House Of Commons
Thursday 20 January 1983
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Private Business
EPSOM AND WALTON DOWNS (REGULATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Monday 24 January at Seven o'clock.
CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 27 January.
Oral Answers To Questions
Agriculture, Fisheries And Food
European Community (Beef And Butter Prices)
1.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what, for each of the past four years for which figures are available, was the European Community entry price expressed as a percentage of the third country offer price for beef and butter, respectively, using the definitions and methods of calculation previously used by the European Community Commission.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will publish the information in the Official Report.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in the latest figures published by the EC, the offer price for beef was one half the EC price and the offer price for butter was one quarter the EC price? Will he also confirm that we are paying £3,000 million more per annum for food than we need to because of our membership of the EC?
The logic of the hon. Gentleman's question is that he would destroy British agriculture in order to buy cheaper goods. That is absurd. The latest figures for the years asked for by the hon. Gentleman show that there has been a decline in the difference between world and EC prices of butter and beef. However, if one starts using world prices they should be calculated on the basis of cheap food imports and the eradication of European agriculture.
Why has the Commission stopped publishing comparisons between offer and entry prices? Is it because it is aware of the burden of the CAP on the British economy—a burden which has not been compensated for by industrial benefits as was promised at the time of Britain's entry?
The hon. Gentleman knows that the increase in the CAP budget under the Labour Government was dramatically greater than under this Government. When I took over, the agricultural proportion of the European budget was 80 per cent. It is now 60 per cent.
Following is the information:
Entry price as a percentage of offer price
| ||
* Beef
| †Butter | |
1978–79 | 199 | 403 |
1979–80 | 204 | 411 |
1980–81 | 188 | 283 |
1981–82 | 191 | 178 |
Notes:* Guide price as percentage of offer price (guide price—basic levy less duty) based on live animals.
† Threshold price as percentage of offer price (threshold price—levy).
Source: 1978–79 and 1979–80—Agricultural Situation in the Community 1980 Report.
1980–81 and 1981–82—MAFF Estimates on similar basis as far as possible.
European Community (Fisheries Inspectorate)
2.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report on his inquiries into the reduction of the size of the proposed European Community fisheries inspectorate.
Mr. Holden, head of the Commission's fisheries enforcement unit, has told my right hon. Friend and has recently confirmed to my officials that the staff resources allocated to him are what he has requested and are adequate for their task.
As the conservation of stocks must be the fundamental objective of any common fisheries policy, what confidence can we have in the EC's ability to run such a policy if it is prepared to halve the inspectorate before it gets off the ground? Have the Government reversed those proposed cuts in the inspectorate?
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the inspectorate. A much larger inspectorate was envisaged when it was thought that it would operate at national as well as international level. With the support of the House, we have successfully negotiated that national enforcement should be our responsibility. Therefore, a relatively smaller task force is needed for international supervision.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, far from the inspectorate being reduced, it should be substantially increased in view of past well substantiated instances of continental vessels breaking all the agreements and regulations? If the protection fleet is not increased, the fishing community will have an even shorter future than appears at present.
The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand the situation. There is no inspectorate at the moment, and that is one of the basic problems. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not welcome the inspectorate.
I agree with my right hon. Friend's remarks about the additional inspectorate, but, given the national inspectorate and the additional inspectors, can he give an assurance that adequate supervision of British waters will be fully secured?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I pay tribute to those who work in our protection fleets and aircraft. Recent weeks have shown the effectiveness of their coverage. If there is no adequate supervision at international level, my right hon. Friend and I will press for an increase in resources. However, let us get the inspectorate going, as it is something that we have not had before.
Is the Minister aware that this morning Madame Simone Veil informed the Legal Affairs Committee that the European Parliament had written to the British Government reminding them, in the case of Captain Kent Kirk, that all Members of the European Parliament are entitled to immunities and privileges under the protocols of the treaty? Have the Government yet received that information and have they responded to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman rebuff such an intolerable attempt to interfere in British legal procedures?
Matters speak for themselves. The way in which our protection forces and courts have responded speaks for itself.
With respect, that does not answer the question. Until today the British legal processes spoke for themselves. What will the Government do to reject any attempt to interfere in those legal processes?
The hon. Gentleman apparently regrets the way in which we dealt with the breaking of our law. If he wishes to ask questions about our processes of law, he should address them to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Agricultural Workers (Earnings)
3.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the percentage of full-time hired agricultural workers whose weekly earnings are less than £93.
