the first British champion in 1719, prize fighting began long before then. In those days the promoters made their own rules and controlling bodies were non-existent. There was no system of standardised weights. Opponents were often ill-matched and lighter men were often slaughtered in marathon bouts. Of course, boxing was then illegal and when men were killed or seriously injured very little comment was made. Fatalities were not uncommon and fights often lasted for hours. The longest on record lasted for 276 rounds.
It was bloodthirsty, brutal and cruel. There were no proper referees or rules. There were no medical examinations to make sure that fighters were fit to enter the contest. There was no doctor on hand to give immediate and expert treatment when needed. If a fighter died there was no insurance scheme to provide for his dependants and often there was no money even to bury him. The illegal fights were not, of course, publicised. Nevertheless, huge crowds would gather in the fields where contests were held to watch men like Daniel Mendoza, Tom Cribb, and Gentleman John Jackson and other bare-knuckle contestants oppose each other for anything from 40 rounds to 100 rounds. It was largely the gentry who patronised the fights, showing their appreciation by tossing coins into the ring.
One of James Figg's pupils, James Broughton, is credited with the first attempt to clean up the sport in 1743. Boxing became so popular that it attracted wealthy patrons wanting to learn what they were pleased to call "the noble art". The first rules were devised along with the introduction of gloves to protect boxers from severe injuries and to stop them from breaking their knuckles. Broughton created an image of honesty and fair play, and all who took part were expected to follow his strictures.
302
The Marquess of Queensberry Rules were introduced in 1867 and were used five years later. They brought in weight divisions, basic rounds of three minutes each with one minute intervals, and the 10 count for a fighter unable to get to his feet after a fall or a knock down. These rules applied to glove fighting as bare knuckle contests mercifully began to fade into obscurity. The National Sporting Club was formed to take the brutality out of prize fighting and the NSC gave boxing a new image, stopping crooked fights and ruling the sport with iron discipline, with referees in the ring conducting proceedings. It ruled boxing for 20 years and its president, Lord Lonsdale, gave his name to the challenge belts that have become a major feature of British championships.
Thankfully the days of vicious bare knuckle fights are just history. Britain now has the best controlled body of sport in the world in the British Boxing Board of Control. The British Boxing Board of Control appoints all referees, stewards, inspectors and time-keepers. It is an organisation administering its authority over boxing with stringent medical supervision. Many amateur champions have been refused professional licences because they failed to measure up to the BBB of C medical standards. No other controlling body in boxing is better run, and in all respects the welfare and safety of the boxer comes first.
It is because the sport is so well controlled that serious injuries to boxers are not commonplace. It is because serious incidents arc so rare that they attract publicity. Few sports are without risk—that is often why they attract such a following.
There have been many serious injuries and deaths in other sports, and reference has been made to those this evening. I shall give some figures very briefly. Between 1969 and 1980 there were 480 deaths in sport: 93 in mountaineering and rock climbing; 85 in motorcycling; 66 in football; 53 in horse riding; 34 in parachuting and hang gliding; 28 in motor racing; 32 in rugby; 28 in skin diving; 16 in canoeing; in cricket there were nine; in hunting there were nine; golf had six; rowing had four; in karate there were three; judo had three; professional boxing had two.
As Mr. Dick Owen so clearly put it—and no one can speak from such personal experience as he: "If it were banned it would only result in the sport going underground and becoming even more dangerous". That is why we must not ban it. That it why we must have proper controls and regulations. Let us not force the contest back to deserted wharves and warehouses or hidden fields. Let us not force it back into the twilight world where it will be controlled by the unscrupulous and the greedy. Let us keep it in the open, where it is now, properly run with proper rules and first-class supervision—medical and otherwise—and where the welfare of the boxer is paramount.
Anyone who saw the television programme on unlicensed boxing recently would realise that if this Bill were to succeed, we would be back to the dark days of crooked promoters and no protection for the boxers. This Bill should he aimed at unlicensed boxing and increasing the powers of the British Boxing Board of Control.
8.4 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and I understand his concerns. In fact I should also say, as Mohammed Ali does that Lord Taylor of Gryfe floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee.
I support and enjoy boxing and I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, said, and I think he is absolutely right. I am extremely concerned about the wording of this Bill because it does not cover just professional boxing; it covers all boxing. Clause 1 of the Bill states:
"Any person who organises for profit a boxing match …"—
not a professional boxing match or an amateur match —any boxing match. That is a dangerous ball game to get into.
While I appreciate that professional boxing is potentially dangerous—by its very nature it has to be —there are very many other sports which take place in this country where participants are regularly injured, sometimes permanently and sometimes even killed. Professional jockeys, to take one example—which is a world I know better than boxing—often suffer horrendous injuries with a fatality occurring every few years. They do it because it is their living, they know how to do it, they are professional, and they enjoy it. It is their choice.
Injuries occur regularly in all competitive sports. Indeed, if we take this Bill through tonight to a Committee stage and we accept that it has a Second Reading, are we then to ban such sports as football, horse racing, hunting and riding in general? It goes on a very long way. If they are done for profit, as the wording of this Bill says, how does one define profit? Under what circumstances is there a profit? What are the circumstances where perhaps it is not a profit but money that goes for fund-raising purposes?
