Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 980: debated on Wednesday 5 March 1980

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Fo Commons

Wednesday 5 March 1980

The House met at half-past Two o'clock


[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions


Fishing Industry


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his proposals to help the fishing industry.

The Government are fully aware of the industry's current difficulties and are urgently considering the requests that have been made for financial help. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

Will the Secretary of State be a little more explicit? The industry is becoming progressively more discouraged, more disappointed and more uncertain of its future. The crisis has now been going on for months. It is not only a matter of financial help for the industry. The market for fish has been totally disrupted and the conservation measures are not taking effect. Can the Secretary of State give a definite date on which the fishing industry will know its fate?

I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I agree that there is great difficulty and uncertainly in the industry. As he will know, the ultimate fate, as he puts it, depends upon a satisfactory common fisheries policy being negotiated. That is the principal part of our policy. As I have already said, we shall make an announcement as soon as possible about whether anything can be done in the meantime.

In view of the meeting of all branches of the fishing industry in Aberdeen on 15 March, will my right hon Friend give some indication before that date whether something will be done in terms of providing temporary aid for the industry? Otherwise, there is real danger that the frustrations and anxieties in the fishing industry will boil over at that public meeting.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that it will be possible to say something useful about that before the meeting.

The Secretary of State was apprised by the industry almost three months ago of the predicament caused by the imports of fish that have disrupted the markets. How can he say this afternoon that the Government are considering the position urgently? Clearly the Government have been lax and slow in coming to the necessary decision not only to restore stability but to provide financial aid to the industry in its hour of need.

As I think the hon. Gentleman will know, it is only just over a fortnight since we received the plans which the industry suggested we should consider. To have considered those plans in this time scale would be pretty quick work.

Will my hon. Friend accept that with the removal of distant waters, restrictions on catches, the continuing uncertainty about the CFP, and cheap subsidised imports, the economics of the fishing industry have gone totally crazy? Does he accept that, unless he gives financial help to the fishing industry now, there will soon not be a fishing industry to help?

I agree with my hon. Friend that he fishing industry is going through an extremely difficult time. I assure him that the factors that he has mentioned are very much those that we are taking into account in our considerations.

In view of the urgency and concern, will the Secretary of State give a pledge that he will announce positive aid for the industry soon and not wait until the conclusion of negotiations on the CFP, which may never happen? Can aid be given quickly?

I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says. I am not thinking of postponing any announcement until after negotiations on the CFP have taken place. I hope to make a substantial announcement before that time.

Small Businesses


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he will meet representatives of small businesses.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are including in our future programmes further meetings with individual small business men and further visits to small companies. My hon. Friends at the Department of Industry keep us informed of their regular meetings with small business organisations.

When they meet small business men, will my right hon. and hon. Friends pay particular attention to the employment potential in small businesses and do everything possible to eliminate the disincentives to employment in that sector, especially in rural areas, considering that the fishing industry is a small business?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government have already taken a number of steps to make life more attractive for small businesses and to encourage more people to go into small businesses. We are fully aware of their employment potential.

Surely the Minister is aware that everything that the Conservative Party said before the election about what it would do for small businesses has been more than negatived by the fact that they have to borrow at the rate of 20 per cent. upwards. Will he and his colleagues at the Departments of Trade and Industry therefore take steps to make cheaper loan facilities available to small businesses?

It is as much in the interests of small businesses as of anyone else that the rate of inflation should be reduced. We are aware of the difficulties that interest rates are causing, but we are sure that the banks will consider helping their small business customers in these circumstances.

Since small firms, particularly in Scotland, in both the manufacturing and the service sectors, have been very hard hit, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, by interest charges and by VAT increases in the last Budget, is the hon. Gentleman yet in a position to make an announcement about what he proposes to do now that he has decided not to renew the small firms employment subsidy?

Secondly, will the Under-Secretary take an early opportunity to talk to the CBI's small firms section and suggest that the biggest help that the major companies in this country could give to small firms would be to pay their bills rather more quickly than they do at present?

The small firms employment subsidy was the least cost-effective of the special measures, and the resources released by eliminating that subsidy are being put to better use elsewhere. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the larger companies. We are actively encouraging them to respond as much as they can to assist new businesses, and small businesses in particular.

Will my hon. Friend point out to small businesses that the high interest rates that they face are a direct result of the profligate expansion of the money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement pursued by the previous Government in their last two years in office? Will he reassure them of the present Government's commitment to bringing these matters under control, so as to create a climate in which small businesses can prosper?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Government's first priority is to reduce the rate of inflation. I say to Opposition Members that in just 10 months we have done much more for small businesses—such as easing employment legislation, reducing the number of forms to be filled in, and creating tax incentives—than the Labour Party did in five years, remembering the increased national insurance contributions and the abolition without warning of the regional employment premium.

In the search for employment through small businesses, has the hon. Gentleman seen the emigration figures? We are exporting people, rather than technology, when one considers the skills available. Is the Minister aware that we are exporting mining engineers? Does not he think that this is a scandal, bearing in mind the reserves of coal in this country, which are unparalleled in the world?

Unfortunately, the coal mining industry is not a small business. Therefore, I think that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman should be raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Unemployed Young Persons


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people are currently unemployed in Scotland; which percentage of young people this represents; and what actions he intends to take to remedy this situation.

22,400 young people under 18, representing 12.2 per cent. of the age group, were registered as unemployed in Scotland on 10 January. The Government's first priorities are to reduce the level of inflation and establish a sound and prosperous economy in which industry can expand, creating more jobs for young people and adults alike. In the meantime, we are expanding the youth opportunities programme to provide substantially more places for unemployed young people in 1980–81.

In many areas, particularly those designated as being in greatest need, youth unemployment is reaching frightening proportions. What specific alternatives to emigration, to joining the Armed Forces for the wrong reasons, or even turning to crime, is the Minister prepared to offer by positive discrimination in setting up programmes to create employment for these young people?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will at least to some extent be glad to know that there is no substantial difference between last year's numbers compared with the numbers that I have just given to the House. We shall not be satisfied until the number of young people unemployed has been considerably reduced. However, I have already told the hon. Gentleman that there will be provision for additional places in the youth opportunities programme—an additional 6,500 places this year compared with the number of places in the previous year.

Is the Minister aware that his claim of additional provision is nonsensical in my constituency, with the abolition of the employment transfer scheme? Will he at least see that something is done by allowing some flexibility in the 12-month unemployment rule and the STEP?

The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, made representations in individual cases. I assure him that individual cases will continue to be looked at with sympathy by my Department.

Does my hon. Friend realise that many young people would be better qualified in the labour market if their technical and business studies skills had been developed at school? Will he urge officials in the Scottish Education Department to urge schools to concentrate on those subjects and not on subjects which have little or no value in the labour market?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the greatest disappointments that faces young people today is to leave school and find that they are not properly equipped for work. I shall certainly bear in mind the points that my hon. Friend has raised.

Is the Minister aware that more young people will become unemployed if the BBC goes ahead with its disgraceful proposal to scrap the BBC symphony orchestra and virtually to decimate the educational programmes on BBC Scotland? Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to intervene personally with the BBC governors tomorrow to stop this proposal and say to BBC Scotland "Think again"?

—but my right hon. Friend and I are fully aware of the difficulties being experienced over these matters and we shall keep them under review.

Is the Minister aware that the greatest disappointment facing young people today is that they leave school fully equipped to take up employment, but because of the Minister's employment policies cannot get a job? How does the Minister justify the contention that the training opportunities programme is being expanded, bearing in mind that after Question Time today the House will debate the statement by his right hon. Friend that the programme is being contracted? Is the Minister one of the "wets", or one of the "dries"? It is about time that he made up his mind.