It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the number of full-time hired adult agricultural workers earning less than £93 per week. The latest figures from the wages and employment inquiry, which relate to the third quarter of 1982, show that in England and Wales 24 per cent. of such workers earned less than £90 and 31 per cent. less than £95 per week.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that 40 per cent. of farm workers with families of two—that is four out of every 10—earn less than £90 per week and therefore fall below the poverty line? Does he further accept that that happens in a highly productive and rich industry? As more farm workers than any other groups of workers draw family income supplement, does the Minister agree that that is subsidising the wages bill of rich farmers? Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that in such circumstances the last pay award of £5 per week was a scandal?
I know that the hon. Lady takes an immense interest in this subject. However, perhaps she would bear in mind three basic facts. In the last two years of the Labour Government, agricultural wages fell in real terms compared with 1975. During every year under this Government, agricultural wages have increased in real terms. Perhaps the hon. Lady will recall that, under the Labour Government, between 1975 and 1978 agricultural wages increased by less than £19. Since the Conservative party took office, wages have increased by £45. If the hon. Lady wants to know which Government treated agricultural workers better, she should bear in mind that the gap between agricultural and manufacturing wages has been smaller in every year of this Government than it was during all the years of the Labour Government.
Is it not true that farmers' incomes were 40 per cent. higher last year? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, by their efforts, all agricultural workers deserve to be paid wages in the upper quartile of average industrial earnings?
If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that agricultural wages should be linked to farm incomes, I must ask him whether when, in previous years, agricultural incomes fell by nearly 50 per cent. and agricultural wages increased in real terms, that process should have been reversed. During this Government's term of office agricultural wages have done better than agricultural and farming incomes.
rose—
Order. I shall call two hon. Members from each side to ask supplementary questions.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he has given refer only to cash incomes and do not include other benefits, such as the housing at less than economic prices which many farm workers rightly receive?
Yes, Sir. In fairness, one must point out that not all agricultural workers receive the benefits of no or low rents. Of course, for some it is an important factor.
My right hon. Friend will recognise that there has been great concern about the purchasing power of the lower-paid agricultural workers. Will he confirm that the purchasing power of an agricultural worker's wages has never been higher than it is today?
Yes, Sir. I also confirm that in every year of this Government the purchasing power has improved.
Is the Minister aware that for the past three and a half years he and his Government colleagues have been defending not the wages of farm workers but the conditions in which Mr. Gordiano can pick up a £500,000 a year salary and Mr. Bill Fieldhouse can get a golden handshake of £700,000? That is the society that the Government are protecting. At the same time, they are the people who—
Order. Are they farm workers?
No, Sir.
The question relates to agricultural workers.
Green Pound
4.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had representations to revalue the green pound; and from which organisations.
A number of hon. Members have forwarded to me letters from constituents advocating a revaluation of the green pound, and the Food Manufacturers Federation and Bakery Allied Traders Association wrote jointly to the Ministry in December. I have also had representations from the farmers unions against any revaluation.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he make a forecast? How would a further loss of value in the pound sterling against the European currencies affect British food prices? In particular, how would it affect the pig industry in Yorkshire and elsewhere?
There is no doubt that positive MCAs have been of considerable advantage to the pig industry. The negative MCA policy of the Labour Government was a colossal disadvantage to the pig industry. Due to the change in the sterling exchange rate, there are neither positive nor negative MCAs now. If there had been positive MCAs, the Government would have opposed the revaluation of the green pound.
Pig Industry (Intervention Grain)
5.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to seek to channel intervention grain stock to help the pig industry.
My Department and the European Commission have considered such a scheme for animal feed generally, but there are serious doubts about its cost effectiveness. Accordingly, for the present, the Commission has decided against it.
I accept the Minister's reply and that which his right hon. Friend gave to the previous question. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that British pig farmers have had a pretty thin time during the past few years? Will he agree to meet a deputation of pig fanners before they become a totally extinct species?
The hon. Gentleman must see the issue in perspective. Although pig farming has gone through a difficult time compared with other areas, there was a certain improvement in profitability last year. However, towards the end of the year things were more difficult, and that is shown in one way or another by the various costing figures. I am, as usual, happy to meet anyone who wishes to make representations. Indeed, I regularly meet members of the National Farmers Union on this issue.
I do not usually support the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), but I must ask my right hon. Friend to take this question very seriously. A thorough investigation might help our stock farmers and, in the long run, given the danger of exports to the Eastern bloc ceasing, cereal farmers as well.