I feel that much regulation could, and most definitely should be exercised in the running of professional boxing, where at the very top of the profession huge rewards are increasingly more often the order of the day. That is not always a good thing by any means.
It must be said that amateur boxing in this country is well run, well controlled and the officials ensure that on the slightest hint of any distress at all the referee stops the match. I have a little experience in this as last week I organised a boxing evening for the Staffordshire Association of Boys' Clubs. The Staffordshire Association of Boys' Clubs is affiliated to the National Association of Boys' Clubs and most of our clubs in Staffordshire box. These boys come from very deprived areas. The only thing that they have to do is to box. It is a way in which the boys can strive for a real degree of excellence in an otherwise very deprived situation. Their parents support them.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned earlier the growing concern of society regarding violence. Amateur boxing in these clubs—and the police agree with this statement—actually takes violence off the streets. These boys would otherwise have nothing to do in the evenings. They go along to
304
a gym where they are taught and regulated, they are kept under very strict supervision and they actually do something which is of benefit to the community.
Should this Bill become law as the clause now stands, all boxing for charitable causes like the National Association of Boys' Clubs and many others will be direly affected. I would have been liable to a fine last week had this Bill been law, a fine not exceeding £100,000. That cannot be right. It really does not bear thinking about. The banning of professional boxing will only drive it underground. An example given earlier was that this has not happened in Scandinavia. It will happen in this country. I know it is illegal but there is a growing movement for underground bare knuckle fighting and it happens whether we like it or not. This in itself will produce illegal betting, which is something that none of us wants. It will produce much less supervision and control. Indeed, I might be so bold as to add that it will cause a greater incidence of very serious injury. Boxers in bare knuckle fights do not box to a certain number of rounds; they box until the person they are fighting goes down on the ground and does not get back up again, whether it be five rounds, 20 rounds or 25 rounds. That is not boxing, it is barbaric, and that is what could happen.
Another thing that goes along with this Bill and the results thereof should it become law is that British fighters will still be able to train in England and in Britain. They will simply fight abroad. The increasingly large sums that they are paid now will still be made available to them. It will make no difference at all to fighting in this country.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has brought the Bill before the House, because we do then at least have a chance to discuss it. However, the Bill serves no useful purpose. It is far too wide-ranging, and to take it further would only waste precious parliamentary time. I would feel very able indeed in the future to support a Bill on further and better regulation of professional boxing, but I cannot support this Bill.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend and to your Lordships generally for mistiming my arrival. I had been informed by the Whips' Office that the debate would start at eight o'clock. The previous debate apparently collapsed much sooner than was expected.
Doctors tend to be regarded as spoilsports, wagging fingers at those who are enjoying themselves in case they may do themselves or others an injury. Thus, in your Lordships' House I have been accused by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, of being authoritarian—by implication, a cryptoStalinist—for suggesting that tobacco advertising should be banned. In the Sunday Telegraph this week the noble Lord was quoted as suggesting that the anti-smoking lobby had fascist tendencies. Some of us who advocate change in the national diet have been labelled food Leninists. The underlying reason for these attacks is not the preservation of individual

305
freedom but the very large financial interest in allowing things to continue as they are even though they may be bad for our health.
I am sure that my noble friend is right in his very short Bill not to attempt to ban boxing altogether. The British public is certainly not ready for that, although, as I hope to explain later, there is really no justification for allowing boxing to continue in any form. The prospect of earning large sums of money and becoming famous, nationally or internationally, encourages young men to take up boxing and persevere with building up their muscles very intensively, so as to inflict concussion upon their opponents, preferably before it happens to them. If the money was taken away, amateur boxing would continue, although perhaps at a lower pressure, and eventually it might become less popular as the appetite of the public was less often stimulated through the media, especially television.
I was an amateur boxer for about a year when I was aged around 17 and at school. It so happened that I matured rather earlier than average so that at the age of 16 to 17 I was rather more muscular than my contemporaries. Thus, although my opponent and I were both terrified as we faced each other in the ring, I was usually successful because I packed a heavier punch. However, I did not succeed in knocking anyone out. Boxers who are older and bigger than I was then can now train themselves to deliver a punch with tremendous force. An experimental punch by Frank Bruno has been measured and found to represent a transient blow to the head of about half a tonne. I am sorry if some of the points I make have already been made by other noble Lords.
As the noble Earl said, almost any sport involves some risk, but the injuries are not the prime object of the race, the game or the competition; in fact they interfere with that sport and may lead to the disqualification of a player if deliberately inflicted. Boxing is exceptional, in that the express object of each participant is to inflict injury on the other. The fact that gladiatorial combat has always been a popular spectacle should not alter our concern about the particular type of injury which occurs in boxing. Although it is possible to win on points and for head injuries to be minor, the real object of a boxer is to deliver as hard a blow as possible to the head of his opponent and if possible to knock him out. A knock-out is a form of concussion—when the function of the brain is so disturbed temporarily that consciousness is lost. There is now evidence that suggests that every episode of concussion, even when full recovery apparently occurs, leads to permanent loss of a variable number of brain cells. But injury to the brain can occur even without loss of consciousness.
My noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant will have described this much better than I can but the brain is a very soft jelly-like organ surrounded by a thin layer of fluid in a thick membrane—the dura mater—inside the skull. In fact it is cushioned from low velocity bumps such as one might be subject to in normal life—from bumping into lamp posts or falling down. Bit high velocity impacts or rapid changes in
306
direction, especially if there is a twisting or rotational element to the impact, as is common in boxing, result in parts of the brain being stretched or sheared against irregular ridges or shelves on the inside of the skull; for instance the edge of the foramen magnum, the opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord passes.
Injuries to the brain which commonly occur in boxing fall into two categories. There are the acute injuries, luckily rare, which are caused by bleeding into and around the brain. Nearly half of those are fatal despite modern neurosurgical techniques. We have all read the accounts of Michael Watson, who is critically ill. I am informed that he still has not regained consciousness after some weeks. Then there is the much larger group of boxers who suffer from the effects of repeated minor head injuries, some but not all resulting in concussion—loss of consciousness.
It is said that the number of true "punch drunk" ex-boxers —the medical term for that is dementia pugilistica—is less than it used to be, and that may well be so. As many noble Lords have already pointed out, boxing is more carefully supervised today. But the eventual health status of boxers remains uncertain as long as the British Boxing Board of Control declines to co-operate with the British Medical Association in allowing a full health survey of boxers to be undertaken. The technique of computer assisted tomography can now reveal evidence of brain damage well before any clinical or psychological evidence of damage is apparent. Brain damage has been found in the great majority of post mortem studies of ex-professional boxers. For the record, those should be described. I again apologise if my noble friend has already given this information.
First, there is frequent rupture of the septum pellucidum, which is the delicate double membrane of nervous tissue separating the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Secondly, there is evidence of damage to the cerebellum and the substantia nigra of the mid-brain, the parts of the brain concerned with balance and muscular co-ordination. Thirdly, there is atrophy or thinning of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain associated with intellectual functioning. This is the anatomical structure which most clearly distinguishes man from other mammals, a point on which noble Lords should reflect. Is a so-called sport which results, even when fought according to the Queensberry Rules, in damage to our most unique possession—my noble friend may have described it as a God-given possession—justifiable on any grounds?
The fourth type of damage found in the brains of ex-boxers is the microscopic appearance of what are called neuro fibrillary tangles, in which the many intricate connections of a brain cell are instead shrivelled and knotted up. That is a picture characteristic of the brain of those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease—a condition with which I believe most noble Lords will be familiar. Of course, I should stress that they are familiar with it in connection with friends and relatives, and not themselves. It is otherwise known as pre-senile dementia. Although we do not yet know the cause of that very sad affliction,

307
it is of interest that repeated injury, as happens in boxing, can produce a rather similar picture histologically.
I wonder whether it is only boxers who are injured at a boxing match. Joyce Carol Oates, a boxing writer, has described:
"The electrifying effect upon a typical fight crowd when fighting suddenly emerges out of boxing—when, for instance, a boxer's face begins to bleed—and the fight enters a new and more dangerous phase. The flash of red is the visible sign of the fight's authenticity in the eyes of many spectators and boxers are justified in being proud, as many of them are, of their scars".
I suggest that that passage implies that boxing may excite the violent and sadistic urges which lie dormant in most of us. I do not know if any studies on the behaviour of boxing crowds have been carried out but, judging by the manic way drivers behave on their way home from a motor race, I think that it is more than likely that aggressive behaviour is encouraged by witnessing the spectacle of two men hitting each other to applause.
In summary, I believe that with this Bill my noble friend has got it about right. If the financial reward goes, less young men will enter into boxing and even fewer will remain in it. The indecently large profits made by the promoters which underlie the less savoury aspects of boxing will disappear.
I hope that the Minister who is to respond will recognise the strength of the arguments which have been put forward by my noble friends Lord Walton and Lord Taylor of Gryfe and others who oppose boxing, and that he will support the Bill. I also hope that the Government will indicate that they intend eventually to phase out what I can only call a barbaric activity.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I intend to detain the House for only a short time as I am the eleventh speaker. The lure of boxing is quite simply money: it is fighting for gain. We have heard most dramatically from the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Rea about the damage which can be inflicted. Indeed, they spoke with immense authority. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for introducing this Bill.
I carried out some research and found, while looking through Hansard, that some years ago, in 1962, a similar Bill was lost. I believe that it was mentioned by the noble Lord. My research revealed that my noble kinsman Lord Rathcavan, who attended this House almost to his one hundredth year, voted against the Bill. Indeed, it was lost. My father remarked of his cousin that at school he was immensely tough. He probably was; he was born in 1883, and went to Eton, where one had to be tough in those days.