The youth opportunities programme is being expanded. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to know that, despite the difficult economic situation, school leavers are being absorbed into employment or training at about the normal rate.

Scottish Cbi And Scottish Tuc


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans next to meet the representatives of the Scottish Confederation of British Industry and the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

I have met representatives of both bodies several times since taking office and have made it clear that I am prepared to meet both bodies at any time they wish.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to both sides of Scottish industry the need for a proper public appreciation of the role of multinationals in Scotland? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In particular, will he emphasise that, taken as a whole, multinationals have an excellent record in maintaining and expanding employment in Scotland, despite some of the totally unfounded allegations that were made during the recent debate on the Scottish economy by some of the particularly ignorant hard-line Left-wingers on the Opposition Back Benches?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of multinational companies to the Scottish economy. They provide about 100,000 jobs in Scotland and account for about 16 per cent. of our manufacturing output. I should have thought that that was evidence enough of how important they are.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the CBI and the STUC, will he tell them the number of jobs that will come from America following the visit of his hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry? Will he also tell them the situation concerning the Scottish Development Agency, bearing in mind the disgruntlement that prevails in the SDA as a result of the present circumstances? Will he then tell them also that there will be a decided increase in unemployment before the year ends?

I am not sure of the point that the hon. Gentleman was making about the SDA, but I am grateful for his support for my hon. Friend's excellent efforts when he went to America to interest firms in coming to Scotland.

I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's raising now the matter of the unemployment position. He will recall that during the first three years in office of his Government unemployment rose by immense numbers every year, and from 146,000 in February 1976 to 196,000 two years later. I should have thought that a period of silence from the Labour Party would be appropriate.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the STUC, will he raise with it the latest directive from the Transport and General Workers Union, which forbids members of that union in haulage firms to cross any picket line even though the haulage companies are not carrying steel or steel products? Is he aware that there have been lay-offs in Scotland over the past few days as a result of that appalling directive? When unemployment in Scotland is so high, is it not especially bad, that further jobs should be put at risk by such union action?

I agree with my hon. Friend that any actions that reduce employment in Scotland should be resisted. I have heard that the alleged instruction on picketing has been sent out. I am glad to tell the House that, thanks to the excellent efforts of the police, everyone who has wished to cross a picket line has been able to do so. The police have done a marvellous job in keeping order in difficult situations.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the two bodies, will he place on the agenda for discussion the implications of the Finniston report on engineering in so far as it concerns Scotland? In addition, will he place on the agenda the future of Scotland's shipbuilding industry, which is in a parlous state? Will he make clear to them the Government's specific views on the scrapand-build policy?

We are already having discussions with all interested parties on the Finniston report. It is a most important report, which should be studied carefully. The shipbuilding industry is having a difficult time, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is coping extremely well with an extremely difficult situation. That reflects great credit on all who work in the industry.

Convention Of Scottish Local Authorities


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he plans to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

My right hon. Friend is looking forward to addressing the annual conference of the convention at Dumfries on 28 March.

As even the political friends of the Conservative Party in local councils in Scotland are finding it difficult to cut services, increase charges and at the same time hold down rates to an acceptable level, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity at the convention conference to confess that it is impossible for local authorities to make savings without large rate increases and that the huge rate increases that will be experienced throughout Scotland are a direct result of Tory policy?

What is significant about the rate increases announced so far is that, on average, those in Conservative authorities are far less than those in Labour-controlled ones. For example, only today the Conservative-controlled Dundee district council announced a reduced rate of 2p in the pound for next year.

My hon. Friend said that most of the unacceptably high rate increases had come from Labour councils. When he meets COSLA, will he take the opportunity to discuss with it ways of placing a ceiling on future rate rises?

My right hon. Friend has indicated that he will discuss with the convention whether any new powers are appropriate for the control of expenditure. Lothian regional council has been the one authority to plan for growth. My right hon. Friend has withdrawn his general permission. In future it will be required to submit to the Secretary of State any specific proposal, which will be rigorously examined before consent is considered.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with the convention a reallocation of the rate support grant formula so that local authorities, such as those on the Borders, do not find themselves having to cut into the muscle of local government services while other authorities are able to cut into some fat?

We are having a continuing discussion with the convention on the distribution of the rate support grant formula. Wherever possible we like to meet the views of the convention if it can reach agreement on the proper criteria.

Is it not shameful to have to confess that some of the Government's friends in local authorities are keeping back rate increases? Does not that merely represent the fact that there are A-level economists in the Cabinet and O-level economists in Tory local authorities? Are they not merely aiding and abetting the Government to smash the social welfare of the Scottish people?

The inherent profligacy of the Labour Party was well represented in that question. The hon. Gentleman should recollect that the former Labour leader of the Lothian regional council resigned because he believed that cuts of up to 15 per cent. could be made in its expenditure without affecting existing vital services.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that for authorities which have been spendthrift in the past it is relatively easy to make significant expenditure cuts, and that for authorities that have been careful with ratepayers' money it is especially difficult to make cuts, although they try hard? Will he ensure that more help is given to careful authorities in future rate support grant settlements?

My hon. Friend is correct. He highlights a real problem. For the very reason to which he has drawn attention, about £100 million was switched from the resources element to the needs element in the distribution formula that was applied this year, so that profligate authorities should not benefit from their profligacy.


On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time, when we only reached question 13, the Under-Secretary of State linked question 5 with question 30, which happened to have been tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). I am sure that we all sympathise with Scottish Office Ministers in their lonely vigil, but would you like to express a view on the Minister's ploy to accommodate a tame Tory Back Bencher?

I should not like to express a personal opinion, but, with regard to the number of questions asked, if hon. Members will look at Hansard tomorrow and see the length of the supplementary questions, they will understand why we could not reach many more questions.

Education (Assisted Places Scheme)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet reached any conclusions since the publication of the discussion document on assisted places at fee-paying schools.

I shall not be in a position to reach conclusions or to make a statement until I have considered the response to the consultative paper, which I expect to receive up to 31 March.

What possible justification is there for cutting public expenditure on local authority schools, which cater for more than 95 per cent. of the children of Scotland, while proposing to put £5 million per year of public money into the pockets of a minority of parents who want to buy extra privilege, real or imaginary, by sending their children to private fee-paying selected schools? Would it not be better to spend £5 million of public money to employ an extra 1,000 teachers to improve the education opportunities of children in local authority schools?

There is every justification for extending choice in both the State and private sectors of education, especially when the Government scheme will give a choice to lower income families.

The Minister talks of extending choice. How does he square that expression with the warning given by the Rector of the Grove Academy, Dundee that certain third-year pupils may not be allowed to take the subjects of their choice if staffing cuts go ahead as planned this year?

I am most surprised by that remark. Local authorities in Tayside and elsewhere are capable of ensuring that the requirements of school children in Scotland will be adequately met. Incidentally, the funds made available by my right hon. Friend will allow an increase in expenditure per pupil in the coming year.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the assisted places scheme, plus the consultative document on parental choice issued this week, represent a considerable advance in giving parents some control over the school their children attend? When he comes to write the legislation, will he ensure that authorities cannot get round parental wish by dropping the nominal rolls of schools below their realistic level?

I take my hon. Friend's point. The silence of the Labour Party reflects its complacency about Scotland's education system and its refusal to make any advance in Scottish education over the previous five years.

May I make it clear to the Minister once again that when the Labour Party returns to power it will end the assisted places scheme? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the money for the assisted places scheme is being taken from the normal education budget? How can he justify that action when he is slaughtering education provision throughout every education authority in Scotland?

I repeat what I said earlier. We are increasing expenditure per pupil in the public school sector during the coming year. That proves our contention that resources for the assisted places scheme are being provided quite separately.