I accept that, but my hon. Friend must remember that the scheme that has been put forward cannot be confined to a single area of livestock production, or it would create distortions. If such a scheme is to be effective, we must ensure that it leads to an increase in consumption and usage. We must be satisfied about that before we can take it further.
Is the Minister aware that if the Liberal party had not voted for the European Communities Act 1972, pig producers would now be able to buy their grain for about half the present price?
Yes, but there are many other advantages. One advantage, of which I hope our pig industry will increasingly take advantage, is that the pig farmers are members of the largest consuming market in Europe. There is tremendous scope, especially as pig prices in the United Kingdom are lower than prices in almost every other Community country, to be much more aggressive about exports to the rest of the Community.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the present position of the intensive pig industry continues for any length of time, there will inevitably be a substantial reduction in the size of the pig herd? If my right hon. Friend cannot help in this way, will he consider other methods to help the industry?
There is also considerable scope for the pig industry to help. It is significant that in recent weeks the price of British bacon has fallen, whereas the price of Danish bacon has remained the same. I hope that the industry will take advantage of a much bigger market. The fact that there is such a large differential means that, through the charter bacon scheme and other efforts, we should try to obtain a greater share of our market.
This is a series of intolerable answers. At present we have about 7·5 million tonnes of cereals in intervention in the EC, and last year we spent more than £1 billion on intervention in purchasing cereals in the United Kingdom. Are we saying that we cannot devise a method of getting the cereals to the hard-pressed pig producer? What does the right hon. Gentleman wish to do with this monstrous mountain of cereals—destroy it or make it inedible?
The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what I said to him previously. We know that there is a surplus of cereals in the Community. Under this system, would he rather have our relatively small surplus or the 50 million tonnes shortage in countries behind the Iron Curtain?
Class A Agricultural Land
6.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current average value per acre of class A agricultural land with vacant possession in England.
The average price of grade 1 agricultural land in England for the period January to November 1982, based on a sample of approximately 40 per cent. of vacant possession sales, was £2,689 per acre. The corresponding price for grade 2 land was £2,018 per acre.
I am grateful for that reply. Are my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry as worried as I am about the rising price of agricultural land, especially to young farmers trying to get into the industry? What hope can my right hon. Friend offer them?
My hon. Friend will know that we could not find time for new proposals on landlord and tenant legislation. The decline of the tenanted sector has continued for many years, but it has been accelerated by the legislation that was enacted in 1976 by the Labour Administration.
Did not that legislation give rights to tenant farmers who could not otherwise have afforded to buy the land? Was it not a protection against greedy land speculators and institutions, which were buying and enhancing the value of agricultural land, as the Minister said? Is that not a much more potent factor in the cost of farming today than the trade union members and the farm workers whom the Government always blame for high wages? In fact, we know that farm workers are in the lowest section of wage earners in Britain.
No. Recent surveys by Savills and Reading university suggest that the influence of the institutions has been exaggerated. It is estimated that in recent times they have bought between 8 and 12 per cent. of farm land put up for sale, but their total holding is only about 2 per cent. of agricultural land in Great Britain.
I should like to revert to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). Does my hon. Friend agree that generous and realistic facilities are available to young farmers who wish to get on the farming ladder through the Agricultural Credit Corporation? Will she do all that she can to ensure that those facilities are widely advertised?
I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is important that any amending legislation should improve the prospects for young people who wish to enter farming on their own account.
Does the Minister agree that the position described is a clear manifestation of the consequences of operating a free market economy? How can the young farmer, who may be extremely well equipped to take over a holding, afford land, even with the facility mentioned by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle)? Does the hon. Lady accept that most would-be young farmers could afford to buy only as much grade 1 agricultural land as would fill a window box?
I see a bleak future for them if the Labour party proceeds with any idea of nationalising agricultural land.
Horticulture (Support)
7.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total agricultural support was given to horticulture in the last year for which complete figures are available; and how this has varied over the previous 10 years.
It is not possible to quantify the total support given to horticulture and other sectors of agriculture. I am in close and continuing touch with the industry on ways of helping growers. As my hon. Friend will know, since 1981, £10 million of aid has been given to glasshouse producers, and recently I announced important grants to the orchards sector.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that about one third of all the food that we consume and the flowers at which we look are produced by the horticulture industry, whereas the aid given to the horticulture section is much less than 30 per cent. of the total? Will he take steps, first, to congratulate the horticulture industry on standing on its own feet and, secondly, to ensure that, where help is given, it bites quickly?