There was a splendid and tremendous heavyweight fighter, Gene Tunney, who said:
"After being unconscious for two days"—
and this was in the 1920s—
"I decided to get out while I still retained my sanity".
He was right; he got out in time. He recognised the damage which could be done both to himself and to
308
others. That was in the early days when the punch-drunk syndrome was beginning to be recognised.
I invite your Lordships to consider not our being in the position of stopping boxing but, let us suppose, for example, that there was a great public outcry because a new sport had been introduced in which people stood together in a roped enclosure and battered each other until one was unconscious and was then declared the loser. Surely there would be absolute uproar. Indeed, one might ask: what did they do? Again, the advice may be, "Let him have it hard on the point of the jaw. That does the most damage. Then give a heavy blow to the ribs or body. Finally, hit the jaw again and that will finish the man." Surely we would regard that as revolting?
A very distinguished amateur boxer on the point of becoming a professional about 30 years ago in an interview published in the now long defunct Daily Herald— which, of course, is now the Sun—remarked:
"I'm no longer a sportsman. How can you call professional boxing a sport, with all the villains and rogues who are part and parcel of the game? It's a business. A hard business all the time, a cruel business some of the time. I've no illusions about the noble art of self-defence or any of that kid stuff. That's all right for the amateurs. But from now on I'm paid to hurt. The more I hurt, the more I'm paid".
I believe that those remarks prove that your Lordships would never allow boxing as a new sport to be started, and also prove the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that professional boxing ought to be stopped.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, as your Lordships have been reminded, it is almost 30 years since the House rejected on Second Reading a similar Bill introduced by the late Lady Summerskill. The essential arguments have not changed. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, wants to add professional boxing to the list of criminal offences in this country. As I understood him, he does not seek to criminalise the organisers of amateur boxing, although the Bill in its present form may have that effect. Therefore, it must be the professional element in the sport to which he objects.
I have been a boxing fan for almost as long as I can remember. I was a pretty mediocre amateur boxer at school and at university, too often splattered with blood and horizontal. But, at its best, boxing is skilled, disciplined and sporting. Moreover, because it is a disciplined sport it does not perpetrate violence as has been suggested. Boxing does not beget violence; it channels violence.
There are features of professional boxing, as with almost any professional sport, which are less than attractive. The amateur or professional boxer would not get away with the petulant bad temper of some tennis players or the "professional foul" of football. In boxing, the simulated nastiness and needling insults which have become fashionable are supposed to sell seats and television time. The sport would be better off without such obviously bogus "hype".
Although, as I suggested, the essential arguments for and against boxing have not changed, those who enjoy and support boxing as I have always done no

309
longer seek to justify its continuation simply by pointing to other dangerous sports. We can all see that there is potential danger in all sorts of other sports, some of which extends beyond the willing participants to endanger spectators; for example, in motor racing or rescuers in mountaineering. Nor, I suggest, is it particularly helpful to compare the statistics for fatalities or serious disabling injuries in other sports ranging from cricket to horse racing.
However, there is one comparison which can and should he made in looking at this Bill. Boxing is not the only sport in this country in which the aim is directly to hurt your opponent, although I should mention in passing that some of the best boxers seldom win—or have won—by a knockout. As my noble friend Lord Addington said, it would he very strange if professional boxing was abolished and kick boxing and the whole range of so-called "martial arts" involving kicking and otherwise striking the head were left as lawful pursuits.
Professional boxing has a responsible governing body—namely, the British Boxing Board of Control —which does, just as the name suggests, control the sport. As with all governing bodies, it is always looking at ways of minimising the risks and it must know that it cannot be seen to be doing otherwise. The changes over the years, such as fewer rounds and better medical scrutiny before, during and after fights can be pointed to. It is a continuous process which has undoubtedly been galvanised by recent events and renewed criticism. The board must know that at all levels boxing requires scrupulous medical checks, vigilant referees and careful matchmaking.
Boxing must continue to look at ways in which to improve its safety record, just as any other activity must. The weight of gloves may have to be reconsidered. There may need to be better rules to monitor and prevent rapid weight loss by dehydration before a fight; and better rules to stop fights going on too long, although it can be said, without complacency, that British referees are of a high standard, and more than willing to stop a fight when, as has been said, distress or an inability to defend oneself is seen.
There have to be more rules to stop fighters going on too long. Boxers are not always the best judges of what is best for them. Perhaps there should be a form of medical insurance to avoid strain on the NHS, and more encouragement to take professional advice on finance to limit fighters' temptation to put off retirement or to make a come-back to pay tax or regain a standard of living produced in earlier years.
There is also an attractive proposal for a boxing federation to regulate the amateur and professional sport, financed largely by the professional side, which would provide a continuous medical record from schoolboy boxing upwards.
Professional boxing should be allowed to continue. It will have to live with the fact that it will be attacked when things go wrong, and that things go terribly wrong in only a minute number of cases in relation to the number of rounds boxed. It is not just that boxing produces heroes and entertainment to largely well-behaved crowds; it is not just that it has provided
310
a way out of poverty and a decent living for some of the most disadvantaged young men and their families; and it is not just that there must be a risk that professional boxing could be driven underground, with unregulated and unsupervised fights in remote places. To deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I do not know whether unregulated underground boxing continues in countries where boxing is banned, but they are obviously countries with small populations and little tradition of professional boxing.