Thermal Insulation Grants


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of thermal insulation grants for local authority houses in Scotland.

The capital expenditure consents for 1980–81 included in full the sums requested by local authorities for their insulation programmes, and the loan charges on these will rank for housing support grant.

Individual tenants remain eligible for grant under the Homes Insulation Scheme 1978 if they wish to carry out the work themselves.

Is the Minister aware that 50 per cent. of council houses have not yet been insulated? Does he agree that that is urgent work if we are to observe the energy conservation programme? If the work is not done, the Government's energy conservation programme will be damaged.

The hon. Gentleman appears not to have listened to what I said. I said that local authorities requests have been met in full within the programme. Over 100,000 houses have been dealt with since the scheme began. Nothing that the Government are doing will prevent local authorities from continuing with the scheme at the level that they have requested.

Will the Minister resist any attempt to reduce the amount of money that might be available for domestic insulation, as it is an essential part of energy policy in Scotland that we improve our energy usage rather than fabricate massive and unnecessary power stations, such as that at Torness? Will the hon. Gentleman, in collaboration with the Department of Energy, take steps to expand existing schemes, rather than contract them as the Department of the Environment seems intent upon doing?

I can speak only for the Scottish Office. The emphasis that we place on these issues is reflected in the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg).

Will the Minister confirm, in clear, unequivocal terms, that the apparent attempt by the Department of the Environment to make cuts in this vital area will be resisted by the Minister and by his colleagues at the Scottish Office? Does he agree that such action would have severe consequences for the thermal insulation industry and for those families on low incomes who stand to benefit the most from insulation? We deserve a clear statement from the Minister that he will not follow the disastrous path which the Department of the Environment appears to be taking.

I can speak only for the Scottish Office. Requests from local authorities for thermal insulation assistance have been met in full for 1980–81.

Rate Support Grant


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Lothian regional council about the effect of the rate support grant settlement on the level of rates.

I have received no written representation from the council, but members of the council whom I met recently expressed opinions on the subject.

Why does not the Secretary of State come clean? Why does he not admit that those members have expressed the opinion that over half of the rate increase in Lothian results from his cash limits? Those cash limits pretend that the rate of inflation is 13 per cent. Another one-third of that rate increase results from his cut in the rate support grant. Does he not agree that less than 10 per cent. relates to new growth? Is it not therefore sheer brass neck on the part of the Secretary of State to threaten to withhold capital borrowing consent from the Lothian region for a rate increase which is almost entirely the result of his own policies?

Those figures do not bear any relation to the facts. I have not yet received official figures from the council, but according to press reports it intends to spend no less than £34 million more than the guidelines suggest. Almost every other authority in Scotland has carefully adhered to those guidelines. If we are discussing opinions, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have taken careful note—as the rest of us have—of the strongly expressed opinions of ratepayers in Lothian. They will be placed in extremely difficult circumstances as a result of that authority's profligacy.

In answering the local authorities which have made representations about the large increase in rates in Scotland, has the Secretary of State suggested any alteration to the grants system? It does nothing to reward local authorities which have been economical. Does not the Secretary of State agree that it encourages authorities to spend large amounts of money on capital developments of doubtful utility, because the Government pay for most of them?

I agree that there is a problem. We have altered the ratio of the resources to the needs element in the rate support grant this year in order to meet at least part of that problem. That is one of the subjects that I am discussing with COSLA to see whether any improvements can be agreed.

Will my right hon. Friend invite the Lothian regional council to take a crash course in budgeting from the Grampian regional council? Does my right hon. Friend realise that that council has managed not only to achieve significant cuts in public expenditure but to increase the provision of social services in that area?

I appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend. However, we might extend his suggestion a little wider. Perhaps Lothian regional council should attend a course run by all the Conservative-controlled authorities in Scotland. It is clear that, on average, those authorities are much better at keeping rates down than are Labour-controlled authorities.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the punitive action that he has taken against Lothian regional council will make no difference to the level of rates during the coming year? Will he admit that if he stops any capital project in the forthcoming year, the immediate effect will be to harm the local construction industry and add to the large numbers of people who are already unemployed in that industry in the Lothian region?

If I take no action a large number of ratepayers in Edinburgh will have no redress against crippling rate increases. Although I do not have power to alter rate levels that are set by profligate authorities, the action that I propose to take may reduce some of those authorities' expenditure in future years, as a result of limits on their capital expenditure budgets.

During his inquiries, has my right hon. Friend found evidence of any genuine attempt by the Lothian regional council to make economies or cuts in its staff and administration, or in last year's excessive spending and duplication?

Despite diligent searches I have found no evidence other than the courageous stand made by the former Labour leader of Lothian regional council, Mr. Peter Wilson.

When will the Secretary of State stop dodging his responsibilities? When will he admit that the major reason for these massive and unprecedented rate increases is the Government's rate support grant settlement? The increases apply equally to Tory and Labour-controlled authorities. They affect the Lothian region as well as the Strathclyde and Border regions, where an increase of nearly 40 per cent. has occurred. An increase of 27 per cent. was announced today for the Tayside region. Does the Secretary of State accept that he is directly responsible for those massive increases? When will he admit that?

I was given to understand that the right hon. Gentleman had had problems because the Lothian region failed to reduce its expenditure. I am sure that he will tell me if I am wrong. He cannot get away from the fact that many local authorities—most of them Conservative-controlled—manage to keep their expenditure down, as requested by the Government. Those same authorities were more helpful to the right hon. Gentleman than Labour-controlled authorities were when he was trying to keep expenditure down. I should have thought that he would recognise that.

I had no trouble with the Lothian region. However, even if we leave the Lothian region out of account, the average rate increase in Scotland next year will be more than 30 per cent. That is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility.

The responsibility for excessive expenditure by local authorities falls clearly upon Labour-controlled authorities. From the right hon. Gentleman's experience he should know that the Lothian region consistently exceeded the guidelines set by the previous Labour Administration. I understood from the Lothian regional council that it had had difficulties with the right hon. Gentleman on this issue.

Human Tissue Transplants


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation in Scotland to allow hospital authorities to take the kidneys of anyone where clinical death has been established by two doctors, other than those who during their lifetime have contracted out by registering with a central computer that they do not wish their organs taken from their body in the event of their death.

I am not persuaded that there is sufficient public support for "opting out" arrangements to justify the very large expenditure that would be needed to set up a computerised register of the wishes of individuals concerning the removal of their organs after death.

Given the fact that the hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues at the Elephant and Castle have cold feet as a result of a rather doubtful Marplan survey, should not the Scottish Office be bold and provide experimental legislation? Is it not true that as a kidney machine costs £5,000, and as running costs total £14,000, many treatable cases will not receive any help?

The hon. Gentleman must know that legislation relating to transplants has been on a United Kingdom basis. We do not consider that there is any need for separate legislation in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services dug out some figures about 15 months ago on the cost. The capital cost for a computer to retain the necessary information would be £2 million. Setting up a register would cost £3 million, and there would be running costs of £1,500,000.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a practical difficulty in that very interesting suggestion? As a result of a recent court decision, the admissibility of evidence stemming from a computer has been very much restricted. Is not that a reason for encouraging a debate on those issues?

Fishing Industry


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to meet representatives of the fishing industry.