Yes. Horticulture plays a very important part in our food production. From the interest shown by my hon. Friend in this matter, I know that he will recognise the considerable benefit to British horticulture of the Government's support for Food for Britain. The industry will benefit greatly from the marketing initiatives of that new organisation.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the support given to horticulture in Britain compares unfavourably with that given in the Netherlands? His recent decision to wind up the Land Settlement Association in a cavalier manner represents an attitude towards horticulture that does not place sufficient importance on such an important sector of our economy. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, for all those reasons, we must have a new attitude and put much more into horticulture, as the Select Committee report said?
The hon. Gentleman makes a comparison with Holland, but he knows full well that we have negotiated successfully to bring about, by March, the eradication of the major aid received by the Dutch horticulture industry. As someone who has been very much in contact with what has happened on the LSA estates, I can say that our proposals have been welcomed enthusiastically by the majority of people on those estates.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we have reduced our dependence on food imports as a whole, there is still scope for further improvement in meeting home demand from our resources in the horticulture sector? Does that not merit reserving a higher proportion of support for horticulture?
For the past three years I have been willing to consider suggestions from the horticulture industry, and the Government have acted on many of them. I agree about the domestic market opportunities. There are even wider opportunities for exporting food. Several of our major fruit and vegetable co-operatives, which have embarked upon substantial campaigns in the European Community, have had considerable success in the past 18 months.
The Minister mentioned the glasshouse sector of the industry. Does he recognise the predicament of that sector? If so, what steps does he propose to take, not only in the short term, but in the long term, to assist that sector?
We are currently having talks with the leaders of this sector of the industry. Perhaps the most important area to consider is how the energy and heating arrangements for the glasshouse industry will continue. For example, in conjunction with the National Coal Board, we are studying new systems of heating which would be helpful to the industry.
I compliment my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved with regard to the heating difference between the Netherlands and Britain. Is he of the opinion that later this year our growers will be competing on equal terms with the Dutch? If not, what further action does he propose?
With regard to energy, our growers will be competing on equal terms with the Dutch. We shall watch with close interest to see whether any other changes take place, either here or in Holland, in order to ensure that our people can compete on fair and reasonable terms.
Given that this is a most self-reliant and labour-intensive industry, is it not clear that, faced with the prospect of Spanish and Portuguese and potential Greek competition, the present level of Government and Community support for horticulture in Britain is wholly inadequate?
The hon. Gentleman should consider the impact on horticulture of Spain and Portugal. There are areas in which the competition could be increased, but there are other areas of horticultural production in Britain for which those countries will present important new markets.
Marginal Land Areas
8.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the newly designated marginal land areas will be likely to be fully integrated into the less favoured areas schemes for the United Kingdom.
The European Council of Ministers has yet to consider the United Kingdom's proposals for extending our less favoured areas which, as my right hon. Friend told the House last month, were formally submitted to the European Commission on 13 December. It is too early to say when the Council of Ministers will consider our case or what the outcome will be.
Will my hon. Friend accept that the Government's policies for the less favoured areas have been of enormous assistance to livestock farming? How soon will the maps be available so that farmers can begin to plan for the future?
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend in the first part of his supplementary question. Small-scale maps showing the approximate area of marginal land were made available last September, when the discussions opened in Brussels. Maps on the scale of about one inch to the mile are now available for inspection by directly interested parties at selected offices throughout the country.
Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government are committed to giving financial aid to those farmers included in the new marginal scheme now before the EC?
It was important for us to present the programme and the principle. I have repeated at the Dispatch Box that there is no Government commitment to finding new funds, but, naturally, it was important to investigate the possibility and place the proposals before the Community.
Surely the Minister must recognise that it is a waste of time if the Government will not provide additional money. Is the hon. Lady aware that her noble Friend, the Minister of State in another place, told a deputation this week that the Council of Ministers would not consider the matter until the summer? Will she ensure that there is a decision within the next two months?
I can only repeat what I have already said. I cannot say exactly when the Commission will place our case before the Council of Ministers or, indeed, when it will consider it.
Tree Species (Climatic Conditions)
9.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the Forestry Commission assesses the possibility of various tree species for differing climatic conditions.
The Forestry Commission assesses the possibilities of tree species for forestry throughout the range of climatic conditions experienced in Britain. Its assessments are principally made from experimental plantations of promising, mostly exotic species and varieties. The commission has been continuously testing species and varieties in this way since 1922 and currently has over 500 experiments, extending into severe climatic conditions at higher elevation and on exposed coasts and islands. It is internationally recognised as a leading authority on research of this kind and participates in international species trials when these are relevant to British forestry.