No one wants a return to the boxing booths of the past where Jimmy Wilde, that great boxer, was reputed to have had over 700 fights. It is not just that professional boxers will go abroad to fight in countries that may have lower standards of control and supervision than the high standards we have here. The Bill is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the freedom of people to earn a living, subject to the proper controls of its governing body. Even if professional boxing is seen by some of your Lordships as "on probation", it should be left, with the assistance of a strong and independent board of control, to keep its own house in order.
There may be a strong case for making unregulated boxing illegal. There may also be a need for legislation to enable the board of control to have greater powers so that it is less inhibited by the legal doctrine of restraint of trade. Those are matters which may be looked at again, but not in the context of this flawed Bill.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe has done us a favour by giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. I wish to make it clear that, although I am speaking from the Dispatch Box, I am not speaking on behalf of my party. Like other parties, it does not have an official policy on boxing. My view of the subject will form the basis of what I shall say.
I do not cavil at any of the medical evidence that has been produced which shows that boxing is a dangerous and damaging sport. I do not take too seriously the figures produced by my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa. He said that only two people have been killed while boxing and that shows that the sport is not that dangerous. We cannot take that as an indication that the sport is safe, because we are talking about the number of injuries, not fatalities.
One should watch some of the rugby league matches, because I think that is the most dangerous sport. The game has become so demanding that some of the clubs are now asking for a pool of four substitutes rather than two. Many men are being seriously injured. One has only to think of two 16-stone men running towards each other at full tilt who meet head on. For instance, just two or three weeks ago the English captain Ellery Hanley had his jaw smashed in a number of places. The least said about what happened the better.
We are not talking about just one sport. It is well known that there are numerous lads who will be

311
sitting in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives because they have had their necks broken playing rugby. That does not receive the publicity that boxing receives.
My noble friend Lord Rea said that the Bill might reach fruition. I have to tell him that only three weeks ago in another place in answer to a question from a friend and colleague of mine who happens to be in the Gallery, the Prime Minister categorically refused even to consider banning professional boxing. That is an indication that even if we give the Bill a fair wind and a Second Reading, it will be stopped in its tracks at some time.
There is no question but that there are areas where matters could be improved. I wish to give my opinion as to why more boxers are being hurt now than in the past. I have not watched live professional boxing for a long time. I was weaned on professional boxing at Belle Vue, Manchester when there were some great boxers in the area. There was the great trio of McAvoy, Brown and King. I have seen the great boxers from Liverpool, including Nel Tarleton and Dick Burke, and I have seen some of the great Scottish boxers such as Jackie Patterson and Jim Brady. They were all skilled boxers.
I suspect that many of the head injuries being caused in boxing are due to the fact that the boxers of today—I do not want to appear to be wallowing in nostalgia—are not as skilful as the boxers of the past. The main reason for that is that the route to the top is quicker. Boxers have a few fights. They gain a reputation for heavy punching rather than skilful boxing, and in no time they are high money earners. They are taken over by the promoters and some of the matches that are arranged have to be seen to be believed.
There was a heavyweight contest in this country two or three weeks ago in which the participants were Frank Bruno, a person for whom I have a great respect, and another heavyweight. The inequality of that match was so great that had it been subject to the trade descriptions legislation the promoters would have been prosecuted. Injuries could be avoided if the BBBC ensures that both contestants are similar and that the match is not a one-horse race, designed only to produce a scenario to enable the following boxing match to be arranged with a much bigger fee for the winning participant. That position should be looked at.
I take the point about the medical evidence and doctors' opinions being ignored. I understand that the board's chief medical adviser advised it strongly not to give Frank Bruno back his licence to fight. There was a previous heavyweight Gary Mason, who experienced similar circumstances. He had a double operation for detached retinas. Anyone knows that after an operation of that kind, a tap on the head can destroy the sight of the eye. When the board's medical advisers say that a boxer is not fit to box he should not be given his licence. If the board does not have that power, it should make overtures to your Lordships' House and another place to obtain such a power.
Another point is that the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Walton, referred to the advances that have
312
been made technically in examinations of people for brain damage. I should like to see all boxers, irrespective of the number of their fights, regularly examined to see whether they are fit to continue in the profession. Members of your Lordships' House have talked about the tragedy of Michael Watson and the injuries he suffered in the fight, but two fights before that one, not such a long time earlier, he was involved in a fight for the world championship with a West Indian lad named McCallum. He was literally hammered for about 11 rounds and was finally knocked out. I suggest that that type of beating probably has a far worse effect. I am not talking about the later injuries to Watson but the effects were far worse than would normally have arisen from a quick knock out. I wonder whether Watson had recovered from the effects of that terrific pounding before he was allowed to fight Chris Eubank for the first time. This is another area which should be examined.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to people drying out. If a boxer fights at the lower weights, a flyweight of eight stone who is four or five pounds overweight the day before is squeezed as dry as though he has been through the old-fashioned wringer. I have seen world champions, and one fight involving a great champion, Jackie Paterson, when he was six pounds overweight the day before the fight. When he was finally put into the ring to defend his title, he could not stand up because he was so weak. I can see no justification for those fights taking place because severe damage is being done and beatings are inflicted on people who have had to make a certain weight in order to take part in the fight. They have then suffered the consequences.