I meet representatives of the industry frequently and will continue to do so as the need arises. I certainly expect to meet them before the next meeting of Council of Fisheries Ministers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain, as he indicated earlier, that under EEC regulations it is impossible to give financial aid to the fishing industry until a common fisheries agreement has been reached? Does he believe that the fishing industry in Scotland was helped in any way by the fact that 13 Conservative Members representing Scottish constituencies went into the Lobby last Wednesday to support the levying of a further £1,500,000 on Scottish fishermen. That occurred only a week after financial aid had been demanded.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have not made any statement or decision to the effect that it is impossible to help the fishing industry until the common fisheries policy has been decided. I have been saying that that is the most important thing for the fishing industry. We are giving urgent consideration to the suggestions made by the fishing industry. An announcement will be made shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the fishing industry needs not only urgent assistance now but control for the future so that our fishermen can fish in free and equal competition with others who fish in the North Sea and the waters around Britain? Will he accept that it is a competitive industry?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. Such considerations will be uppermost in our minds when we negotiate a common fisheries policy.

Although the Secretary of State shows no practical sympathy for the fishing industry, will he show sympathy for his own Back Benchers? Does he recall that five weeks ago they were given four weeks in which to produce an answer that would help the fishing industry? Will he accept that they gave their pledge to do so? When will the right hon. Gentleman take action?

I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the fishing industry, and I share his concern. However, we have so far taken just over a fortnight to consider carefully the proposals from the fishing industry, which is not unreasonable. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposals are being considered very sympathetically indeed.

As the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has established that other Common Market Governments massively subsidise their fishing industries, which results in our markets being flooded with cheap subsidised fish, what action does my right hon. Friend propose to stop that unfair trading by our EEC partners, which is contrary to EEC regulations?

I agree that the level of imports is causing great concern to the industry. As my hon. Friend knows, the industry has made proposals to us, and we are considering them urgently.

Is the Secretary of State able to tell us any more about the method adopted by the French to give a fuel subsidy to their fishermen?

Not at present, but I understand that in recent days the Germans have considered a similar scheme and are trying to implement it. We are lookirg into that as well.

I know that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) wanted to ask a question about fishing, but he had better ask it about improvement grants.

Improvement Grants


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has of the recent take-up of improvement grants in Scotland.

In 1978 some £7·7 million was paid in grants covering about 6,800 dwellings. For the first half of 1979, the provisional figures are approximately £4·5 million and 3,500 dwellings respectively.

Does the Minister accept that since council house building in Scotland is virtually coming to a halt it is vital that by means of grants the Government continue to encourage people to improve their homes? Why have a number of local authorities, including those in my constituency, run out of money to pay home improvement grants in the current year? Will he guarantee that that will not happen again?

—he will find that for next year East Lothian is to have £500,000, compared with £380,000 last year, and Berwickshire is to have an allocation of £20,000 more than it asked for.

Will the Minister consider removing some of the restrictions on the operation of improvement grants pertaining to the size of the house? Will he accept that young couples are unable to receive improvement grants because their house is not small enough, yet they need another apartment?

There are general criteria that are applied to applications for improvement grants. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific example, I shall be happy to consider it to see whether the discretion and criteria should be changed.



asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to eradicate the shortage of nursing staff in the Argyll and Clyde health board area.

The recruitment of nursing staff in each area is a matter for the health board. Nationally the number of nurses and the number of those entering training for nursing has been increasing steadily over the past two years.

Is the Minister aware that in the Argyll and Clyde health board area the number of nursing staff in post during the past financial year was 25 per cent. below the Scottish average? It is a matter of life and death. What steps does the Minister intend to take tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock to rectify the problem? Does he accept that the answer that I received from the board that the shortfall in the past financial year was due to a postal strike in Ireland is ludicrously pathetic?

I repeat—and this also affects the Argyll and Clyde board area—that the recruitment of nurses has been increasing. There is a shortfall of about 61 nurses in that board's area. The hon. Gentleman will know that the board has difficulty in recruiting for its nursing establishment because of competition from the Glasgow area.

Does my hon. Friend realise that my constituents are concerned that savings will have to be made in health facilities in Argyll to make up for the massive deficit at Inverclyde Royal infirmary?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. However, even with the withdrawal of beds from Inverclyde, it is now on the Scottish average of 2·5 beds per thousand.

Does the Minister accept that the increasing shortage of nurses—not merely in that area—is almost entirely due to the total inadequacy of nursing salaries? Will he undertake that that matter will be looked at again, despite the Clegg report, which is a disappointment to nurses? In the light of raging inflation, does the hon. Gentleman accept that nurses' salaries should be looked at continuously?

Of course I shall consider the matter continuously. However, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that his question is based on a mistaken impression. Recruitment of nurses has been increasing over the past five years, and particularly during the past two. It has not been decreasing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the scarcity of nurses reflects greatly on the deplorable way in which the Labour Government dealt with them?

I accept the second part of my hon. Friend's question, but I repeat that the recruitment of nurses is quite healthy.

Despite representations to increase the funds of the Argyll and Clyde health board to allow it to open up the 72 beds that have not been opened up so far—and I appreciate what the Secretary of State has done—if that is not successful, what are the plans for staff redundancies in the area, including nursing staff?

There is no question of redundancy among nursing staff. Although the Argyll and Clyde board is having difficulty with an overspend of about £0·9 million this year, that is only 1·7 per cent. of the total budget. We have every hope that it will be under control next year.

Skilled Tradesmen (Vacancies)


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacancies exist for skilled tradesmen in Scotland.

Vacancies in the craft and similar occupations group notified to employment offices and job-centres in Scotland and remaining unfilled on 30 November 1979 totalled 4,800. That figure does not necessarily include all skilled occupations.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that those figures demonstrate the dilemma of employment in Scotland? Will he accept that although unemployment is rising there is, nevertheless, a shortage in the skilled sector? In his responsibility for industry and education, will my hon. Friend concentrate on training opportunities for skills and not indulge in make-work schemes as the previous Administration did?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that we must try to make training schemes much more relevant to the vacancies that exist. The Manpower Services Commission has indicated that unreported vacancies in Scotland may double the number of vacancies reported.

Is the Minister aware that, because of the cuts in the Manpower Services Commission budget, measures to expand, explore and develop the labour market for skilled men in the engineering industry have been turned down in Lanarkshire? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that at a time when there is such a shortage of skilled engineering staff in the expanding electrical, electronic and engineering industries in Scotland, it is deplorable that the activities of the MSC are being cut?

I know that there are vacancies because a sufficient number of people are not taking up places in skill-centres and other establishments. I am not aware that people who wish to take up places are being turned away. I should be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman of any examples of people being turned away from skillcentres.

Does the Minister agree that one of the causes of skill shortages is geographical immobility? Does he agree also that that problem will be substantially helped by the measures in the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scotland has suffered for many years from immobility of its labour force. The Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill will go a long way towards helping to resolve that problem.

Surely the figures given by the Minister about the shortage of skilled manpower in Scotland make nonsense of the Government's decision to close two skillcentres in Scotland and to stop the go-ahead given to the development of a new skillcentre at Irvine.

The figures that I gave related to job vacancies. No decision has been made to close any skillcentres in Scotland.

Order. I propose to call one more hon. Member from either side and to allow an extra minute at the end of Question Time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there might be many more opportunities for skilled tradesmen if small businesses are allowed to expand? Is he aware also that many of those businesses are worried that they may not be allowed to complete their expansion before the removal of assisted area status, owing to the prolongation of the steel strike? In that case, will he give an undertaking to look sympathetically at any such problems?

Is the Minister aware that Scotland suffers not from the immobility of the labour force but from the inability of Scottish Office Ministers? Is the Minister saying that he proposes to close down skillcentres because there are not sufficient applications to take up the places in them? Would it not be much more progressive to advertise more extensively that these places are available and to encourage the 200 unemployed people whom he causes each day to become unemployed to take up these places?

It is anticipated that when the Manpower Services Commission has completed its rationalisation of skillcentres in Scotland more places will be made available, not fewer.

Criminal Trials (Delays)


asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many cases on indictment have taken more than 12 months to come to trial in the last two years.