In view of all that expertise, what is the assessment of the cost of a cubic foot of prime timber produced in the area of Stoneyburn, Fauldhouse or Longridge in West Lothian compared with a cubic foot in the saline soils of the Roaring Forties of West Falkland? What are the assessments of the transport costs for taking the timber from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere? In 80 years' time when the trees mature, who is likely to be the owner of that afforestation? [HON.MEMBERS: "Answer"].
The hon. Gentleman will realise that I should need to have written notice of some of the details of the first part of his question. I can assure him—
The hon. Lady cannot see the wood for the trees.
I can assure the hon. Member that the cost of establishing trees on the islands to which he referred obviously depends on the size and shape of the woods established, but it is estimated at an average of £1,200 per hectare.
Milk (Co-Responsibility Levy)
10.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to have further discussions with the Council of Ministers about the milk co-responsibility levy.
My right hon. Friend has already made it clear to the Agriculture Council this week that he is opposed to the co-responsibility levy.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the levy is costing dairy farmers about £40 million a year? Does he agree that it discriminates strongly against British dairy farmers? Will he and his colleagues try to get rid of it?
Yes. It is bad, not only for dairy farmers, but for consumers. If action is needed in this direction it is much better taken with regard to price rather than through a co-responsibility levy.
Do I take it that the Minister is in favour of co-responsibility but not in favour of the levy?
Co-responsibility can be applied in a number of different ways and if it brings cooperation and non-discrimination, of course it will be considered.
Does my right hon. Friend even accept the concept of a European dairy structural surplus when Britain is far from self-sufficient in many dairy-related products?
I am glad to say that in recent years our dairy industry has responded well to make the United Kingdom more self-sufficient.
Have not producers any responsibility for the cost of disposing of surpluses, particularly in dairy products and other products? Does the Minister recognise no responsibility to the British taxpayer or the British consumer?
The hon. Gentleman's question makes me wonder whether he has even examined the way in which the European Community works and whether he has noticed the decline in real terms of the price of milk. Secondly, I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the co-responsibility levy. He would appear to be in favour of that levy rather than in favour of price restraint.
Dairy Cows (Yield)
11.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average annual yield of milk from dairy cows in the United Kingdom compared with other European Community countries.
According to information published by the Milk Marketing Board, the average annual yield in 1981 in the United Kingdom was 4,908 kg per cow. This compares with a figure for all 10 member states of 4,127 kg per cow.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he ensure that no measures are taken at the EC price review that will penalise the advantages of the British milk producers that arise because we produce milk more efficiently?
The figures that I have mentioned show the way in which British dairy farmers have taken advantage of technical improvements and advances in breeding, feeding and so on. They are certainly counted among the most efficient producers in Europe. I assure my hon. Friend that in the price fixing negotiations we shall endeavour to ensure that there is no discrimination against our efficient industry.
If the British cow industry is so efficient compared with the rest of Europe, why does not the Minister advocate similar subsidies, compulsory planning agreements and protection for the British car industry?
I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome this, because the way in which the British dairy industry has responded has meant not only that more of our dairy products come from British farms but that a successful export industry has been built up. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that as yields are so high—and we congratulate British farmers on that—the need for new markets in dairy products is essential? Will my right hon. Friend give even further encouragement to new types of cheeses, such as Lymeswold, so that there may be even greater varieties of cheeses and dairy products at home and for export?
One of the most encouraging developments in recent years is that, although we still import large quantities of butter, we now export considerable quantities. I support and praise the initiative of such organisations as the Milk Marketing Board and other bodies in developing new products. It means that there is scope for increased markets both at home and abroad.
European Community (Wheat And White Sugar)
12.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what, for each of the past four years for which figures are available, was the European Community entry price expressed as a percentage of the third country offer price for common wheat and white sugar, respectively, using the definitions and methods of calculation previously used by the European Community Commission.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will publish the information in the Official Report.
Does the Minister accept that the last set of published figures showed that the EC price for wheat was 63 per cent. more than the world price, and that for sugar it was 31 per cent. dearer? Does he also accept that Britain pays far more for those goods inside the EC than it would if it were dealing in world markets? Why have the Government stopped publishing the figures?
In recent times the price of Community sugar has been well below the world price, so the position varies. It is important to ensure security of supply. During the time that the Government have been in office, farmgate prices have risen not only far less than retail prices in general, but far less than food prices. We have had both stability of prices and security of supply.
Will my right hon. Friend at least accept that we are doing a great deal of damage to some of the poorer countries by dumping substantial surpluses at prices well below those in the Common Market? Does he have any new plans to reduce large structural surpluses in the EC?