Unfortunately, the promoters are not interested as long as they fill the halls and sell the seats. That is their objective. I have watched some of the great fighters of the past and the objective of each of them is to knock out his opponent. Quite a number of people who have held world championships at various weights over the years did not have a knock-out punch at all. I can think of one, the lad I mentioned from Liverpool, Nel Tarleton. I do not remember him knocking anyone out, but he won hundreds of fights. There was also a featherweight just after the war in America, a fellow named Willie Pep, who hardly knocked anyone out.
These were all clever men who knew how to avoid punishment. One of the sad facts about today's fighters is that, if we watch them, we can see that they appear to think that there is nothing wrong in keeping on hitting their heads on the other fellow's gloves as long as they get close enough to deliver their own punches. I believe that standards have fallen.
We have had a good debate, I hope that it will engender in the boxing board the desire for a reconsideration of the situation and of its powers to act. Where it has the power to act in a positive manner, it should not defy its medical advisers but should give an indication that their advice will be totally accepted and not qualified. Otherwise, what is the point of having medical advisers on such a scale?
The board should also have the power, which it does not have at present, to decide when a match is a

313
mismatch and one boxer is far inferior to the other fellow who is being thrown in against him and may suffer a beating in consequence.
All these points must be considered. Enough has been said by Members of your Lordships' House to give the boxing board cause for serious thought. I have no doubt that the board must in some way diminish the power of promoters in the boxing game and make sure that the board is able to control it in an objective manner.
I shall not vote against the Bill although I am not particularly in favour of it. I cannot see a situation in a society like ours where one could get away with banning boxing, as the Bill suggests. It may well be that if it reaches the Committee stage we can have a further debate with people from outside your Lordships' House who are interested in the game. They may suggest amendments which may be extremely helpful to the game.
The boxing board itself should consider what has been said by various Members of your Lordships' House. If the board's own house needs putting in order and it requires additional powers to do that, it could let us know quickly. I do not believe that it will find your Lordships' House and another place wanting in that respect. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord obtains a Second Reading of the Bill. Then perhaps we may debate the matter further in Committee.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for the manner and the obvious sincerity with which he presented his Bill this evening. I assure your Lordships that the Government share his concern for the safety of boxers. However, we do not believe that the sport should be banned.
Boxing as a sport has a history stretching back over hundreds of years and it is without question part of this country's sporting heritage. It is an established and properly regulated sport at both amateur and professional level and has a wide following among the public. In addition to the 1,000 or so licensed professional boxers in Britain, there are an estimated 35,000 participants of the amateur code. These individuals, at all levels of skill and expertise, share a common love of the sport. They devote considerable amounts of time and energy to their chosen activity. The Bill before us would effectively prevent them from participating in the sport of their choice. It would ban boxing wherever a match was organised for profit, regardless of whether the boxers themselves stand to gain financially. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that, in a free society, we need to think very carefully indeed about introducing such measures.
In presenting his Bill, the noble Lord has placed much emphasis on the safety of boxing and its potential effect on an individual's health. Of course, in any activity—and particularly in those involving physical contact—there is always the possibility of accident or injury, no matter how strict the safeguards
314
are. But I believe that a careful assessment of the evidence suggests that his fears are unfounded and, consequently, that this Bill is unwarranted.
Perhaps I may first deal with fatalities. In giving my statistics, I shall be interested to read tomorrow whether my list matches that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooks; my list is shorter. The figures supplied by coroners to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that there have been only three deaths in England and Wales from boxing since 1986 and— happily—none since 1987. By means of comparison, in the same period there have been 62 deaths in motor sports; 59 in air sports; 48 in mountaineering and climbing; 36 in ball games; and 23 in horse riding. It can be seen from this that boxing presents only a very minor threat to life, especially when compared with other hazardous activities where safety is of paramount importance. If we are to ban boxing on the grounds of the risk it poses to life, where are we to stop? Perhaps we should ban cricket too, on the grounds that the same number of individuals died while participating in cricket matches over the same period!
Many noble Lords had anecdotes and personal reminiscences of fighting and watching fighting which I cannot match, having only once broken my jaw when playing "Kick the Can".
If these figures suggest that the risk to life has been exaggerated, then I am pleased to say that the picture is similar when we examine the statistics for injuries obtained as a result of boxing. I draw your Lordships' attention to the results of a recent analysis by the Sports Council into sports accidents, which was derived from the general household surveys of 1987, 1988, and 1989. Despite a small sample there was remarkable consistency across the three years, which allows one to accept the average figures for the three years with some confidence. A standardised risk factor for each sport was calculated by representing the number of sports accidents as a factor of the number of occasions in which individuals participated in each sport. Sports were then placed in one of four categories, ranging from high to negligible risk. The salient finding was that boxing was placed in the negligible risk category.