As at 22 October 1979 there were 15 cases on indictment which had taken more than 12 months to come to trial. However, I am having our records checked and once up-to-date information is available I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that these statistics are a disgrace to the legal system in Scotland and an unfair imposition on accused persons? Is it not the case that there is provision, in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, to prevent this from happening, and is he not surprised that, apparently, the Labour Party in Scotland is opposing this legislation?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that what he describes as a disgrace has been greatly improved since we came to office in May. My noble and learned Friend and I have done all that we can to overcome the backlog of cases which has been greatly reduced. Clause 14(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will make a statutory bar to prosecution of persons after 12 months from the date on which they first appear on petition. That is a great and equitable advance, in parallel with the 110-day rule, which is an immemorial feature of our law.

Since indictments are dependent on arrests being carried out, and in view of the number of outstanding murder inquiries into the deaths of young women, will the Solicitor-General tell us whether he has considered inviting the Scottish crime squad to co-operate with local police forces in the three regions which are currently conducting investigations into these cases?

We are greatly concerned about the number of recent homicides in Scotland. It is for the Secretary of State, and for the chief constables to deploy their forces as they feel necessary, but I am certain that the police in Scotland will do everything that they can to investigate and clear up these awful crimes.

In view of the injustice that can occur to people under indictments because of this kind of delay, would it not be more intelligent to use the available money to improve the procedures and organisation of the courts, instead of spending it on expensive fees for advocates, Lord or otherwise?

As I understand it, those are not alternatives. Scotland can stand-up to any country in the world for the speed with which it brings to trial those whom it acc uses.

Court Visits


asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many court visits he has made since he took office.

Since taking up office as Solicitor-General for Scotland I have made eight official visits to procurators fiscal offices and sheriffs at sheriff courts.

During his tour of the courts, has the Solicitor-General noticed the public outrage about some lawyers' extortionate fees, especially after the recent Dundee sheriff court decision that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) had been guilty of overcharging by £1,300? In view of this bad example set by someone who is now responsible for prosecuting criminals, will the Solicitor-General at least follow Jim's example by publicly admitting that he has been very, very naughty and tell Maggie that he is very sorry?

I think that that question demonstrates, if demonstration is needed, that as a lawyer my tongue is but silver, whereas as a politician the hon. Gentleman's silence is golden.

In the light of the press reports today about the forthcoming marriage of Mr. Ginger Forbes, the next time my hon. and learned Friend visits the courts and has discussions with court officials, will he discuss the change of the penal system into a marriage bureau establishment?

I regret that I have no responsibility for either the celibacy or the marriage of Mr. Forbes.

Human Tissue Act 1961


asked the Solicitor General for Scotland how many prosecutions have been brought in Scotland under the Human Tissue Act 1961.

The Human Tissue Act 1961 contains no criminal provisions. It is therefore not possible for there to be any prosecutions under the Act.

As deterioration of the kidneys sets in after 30 minutes, and since doctors by definition, must act in tense circumstances, are they not inhibited by the grey areas of the law? Is not there a case for looking at the whole code of the transplant law? If the Government are worried about public opinion, will they look at next weekend's Sunday Mail, where the public opinion survey will be very different from that of Marplan?

There are no grey areas in the law. The removal of organs without permission under the Human Tissue Act, or against the wishes of relatives of the deceased, would, of course, be theft. Since the procurators fiscal are responsible for carrying out investigations into sudden or suspicious deaths, in cases where there was any criminal suspicion they could not permit the removal of organs. But in cases such as road accidents, in which they also have a responsibility, as the medical authorities frequently advise them in advance of the possibility, procurators fiscal can ensure in advance that such organs can be released if they may save human lives and if permission is granted.

Bail Etc (Scotland) Act


asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will hold discussions with sheriffs in Scotland on the implementation of the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Act.

Although my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I have periodic discussions with sheriffs principal and sheriffs in Scotland on subjects of common interest, we have no plans at present to hold discussions with them on the im- Plementation of the Bail Etc.(Scotland) Act 1980.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there have been certain pronouncements by the shrieval bench in Glasgow that, whatever may be Parliament's intention, money bail has in effect been retained by the Act and will continue to be enforced? In view of that, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland reconsider his plans and talk to the sheriffs to make sure that that is not continued as an everyday occurrence in Scottish courts?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, it would be constitutionally improper for me to influence the courts in their application of a statute passed by this House. The remedy is simple if any judge at any level misinterprets any Act—appeal to the High Court.

Nevertheless, will my hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to make it clear that under the Act money bail is to be imposed only in exceptional circumstances?

Can the Solicitor-General for Scotland define the exceptional circumstances?

Lord Justice General


asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he intends next to meet the Lord Justice General.

I have no immediate plans to meet this, Lord Justice General, but my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has meetings with him from time to time.

When my hon. and learned Friend next meets the Lord Justice General, will he take the opportunity to discuss a recent television debate on the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill before an apparently implacably hostile audience? Does he agree that that was a gross abuse of the BBC's impartiality under its charter?

I think that it is fortunate for justice that the i3BC does not select juries, because I should have thought that it would have to be an extremely packed jury which, on the case presented, could find twice in an hour in favour of someone such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland accept that the jury referred to was made up of 15 final-year law students from Glasgow university, who were picked at random—at random from among those in that year—and that many of them were members of the Conservative club at the university?

The House will be extremely grateful that lawyers practise the law and that the people decide whether they have made their point.

European Community (Agriculture Ministers' Meeting)

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
(Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting in Brussels on 3–4 March, at which my right hon. Friend and I represented the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend is today attending the OECD meeting in Paris. The main items discussed were sheepmeat and the Commission's economy proposals on sugar, milk and beef.

On sheepmeat, the Council considered a draft resolution tabled by the Commission for interim measures to apply from the opening of the French market until 15 July. My right hon. Friend said that for it to be acceptable to the United Kingdom three conditions would have to be met. First, the French Government would have to undertake that they would not reintroduce restrictions on imports in the future. Secondly, Community finance would not be used for intervention during this period. Thirdly, there must be agreement for a fair allocation of the available Community funds between member States.

The French Government did not give an assurance that import restrictions would not be reintroduced. Nor would they accept interim arrangements that did not allow for Community financing of intervention measures.

Eight member States were ready to accept a proposal made by the presidency of the Council that, following the opening of the French frontier, there should be interim Community aid to support farmers' incomes, but with an intervention measures nationally financed. The Irish delegation stated that it did not rule out the principle of Community financing for intervention measures. The French delegation refused to accept the President's proposal.

The President expressed deep regret at this. He said that the French Government's position was a blatant violation of the Treaty and that member countries should not feel able to break the law with impunity. He also said that the Commission, as guardians of the Treaty, had a clear duty to act. Vice-President Gundelach accepted that the Commission must carry out its role in this respect, and said that it would do so.

The discussion on sugar centred on the Commission's proposals to reduce the maximum quotas to 10·5 million tonnes and on the allocation of this reduced quota. Wide differences of view were put forward on behalf of member States. We maintained our support for the proposed overall cut in quotas, but made clear our opposition to the proposed basis of allocation. There was no progress towards agreement. The Commission will be making a new proposal before the next Council.

The discussion on milk was mainly concerned with the proposed co-responsibility levies. On the basic levy, a number of delegations, including ourselves, are opposed to further exemptions of the kind proposed by the Commission. Others, however, favour progressive rates of levy with higher charges on more intensive producers.

A number of fundamental objections were also registered against the Commission's supplementary levy.

We made it clear that we are ready to consider additional co-responsibility levies, provided these do not discriminate unfairly against the United Kingdom. The milk proposals will be further discussed in a group of senior officials.