The messages that I have received from the poorer countries involved in sugar production show that they are concerned about sugar prices in the Community rising as little as is suggested for the coming year. They receive guaranteed prices for their major exports to the Community.
Following is the information:
Entry price as a percentage of offer price
| ||
* Common Wheat
| †White Sugar | |
1978–79 | 193 | 276 |
1979–80 | 163 | 131 |
1980–81 | 146 | 84 |
1981–82 | 154 | 138 |
Notes:* Threshold price as percentage of offer price (cif Rotterdam).
† Target price (in place of threshold price) as percentage of offer price.
Source: 1978–79 and 1979–80—Agricultural Situation in the Community Report.
1980–81 and 1981–82—MAFF Estimates on similar basis as far as possible.
European Community (Butter And Wheat)
13.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been (a) the increases in the levels of public stocks and (b) the average increases in export restitutions in the third quarter of 1982 compared with the third quarter of 1981 in the European Community for butter and wheat.
At the end of the third quarter of 1982 public intervention stocks of butter and wheat were 41,364 tonnes and 1,391,000 tonnes respectively higher than at the same stage in 1981.
Average export refunds for butter at the end of the third quarter of 1982 were 20 ecu per 100 kg higher than in 1981. For wheat the refund was 26 ecu per tonne higher.Is it true that the Commission expects surplus food stocks to rise in 1983 due to a downturn in consumption, itself attributable to escalating unemployment? Why does not the Secretary of State put it to his European colleagues that they should channel less money into support for agriculture and more into support for resolving problems of unemployment, both of which are in structural surplus?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Community has only one area in which it is responsible for marketing arrangements, and that is agriculture. If we add together the national investments of all the European countries in helping with the problem of unemployment, and injections into industry and energy and, in Britain, injections into the nationalised industries, we find that the sums are very great.
Will the Minister confirm that about 1½ million tonnes of surplus British grown wheat will be exported in the coming year, and that the export subsidy per tonne will be about £60 to £70?
Yes. I am pleased that a country which 10 years ago was a net importer of cereals, by about 10 million tonnes, is now a major exporter of 4 million tonnes.
Temperate Foods
14.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom's present level of self-sufficiency in temperate food that can be produced in the United Kingdom compared with 1972.
17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in ensuring that the United Kingdom is self-sufficient in the production of temperate foodstuffs.
I estimate that we now produce 76 per cent. of all the temperate foodstuffs we consume. In 1972 the figure was only 63 per cent.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of that improvement has come from the massive achievements in productivity by British farmers? Does he accept that the application of such techniques to nationalised industries and their prices would be of benefit both to British farmers and to other British industries?
I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only have British farmers achieved considerable success, but it has been in the interests of the British economy as a whole, with more than £1 billion of imports saved compared with 1979.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that achievements have been made not only by British farmers but by the industries that are ancillary to, and help, the farming industry? Does he further agree that if the same level of increase in productivity had been sustained throughout the British economy we would be in a much better position today?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Not only are 650,000 jobs directly involved in agriculture, but many tens of thousands more are involved in the engineering and building industries and elsewhere. The benefits go widely through the economy.
Prime Minister
Engagements
Q1.
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 January.
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings, including one with Afghans who are resisting the Soviet occupation. Later today I shall be leaving for an official visit to Yorkshire.
Between those important meetings, will my right hon. Friend have time to consider the implications of strikes in essential monopoly public services, such as the Health Service and the water, gas and electricity industries, where disruption can cause serious health hazards and possible danger to life? Will she consider setting up a Royal Commission, or some other body, to draw up revised and fair terms and conditions of employment that would preclude the right to strike, such as we have for the police and armed services?
I note my hon. Friends remarks about a Royal Commission, but "no strike" agreements tend to be expensive. My hon. Friend mentioned the water industry. There is an agreement in that industry to solve disputes through arbitration, which is binding upon both sides. I understand that the employers and unions are negotiating through ACAS. I hope that the negotiations will be successful and that the threat to strike will be withdrawn.
The position in the water industry, with possible strike action, is serious. Will the Prime Minister, as a Government, do everything possible to ensure that the discussions at ACAS are allowed to succeed? Will she, as a Government, ensure that no steps are taken that would injure the possibility of successful negotiations? The unions have wanted that from the beginning, and they want it now. They want fair treatment from the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a threat to strike. I understand that that is in breach of the agreement, which is to resolve disputes through arbitration. I join him in hoping that the discussions through ACAS will be successful.