Another issue that has been raised tonight is the long-term damage to an individual's health that might be caused by boxing. The Government have no hesitation in accepting that, sadly, there are instances where long-term medical problems can be attributable to boxing. Careful monitoring of boxers' health can reduce these risks. But boxing in any event is not unique in this respect. There are, regrettably, a large number of people who suffer from injuries obtained from participating in different sports.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, blamed the Whips' Office for his lateness in coming to the Chamber. I am sorry if the noble Lord was ill-advised, but I hope that he will understand that the matter he complained of is his responsibility and not that of the Whips' Office. The noble Lord used a lot of medical terms when telling the House about the dangers that boxers could face. However, he did not give much indication of how

315
often such symptoms appeared. Therefore I did not feel he was very clear about the kind of medical risk that boxers face.
The simple fact is that there is a risk attached to any challenging activity. If this was removed, then much of the challenge itself would disappear. We live in a free society and an individual has the right to participate in the activity of his choice so long as it is within the law.
Those are the facts. In the light of these, it is difficult to see how the measures proposed by the noble Lord are warranted. If boxing were to be banned because of its perceived dangers, then are we also to ban other activities where death may result? I think not.
Despite that, I would like to emphasise that the Government are not complacent on the issue of boxing safety. They believe strongly that the utmost attention needs to be paid to safety not just in boxing but in all sports where risk is a factor. It may be helpful at this stage to remind your Lordships that the Government do not control boxing, or indeed any other sport in this country. That is the responsibility of the appropriate governing bodies. In the case of professional boxing, this responsibility is borne by the British Boxing Board of Control. For the amateur code it is the Amateur Boxing Association. Together, these organisations provide the framework within which tournaments are sanctioned.
Both the ABA and the BBBC are acutely aware of their responsibilities in protecting the health of boxers. They recognise that boxing, like any activity involving physical contact, has an element of risk attached to it. What is paramount is that the risk is controllable and containable. Medical safeguards are already in place to protect the health and safety of boxers before, during and after tournaments. These include full medical examinations with a detailed list of conditions which would preclude a boxer from holding a licence; brain scans; specialist examinations; and automatic suspensions and further medical examinations in the event of a boxer losing within the scheduled distance.
These safeguards underline the importance attached by the boxing authorities to medical issues. However, it is essential that these standards are kept under constant review and there is always scope for further improvement. The Government recognise this and have played their part in this process. Indeed, my honourable friend the Minister responsible for sport met the BBBC and a number of medical specialists to discuss this very issue as recently as October. As a result of that meeting, the BBBC has recently announced a number of significant improvements to its existing regulations. I believe that was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in his opening speech.
Some have also voiced objections to the sport on moral grounds. The thought of two people participating in a boxing match is abhorrent to some people. It is argued, for example, that boxing is the only sport where participants deliberately inflict injury upon each other. In responding to this claim, I would draw your Lordships' attention to one very salient point. Here I take issue with the noble Lord who said
316
that boxing is the only sport that involves deliberate violence. Boxing is not the only sport which emphasises combative elements involving physical contact. All the martial arts are similar in nature. That point was made forcefully by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Meston. Boxing has been portrayed as a sport of brute force. We believe that boxing is a contest of skill where points are awarded in every round for defence as well as for strikes.
The argument has also been advanced that it is uncivilised for spectators to derive pleasure from watching boxing. Noble Lords who hold that view are entitled to their opinion, as is every individual. However, the Bill before us would remove the right of individual choice. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, and other speakers have said that boxing glamorizes and perpetuates violence. Boxing follows a set of rules and safeguards, and rewards skill and courage. There is no evidence that I know of—I do not think that any such evidence has been put forward tonight—which shows that boxing propagates violence in society.
Let me make some other relevant points clear. The participants in a boxing match do so of their own volition —this was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, and others; they do so within the strictest of medical safeguards imposed by reputable governing bodies; they do so within a sporting code that places the emphasis on skill rather than aggression and which contains inbuilt safeguards for the boxer. Moreover, boxers pose no threat to the safety of the general public. I believe that to deprive them of their right to participate in the sport of their choice, within the stringent safeguards imposed by the boxing authorities, is a dangerous precedent and a serious threat to civil liberties. Moreover, to do so would only serve to drive boxing underground—as has been said—and to deprive the boxers themselves of the very safeguards designed to protect them.
In concluding, I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the immense and deep-rooted popularity of boxing in this country. A recent contest was watched by a truly massive television audience of around 13 million people. That represents around one out of every three adults.
Pugilism took hold of the nation's consciousness in the 18th and 19th centuries during the heyday of the prize-fighter. The game was cleaned up in the 1800s, culminating in the drafting of the Queensberry Rules, which underpin boxing to this day. Our boxing administrators were in the lead then, as they remain now, in doing their utmost to ensure that the sport is as safe as possible. The safeguards imposed by the BBBC contrast vividly with the unsavoury conditions in unlicensed boxing tournaments, which only a fortnight ago were exposed in a television documentary programme.