There was a brief discussion on the Commission's proposals for beef. This focused particularly on the proposed suckler cow subsidy. We expressed strong reservations about the proposed limitation of the subsidy to the first 15 cows in the herd.

Finally, the Council had a brief discussion on national aids towards fuel costs of intensive horticulture. My right hon. Friend expressed concern about unfair competition and emphasised the urgent need for an agreed policy for the Community as a whole. The Vice-President accepted that this problem needed attention, and undertook that the Commission would investigate this as quickly as possible.

May we assume from the Minister's statement that no progress whatsoever was made on anything at the two-day meeting? Will the Government stand absolutely firm in their opposition to the introduction of an expensive sheepmeat regime as a quid pro quo for the ending of the French ban on imports?

As the hon. Gentleman's statement made no mention of butter, can he assure the House that the Government intend to resist the proposal to end the special United Kingdom butter subsidy, which is worth about 13p a pound to our consumers? In this connection, can he tell the House whether his right hon. Friend took the opportunity to comment on the Commission's proposals to resume sales of heavily subsidised butter to the Soviet Union?

Does the Minister agree that the paramount objective in the present price-fixing must be to secure action to tackle the colossal surpluses, particularly of milk and sugar? As the milk sector alone now accounts for one-third of total Community expenditure, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will oppose any increase in the common price of milk and will not agree to a package that does not include effective action to tackle this monstrous misuse of taxpayers' money?

I believe that progress was made at this Council. We were involved mainly in discussion of commodities, particularly those in surplus, and also of sheepmeat. I believe that progress was made on sheepmeat and that a sensible interim measure was accepted by eight members of the Community, the French alone standing out against it. It is significant that arising from this Council the President has instructed the Commissioner for Agriculture, in conjunction with his fellow Commissioners, to undertake further legal proceedings against the French Government.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned particular commodities. I agree with him on butter. At the last price fixing we achieved the biggest butter subsidy from the Community that has ever been acheived. We believe that the subsidy not only benefits consumers in Britain but that it is a sensible and useful way of disposing of surpluses within the Community to members of the Community. We shall continue to work to that end.

On exports to Russia, we have made our position absolutely clear. We are opposed to such exports and will continue to oppose them within the workings of the management committee. On surpluses generally, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall continue to work towards a better control of surpluses, especially milk surpluses. One of the problems is that even the proposed super levy deals only with the existing surpluses and not with any of the underlying forces that lead towards those surpluses. We believe that what is required in the longer term is a much more fundamental approach.

Is it correct to assume from what my hon. Friend said that the interim arrangements for exporting sheep-meat to France that are now in operation, unsatisfactory though they are, will continue up to 15 July? It therefore becomes increasingly urgent to have a sheepmeat regime operating from 15 July that will help restore lamb prices in this country.

It is true that what we discussed in Brussels this week was simply related to interim arrangements up to 15 July to give an opportunity for the French to open the Market—an opportunity that they did not take. It would have given more time to work towards a more satisfactory arrangement. I agree with my hon. Friend that satisfactory permanent arrangements for our sheep producers particularly towards the autumn of this year, matter most of all.

Was there any discussion or agreement on redress for producers for their losses over the period during which sheepmeat was banned from France? Is he aware that the fact that the French would give no assurance that they would not reintroduce a ban means that they intend to continue to break the rules with impunity, and that they will get away with it?

On the last point, further legal proceedings are under consideration. The point was made by the President of the Council yesterday that no country could continue to get away with it in the way that the French have done so far. On compensation, we welcome the interim proposals. These suggest that a sum of £20 million should be available to producers of sheepmeat in the Community. The allocation would be on the basis of production within the Community. As our production amounts to 47 per cent. of the total, this would be of considerable financial benefit to the United Kingdom.

I am the first to admire the Minister's stand in Europe. Does he agree, however, that little progress has been made during the last few months? If a settlement is to be achieved during the next six to eight weeks the Minister will have to make a compromise in Europe. If this happens can he give an assurance that the sheep sector, the dairy sector and the beef sector will not suffer a loss? Can he give an assurance that the guaranteed deficiency payment will be restored in this country and that he will not agree to a sheepmeat regime at any cost?

I think it is understood that there is a certain precedent for this kind of procedure in relation to the annual price fixing in Europe. One goes through a series of meetings over a period in the early spring. It is often later that actual conclusions are reached. I do not think that this is necessarily a bad thing. It gives an opportunity for different countries to express their views on different proposals. It enables solutions to be worked out that could not be achieved simply by one meeting. In that respect, I do not think that progress or procedures this year are different from those in previous years.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the important livestock products that he mentioned. Livestock products are probably more important to agriculture in this country than in most other countries of the Community. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in these negotiations, as last year, we shall certainly stand up for the interests of our producers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this continual delay by the French in according to the recommendations is very frustrating for fellow members of the European Community? Is there any way in which he can advocate a proposal for a satisfactory solution, possibly by suggesting some form of daily levy to be placed upon the French until they fall into line? Did my hon. Friend have discussions about the future of the beef premium scheme. If so, what was the outcome?

In relation to sheepmeat, I emphasise, as my right hon. Friend and I have done before, that this whole question is not simply a dispute between the United Kingdom Government and the French Government. The French Government are in dispute with the Community as a whole. That is why it is correct for the Commission, with its powers as guardians of the Treaty and as instructed yesterday by the Council of Ministers, to take action against the French Government. That is important in itself.

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. The stage that we have reached is thoroughly frustrating. But it is also significant that during the Council meeting of the last two days, everyone—the Commission and all the other member countries of the EEC—have bent over backwards to put forward proposals of an interim nature that the French, for no good reason, were not prepared to accept. It has been demonstrated beyond peradventure that the French are not prepared to do so. In the attitude that they have taken, they are breaking the law and have lost the sympathy not only of the United Kingdom but of every other country in Europe.

Dees any member State, in principle, object to the Commission's proposal that we should, as a Community, join the international sugar agreement? Will the Minister be more specific about his reference to beet sugar quotas? Are we endorsing the Commission's proposal about beet sugar, which would honour Lome in its proper way?

The international sugar agreement was not discussed. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it would be our wish that we should join that agreement. We have opposed what has been proposed up to now on beet quotas because of the disproportionate cut that would be imposed on British producers. For example, cuts would be of the order of 24 per cent. in our quotas, whereas for countries such as Denmark, Germany and France the cut would amount to only 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. To the extent that those cuts are utterly discriminatory against the United Kingdom, we reject them totally.

I repeat our support for what was agreed in Lome. The commitments under the Lome convention are not simply entered into by the United Kingdom Government; they are entered into by the Community.

Will my hon. Friend be a little careful in seeking to get the French put into the dock over the import of lamb, vital though it is to secure the required objective? For them, this is an essential national interest in the light of the income of farmers in South-West France who produce lamb. Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that our defences against the import of ultra-heat-treated milk are not sufficiently solid to risk finding ourselves put in the same position as France.

I must tell my hon. Friend that never at one moment of time have we denied the opportunity of the French Government to help their own producers. Indeed, the original decision of the European Court last September specifically stated that it was open to the French Government, in this situation, to help their producers. What we oppose is the use of Community funds in order to finance intervention in sheepmeat in Europe. To any sensibly-minded individual—we have the support of every other country in the Community except France and Ireland—it does not make sense to introduce a heavy Community-financed intervention regime for a commodity that is not in surplus, where there is a deficiency of demand, and imports from third countries, and in which the direct interest basically belongs to three countries. It is that that we are opposing.

We understand the position of French producers. We have constantly said so. It is wholly open to the French to use their own funds or even to introduce nationally financed intervention if they so choose. It is the total rejection of the French to accept any of these means for which they must stand condemned.

For how many months now have the French been defying the law with complete impunity?