I would not invite the right hon. Lady to say anything that would make a settlement more difficult—I would not wish to do so. I am sure she will understand that there have been ballots throughout the industry. There is strong support among its workers, who feel that the proper negotiating machinery has been interfered with and that the Government have intervened. Will she encourage the discussions at ACAS to succeed through genuine negotiation? I am sure that a settlement could be reached on that basis.
I have already wished the negotiations well, and I repeat that.
Without in any way criticising the tribunal that sat in Liverpool yesterday, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of anxiety that Michael Fagan was released from hospital yesterday without any surveillance? Would she further agree that the Mental Health Act 1959 should be amended so that in future it should be possible for mental health tribunals to impose a supervision order on people leaving hospital, if that is thought to be necessary?
I recognise the deep feelings that my hon. Friend has expressed. I understand that the judge who presided in this case made a hospital order without also making a restriction order, which it was open to him to make. The hospital order put the decision on to the medical tribunal. Had the judge made a restriction order as well, the matter could have gone to the Home Secretary. At present we must obey the existing law, which was drawn up in 1959.
Has the Prime Minister seen the report of the Central Statistical Office, published yesterday, which showed that manufacturing output in November was the lowest since the mid-1960s? Is that not a remarkable achievement after four years of her economic policy?
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says about manufacturing production. That is, of course, only part of production. The GDP over the same period is considerably up. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the middle 1960s. The index of manufacturing production is at its lowest since 1967. On the same basis, GDP is up 26 per cent. on the 1967 figure.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in seeing this afternoon the survivors of the Logar massacre in which 105 unarmed civilian Afghan people were massacred by Russians, she has earned the gratitude of the Afghan people and struck a blow for the self-determination of that country?
I agree with my hon. Friend. These people are brave and courageous resistance fighters. We must do everything that we can to support them.
Q2.
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 January.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Has the Prime Minister had time to consider the case of the 7½-year-old child in my constituency who has become addicted to glue-sniffing? Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in view of the massive increase in solvent abuse, there is a desperate need for new legislation to prevent the sale of such solvents to young people, and to establish centres to help children who become addicted to glue-sniffing?
I know of that case and I am aware of how deeply we all feel about it, and how worried we all are that there is an outbreak—if that is the right word—of glue-sniffing in certain areas. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not easy to stop such action by legislation. I doubt whether legislation would have much effect upon it. He will also be aware that in Liverpool and many other local authority areas voluntary bodies are working with the authorities to tackle solvent misuse and alert youngsters to the dangers so that they may be responsible for their own health. He will also have seen an announcement by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security to the effect that he is consulting the authorities, retailers and voluntary and statutory bodies to see what they can do to help.
In view of the interest being shown in Scottish seats by some Opposition Members, does my right Friend agree that that could constitute a good case for devolution, if not outright independence, for Scotland?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ingenuity of his question. I am sure that whatever happens he will be returned for his seat in Wales.
During the Prime Minister's busy day, could she take the opportunity to ask for the relevant papers from the European Assembly, which has apparently passed a resolution condemning her and the British Government for saying that we should buy British whenever possible? The British Government representative made an abject apology and said that it was not the policy of the British Government that we should buy British, because that is against Common Market rules. Are we to be told by this bureaucratic "Jenkins" assembly that we cannot ask people to buy British?
I feel a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. We are free to choose what we buy. I hope that British goods will soon be better than those of any of our competitors. I believe that we should be free to buy British.
Q3.
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 January.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
In view of the legitimate anxiety felt by the people involved, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm this afternoon that for the rest of this Parliament the Government will continue to maintain the real value of supplementary pensions and benefits?
We have done so until now. I confirm that we shall do so, at least for the rest of this Parliament.
Will the right hon. Lady consider today whether the cost of her electoral trip to the Falklands should be borne by the British taxpayer or whether the charges should more properly be put to Conservative Central Office?
The hon. Gentleman's question is both small-minded and typical.
Is it not a matter for profound regret that the Argentine forces possess Exocet missiles? In the light of the reports of possible Argentine attacks upon the Falkland Islands and dependencies, will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear to the Argentine regime that if any attacks were to take place we should have to consider our options for taking retaliatory action in the form of sanctions, or force if necessary?
My hon. Friend is correct to raise this matter. Bearing in mind that Argentina has not agreed to the permanent cessation of hostilities, let alone renounced the use of force, the possibility of further attacks has been ever present, and the troops are alert. I hope that if there are further attacks they will be firmly repulsed. If there were attacks we should have to consider very carefully what to do, apart from repulsing them.