I hope that what I have said will have persuaded your Lordships that the Government are by no means complacent on the matter of boxing safety. Boxing, like countless other activities, will never be absolutely safe. But, given the evident determination of the boxing authorities to make the sport as safe as possible, we feel that the proposal to ban boxing is both unwarranted and unreasonable.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I believe that every noble Lord who has spoken has declared his allegiance. It would be difficult for me to convert noble Lords to a different point of view. However, I feel there are one or two points that require further clarification. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, on his work with boys' clubs which is admirable work. But why is boxing justified in those clubs? There is a great deal of constructive work and sport which can be organised in boys' clubs that does not involve introducing them to a sport such as boxing.
Thy Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, boxing is introduced into boys' clubs because such sports as tennis and squash are not played in the deprived areas where these boys live.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I give full marks to the noble Earl once again for his work. However, I believe that it is not necessary to introduce boxing into boys' clubs. In this Bill I am dealing with professional boxing. Professional boxing is far removed from the boxing that is organised in boys' clubs. If the noble Earl feels that the Bill is badly drafted and does not cover some of the aspects of the sport that he would like to see covered, he has an excellent remedy in seeking to give the Bill a Second Reading. If it receives a Second Reading, the noble Earl will be able to table amendments in Committee. I hope that he will pass through the Lobby to that end.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is true that there are other martial arts. However, let us start with boxing as it is clearly defined. If I had introduced a Bill to cover all aspects of physical contact sports, your Lordships would have been rightly critical of me. I am dealing with professional boxing and I seek to ban it. That is what the Bill is concerned with. That should be clearly understood.
It was said that we must not pass a law—
Lord Addington: My Lords, I referred to other full contact, professional martial arts which are on the increase. If they involve kicking, they are more dangerous. The Bill does not address those aspects. That is why I raised the point and that is why the Bill is not appropriate.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, again, I shall welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in the Lobby tonight so that he may improve the Bill in the manner that he suggests by introducing other martial arts which obviously concern him deeply.
Several speakers have said, "Don't ban professional boxing. It will drive it underground". It is a dangerous doctrine to suggest that we should not pass a law because some people will defy it. Once you give in to that kind of view, life becomes extremely difficult. If we ban professional boxing, it should not be too difficult to ensure that it is policed accordingly.
I was interested in the delightful description of the so-called noble art mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord
318
Meston, who obviously enjoys his boxing. My neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, referred to a speech that I made in an earlier debate on this subject in which one of the great British heavyweights of the time, Billy Walker, was quoted as saying:
"I've no illusions about the noble art of self-defence or any of that kid stuff. That's all right for the amateurs. But from now on I'm paid to hurt. The more I hurt, the more I'm paid".
On the same occasion—the last time that I raised this matter—I referred to a newspaper report about a fight involving a man called Tony Sibson. The report was simply headed, "Bloodbath". It went on to say:
"Tony Sibson retained European middleweight title at Wembley last night with a breathtaking, awe-inspiring display of primeval savagery".
That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about all this stuff about the skill of boxing. We are talking about real life boxing.
When I entered Glasgow City Council, one of my fellow councillors was the doctor for the Board of Control. He took me to one or two fights. We used to go in before the fights and look at the boys who were about to appear. They were trained to the limit. The doctor passed them as being fit to enter the contest. Some minutes later, those boys would be carried back to the dressing room, eyes closed and blood flowing from them.
That is not a noble art. We have no right to inflict that kind of punishment on other human beings. I strongly believe that our lives, the intricate mechanisms of our brains and our intellects are God-given and that we have a responsibility to use those faculties in his service. It demeans people and is uncivilised conduct for people to knock one another unconscious. Perhaps we should look at the matter this way: if two men were to do outside the ring what they did in the ring before 13 million spectators—that was the figure quoted—they would be arrested and put in prison for assault. However, it is in the ring and people pay money to see those two young athletes punch each other unconscious. That is uncivilised. It is a black mark on our society.
If noble Lords believe that the Bill is not perfect, I encourage them to come into the Lobby and to make it perfect in Committee. They must face this moral challenge: are we entitled to perpetuate those acts? I hope that as many noble Lords as possible will enter the Lobby to support the Bill.
9.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a second time?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 20.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Kagan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

319

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Mancroft, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Meston, L.

Crathorne, L.

Monson, L.

Greenway, L.

O'Hagan, L.

320

Reay, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Seccombc, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second disagreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  ASYLUM BILL
  ASYLUM BILL
  DUMPING OF OIL AND CHEMICALS AT SEA: PREVENTION
  DUMPING OF OIL AND CHEMICALS AT SEA: PREVENTION
  SCOTLAND: NHS COSTS OF EMERGENCY TREATMENT
  SCOTLAND: NHS COSTS OF EMERGENCY TREATMENT