Following on that point, does my hon. Friend think that if the French continue to defy the law with impunity other nations in Europe should not take the hint and do the same?

The point that my hon. Friend makes was precisely the point made by the President of the Agriculture Council yesterday, and it was in the light of that that he instructed the Commission to take further legal action.

Is the Minister aware of the serious consequences for the dairy farmer and the dairy industry of the exemptions in the co-responsibility levy? Since Britain does not contribute anything to the surplus of milk in the EEC, will he or his right hon. Friend ensure that, in the view of the hardships that may result from the agreement of these exemptions, the dairy farmer and the British consumer will be protected both as regards cutting down of herds and as regards prices?

I think it significant that the exemptions to the basic levy that are proposed would exempt only about 5 per cent. of United Kingdom milk deliveries, in contrast to over 30 per cent. of milk deliveries in such countries as Luxembourg and Ireland. We regard that as wholly unacceptable, and we have said so.

I congratulate my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend on the hard-line yet constructive attitude that they are taking in Brussels, and urge that they continue with it. But is my hon. Friend even slightly optimistic that this time the Commission will be able to take effective action to persuade—I think that that is the right word—the French to behave in a communautaire fashion?

After six months I think that it would be a brave person who expressed overwhelming optimism in relation to the present position. But, again, I think that the real significance here is that every effort has been made by the Commission and by individual countries to persuade the French to comply with the law. It has been demonstrated at this week's Council of Ministers that all those efforts of persuasion have totally failed, and now the law must run its course.

I appreciate that the Council had a heavy agenda, but will the Minister take it that some of us are now becoming increasingly concerned about the Council's obvious reluctance to discuss the French Government's proposals to allow their wine industry to discharge its fermentation alcohol into the industrial alcohol market? I plead with the Minister to have this matter discussed and decided at an early date, because BP is anxious to make a major investment decision at Grangemouth, in my constituency.

That matter was not discussed at this Council, although my right hon. Friend and I are wholly aware of it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is what is proposed in the draft regulation that could be damaging to our ethyl alcohol or synthetic alcohol industry. The proposals have been tabled, they were discussed briefly some time ago, and so far they have been pushed back and back, so at least to that extent we are that much further away from actual proposals even coming into effect. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of the problems and we shall make sure that the interests of our synthetic alcohol industry are properly looked after in the negotiations when the time comes.

On what basis does my hon. Friend expect fresh proposals to be made for sugar? Is he aware of the uncertainty that delay is creating in our sugar industry, and will he say when he expects the further proposals to be considered in detail?

It undoubtedly creates uncertainty. The longer time goes on, the closer we come to the time at which farmers wish to sow their crops, and by the next Council meeting we shall have reached or almost passed that moment. I am therefore wholly aware of the uncertainty. We had expected proposals to be tabled before the end of the meeting yesterday, but in fact they were not. They were delayed till the next meeting. It would appear from the indications that we have from the Commission that it was talking in terms of maintaining for next year the A quota, any cuts that it was making being applied to the B quota. But I emphasise that that was simply an indication that we had.

The Minister said that the Government are opposed to the export of butter to Russia. Will he confirm that they cannot stop it, and that part of our £2,000 million contribution goes to promote this export traffic? Can the Minister say how much is going between now and the end of the year, and what is the subsidy in pounds per tonne?

On the latter point, what will go between now and the end of the year is obviously totally speculative—

and I could not know what it is. The hon. Gentleman is correct in the first part of what he said, in that the actual arrangements and decisions to be taken —this has been repeated from the Dispatch Box on earlier occasions—rest with the management committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows, already as a result of pressure by the United Kingdom Government those procedures have been tightened up so that it is now much easier clearly to identify precisely what is taking place. I assure the hon. Gentleman that both in the management committee and at Council meetings we shall continue our opposition to these sales.

If we do not manage to get a satisfactory resolution to the problems of our budget deficit with Europe by the end of this month, since the nature and requirements of our United Kingdom agriculture are quite different from those of Continental Europe, since the NFU is now coming out against the common agricultural policy, and since the French do not even obey the law, will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend give serious consideration to a unilateral withdrawal from the common agricultural policy as a means of solving both our budget deficit and many of the problems that we have been discussing this afternoon?

With respect, not all that my hon. Friend has said is wholly correct. I am not aware that the NFU is against the common agricultural policy, although some views were expressed by individual members at the meeting. Equally, I assure my hon. Friend that in relation to many other member countries of the Community we find that we are not fighting a lone battle in the least. As for milk and the co-responsibility levy, very much the same views are expressed by, for example, Denmark and the Netherlands. I remind my hon. Friend also that in terms of sheepmeat we are in a majority of eight against one. Therefore, I must tell him that the conclusions that he draws from the situation that confronts us are by no means necessarily correct.

Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising to ask questions.

Did we detect in the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) that he was somewhat chuffed with himself for pushing back a proposal tabled on ethyl alcohol? If so, his chuffment is misplaced, since BP needs an investment decision and pushing the decision back and back is no good to us.

In the first place, we have not pushed back anything, whether by chuffing or by any other means. The Commission itself believes that there is a great deal more work to be done on these proposals before it brings them forward again to the Council of Ministers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the most foolish kind of chuffing would be to try to discuss half-baked proposals.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend upon the strenuous efforts that he is making. Did Mr. Gundelach give any indication of the kind of timetable that he would be prepared to accept in requiring the French to abide by their obligations under the Treaty?

I have to tell the House that in the time since I came to the Dispatch Box at 3.30 pm I have learnt that the Commission has decided today to proceed to implement an interim injunction against France—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I am advised that this will take from seven to 10 days.

On that very question, does the Minister realise that the whole country, apart from the Government Front Bench, now acknowledges that the French Government regard themselves as above the law of the Community, injunction or not? That is the main message. Has not the time now come when the French, as the main beneficiaries of the CAP, must be made to suffer? As a gesture, why do not the British Government withdraw their contribution to the CAP until the French stick to the law of the CAP?

The President of the Council himself described the French attitude as a blatant violation and said that no country should be able to flout the law with impunity. I do not believe that there is a difference among hon. Members on either side of the House about that. I am only surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with his background, should believe that it is right to meet one illegality with another. There are legal processes for dealing with this and, as I said, the Commission has decided to take those legal steps. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not support and welcome that.

While I am satisfied that the Commission has at last decided to seek to implement the earlier judgment of the Court, may I ask the Minister whether the Government accept that though it is the responsibility of the Commission to initiate the proceedings to protect the Treaty and the responsibility of the Court to deliver the judgment, in the last analysis the enforcement of that judgment lies with the Council of Ministers? Why have the Government and the other seven Governments that are in agreement with the United Kingdom done nothing in six months to give effect to that judgment of September? Does that inaction not bring into disrepute the machinery for law enforcement in the Community?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that nothing has been done. Attempts have been made to resolve this specifically in relation to what I described at the Council meeting. Persuasion having failed, it is now necessary—as the Commission recognises—to take legal action.

When will the Minister stop pandering to the British Sugar Corporation and the farmers' lobby on beet quotas? The Minister is trying to ride two horses in one race and he must be aware that the BSC have never met quotas in the past. Does the Minister agree that the refinery industry has done its part in shedding 2,000 jobs in recent years, many of them on Merseyside? Will the Minister not ask his right hon. Friend to oppose further expansion by the British Sugar Corporation?

One of the tragedies of the situation is that this should be seen simply as a beet sugar versus cane sugar lobby. It is not that. Both interests are important. Cane sugar is important, and so is beet. Beet production holds an important position in British agriculture. We believe that there is a place for beet sugar and cane sugar within our sugar refining capacity and we intend to keep a proper balance to the benefit of both.

Ballot For Notices Of Motions For Friday 21 March

Members successful in the ballot were:

  • Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson
  • Mr. Marcus Kimball
  • Mr David Penhaligon

Human Organs (Anonymity Of Donors)

4.5 pm

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for protection of the identity of donors of human organs.
My reason for rising to present this Bill to the House is to respond to a request from one of my constituents whose daughter was recently tragically killed. After her death my constituent and his family underwent what can only be described as persecution by the media in a most improper way during their time of sorrow.

My constituent is Mr. George Morris, who lives at Houghton on the Hill, in Leicestershire—a fairly small community of 300 houses. He has formally complained to the Press Council, as indeed I have complained, about the activities of the media in general and about certain newspapers in particular following the death of his daughter Carol in a motor accident. Mr. Morris' daughter died on the night of 28 January and on the 1 o'clock news on 29 January it was reported that a heart transplant operation had taken place at Papworth hospital and that the family of the donor particularly wished to remain anonymous.

Mr. Morris tells me that a leak occurred and within three or four hours the Evening News telephoned requesting information. The Morris' telephone rang continually as one newspaper after another requested information, until 5 pm, when the family took the telephone off the hook.

However, that did not alleviate the position. The newspapers that had been told by telephone that the family were not prepared to comment sent reporters to the door. To add insult to injury, most reporters attempted to obtain additional information and a photograph of the dead girl from the villagers, despite the family's request for anonymity.

Mr. Morris cites particular newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, which behaved especially badly. That newspaper telephoned him and also his next-door neighbour, Mr. Stephen Turnbull, giving the impression that they were friends of the family requesting information. After an inquiry about the donor card the callers admitted that they were from the Daily Mail in London. That is a despicable way of obtaining information.

The Daily Mail sank even lower on the following day. A female reporter waited near Mr. Morris' house from 10 am on 30 January until 6 pm. The reporter, Miss Sally Brompton, canvassed the village from door to door in an attempt to buy a photograph of Mr. Morris' daughter Carol. According to Mr. Morris, Miss Brompton even attempted to persuade a 14-year-old girl to go into her elder sister's bedroom to remove a photograph of Carol. At about 6 pm Miss Brompton left a card with Mr Morris requesting an interview at a later date.

By 10 am on Wednesday 30 January the problems caused to the family by the media had necessitated police protection for Mr. Morris, who lives in Weir Lane. Policemen were posted there and his telephone was made indefinitely ex-directory.

Mr. Morris has asked me to make it clear that very few newspapers acted in a professional manner, but that there were two exceptions. Two newspapers possessed photographs of Carol, which the rest of the newspapers were attempting to obtain. One of the newspapers was The Guardian and the other was the local evening newspaper, the Leicester Mercury. Both newspapers, at the request of the family, decided not to publish photographs of Carol.

Mr. Morris alleges that
"the behaviour of the media caused more pain and anguish to my wife and daughter."
The newspaper reporters even had the nerve to challenge Mr. Morris when he wished to leave his house, as if he were a criminal on the run. Mr. Morris said
"If transplants are to continue donor organs are essential. Families will not consent to the use of deceased relatives' organs if the media continue to act in such a disgraceful and unsympathetic way."
If families are to be badgered in this disgraceful and unsympathetic way by the media even when requests for anonymity have been made, the source of organs for transplant will dry up. I agree with Mr. Morris, and though I am in the van of those who believe that 'v. need a free press I believe that the conduct that I have described is evil. We must therefore make it as difficult as possible for such ghouls to gain any clue as to the identity of sorrowing families.

The purpose of the Bill will be, first, to secure absolutely total anonymity at the wish of the donor. I feel that if a donor is public spirited enough to make his organs available for the use of his neighbours his wishes must be respected.

How can we secure this rightful anonymity? There are several ways in which the present system can be strengthened. I have here a copy of a code relating to the removal of organs for transplantation, produced in October last year. As it deals mainly with kidneys and other organs and makes little mention of hearts, and as it deals with the question of anonymity in a cavalier manner, I feel that it is already outdated. I believe that this code of conduct entitled "The removal of cadaveric organs for transplantation" should be strengthened and drafted in much plainer language For example, paragraph 37 of the October code says, of anonymity:
"The staff of hospitals and organ exchange organisations should always try to maintain the anonymity of the donor and of the recipient".
I do not believe that that goes far enough today. I should like to see a fresh code drawn up. Furthermore—here I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who was kind enough to see me yesterday about the Bill—if reference were made to such a code in the Health Services Bill, which is now going through the House, I believe that it would give it a bit more punch, even though it would still be voluntary.

I should like to make two other suggestions. First, again in order to assist anonymity, could not all the cards of those who wish to remin anonymous have the word "anonymous" printed diagonally in large type across the top? Secondly, in these days when organs of all types are so pressingly needed, could not we have a single donor card for all organs, which would greatly simplify the system?

I have been lucky enough to secure all-party support for the Bill. Reference has been made to the Human Tissue Act 1961, the actions of certain coroners, and so on. That Act clearly lays down that coroners have the right to require consultation before organs are secured. However, I understand that most organs are obtained after telephone consultation with the coroner, which I believe is a proper and correct procedure, which does not take up very much time.

Question put and agreed to

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Farr, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. R. A. McCrindle, Mr. Tam Dalyell, and Mr. Michael Hamilton.

Human Organs (Anonymity Of Donors)

Mr. John Farr accordingly presented a Bill to provide for protection of the identity of donors of human organs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 March and to be printed. [Bill 160].

Orders Of The Day


[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]— considered.

Employment And Training Opportunities

4.13 pm

I beg to move,

That this House deplores the repeated cut-backs in the budget of the Manpower Services Commission and expenditure on job support measures which are damaging their effectiveness at a time when Her Majesty's Government's economic and industrial policies are causing large scale redundancies and a dramatic increase in unemployment; and further calls upon the Government to pursue a constructive manpower policy which will support industrial development and provide training and help for the unemployed.
This debate takes place against the most sombre economic background that this country has known for many years. Throughout the developed world, Governments are facing recession or inflation, or both. At the beginning of this debate, I draw attention to these adverse world conditions, not because I believe that they offer any excuse for the damaging policies which the Government are pursuing, but because they strengthen the indictment against the Government in the context of a debate such as this. If the world and national economies were buoyant, the Government might have some justification for pursuing an economic experiment which everyone knows is at best a high-risk gamble. But to pursue such an experiment when the odds against it are so high, and when the Government are staking all that we have, is irresponsible in the extreme, because none of us thinks that it will work.

If ever there was a time for the Government to act to soften at home the impact of hazardous conditions overseas, the time is now. But, instead of doing that, the Government are pursuing policies that will make a bleak situation even worse. That is not just some partisan statement from a member of the Opposition. It is a carefully phrased analysis from the Department of Employment itself. Those are the words of an economic analysis which was published in January this year in the Employment Gazette, which is described on its title page as
"the official journal of the Department of Employment".
Indeed, I must give it that credit, because the title page also states:
"Brief extracts from the articles may be used (in a non-advertising context) provided the source is acknowledged".
I am prepared to acknowledge the source of that independent analysis. Page 45 states:
"Economic forecasts, both private and official, point to a recession in 1980. The main factors expected to contribute to the recession are thought to be depressed world trade coupled with a lack of United Kingdom competitiveness and the short term effects of tighter monetary and fiscal policies, with an associated fall in investment and stockbuilding".
Therefore, the Government are ready to accept and share their responsibility for the crisis. Certainly the Secretary of State's Department is prepared to take responsibility for it.

That confession is no more than we have the right to expect, because, far from taking steps to alleviate our problems, every industrial and economic measure taken by the Government in the past 10 months has been an attack on investment and jobs. I shall not go through the whole list, but they are all attacks on investment and