Will the Prime Minister reflect upon the fact that although five major steel plants have been saved, decimation is taking place in practically every steel town, particularly in Lanarkshire? Will she be mindful also of the mass unemployment in Scotland and tell us that she will change her policies and get people back to work?
The hon. Gentleman is aware that world steel capacity is greatly in excess of world steel demand.—[interruption.] Hon. Gentleman may not like that. They never do like the facts, but they cannot overcome those facts. Our job is to try to achieve as big a share of the home and export markets as we can. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) reminded us a few moments ago, it helps steel output if people buy goods that are made substantially of British steel.
Trading Imbalances
Q4.
asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made during the Christmas Adjournment in correcting unsatisfactory trading imbalances with Japan, Spain and France respectively.
During the Christmas Adjournment the Japanese Government announced a number of tariff cuts on items where we have been pressing for reductions. They also said that they would review standards and testing procedures, and we hope that this will produce a relaxation of non-tariff barriers to trade. I told Foreign Minister Abe that changes of this nature were welcome and a positive step, though their impact was likely to be small in relation to the magnitude of the trade imbalance.
In the past six weeks the European Commission has had a number of detailed discussions with Spain. It is to report on the outcome to the Foreign Affairs Council on 24 January. Community free trade is a treaty right. I believe that our strong representations to the French Government are having some success.I thank my right hon. Friend for that full and firm reply. Does she agree that the grotesque tariff and non-tariff imbalances with those countries have continued for far too long, that we have been far too patient and that, if something is not done soon, we should retaliate in kind?
I agree with my hon. Friend that the differences are grotesque—in some cases, such as Spain, due to tariff barriers, but in other cases due to non-tariff barriers. Because of this, we were very firm with the European Commission and have taken steps to speed up the negotiations, which were proceeding very slowly, with both Japan and Spain. I believe that our representations have had considerable effect. We shall continue to press them very hard.
Business Of The House
3.30 pm
Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 JANUARY—Opposition day (5th Allotted Day): There will be a debate on the Adjournment of the House on the regional impact of unemployment. This subject has been chosen by the Liberals. Motion on the Local Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contribution) (Repairs Grants for Airey Houses) Order. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock. TUESDAY 25 JANUARY AND WEDNESDAY 26 JANUARY—A debate on the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Franks on the Falkland Islands Review, Cmnd. 8787, on a motion to take note. At the end on Wednesday, motions on the Valuation (Plant and Machinery) (Scotland) Order and on the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order. THURSDAY 27 JANUARY—Proceedings on the Pig Industry Levy Bill. Remaining stages of the Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill and of the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill. FRIDAY 28 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills. MONDAY 31 JANUARY—There will be a debate on the fishing industry.I thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging the debate on the fishing industry that we have been requesting for many weeks and for arranging it at a time next week that we believe is appropriate for the House.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget, if indeed he intends to introduce one? There is to be a statement today on the Serpell report, but may I make it clear that the Opposition want an urgent debate on the matter because we believe that the sooner that report is strangled by the House the better for all concerned and we are not prepared to see the British transport industry wrecked in the way that other great British industries have been wrecked? Finally, on the question that I raised with the Prime Minister earlier, I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement now, but will he do all in his power to ensure that the negotiations in the water industry succeed? Is he aware that proper negotiations have not taken place, although there have been ballots supporting the claim of the workers and unions in the industry? I hope that he will do all in his power to get proper negotiations going and perhaps arrange for a statement to be made to the House if that would assist the process.On the last point, I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that the work of ACAS in the water industry dispute will be crowned with success. I note the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety that the House should be kept properly informed of progress.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Serpell report. The House will wish to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport today. We may then discuss how best to proceed. I note with gratitude the right hon. Gentleman's comment about the fishing debate. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that this will coincide with the successful resolution of the dispute in the European Community. Finally, I am pleased to tell the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget on Tuesday 15 March.Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 47 signed by 105 Members on both sides of the House relating to restrictions on gliding in Scotland?
[That this House, concerned that there is no independent appeals procedure against Civil Aviation Authority decisions on the introduction of new airways, calls upon the Government not to implement the proposal for an airway between Glasgow-Edinburgh and Aberdeen via Perth until the effect of the airway on gliding at Portmoak and all the other options have been fully explored and debated in public.] Will he promise that there will be a debate before any further action is taken?I am afraid that I cannot offer a debate in Government time, although I realise the importance of the matter for a section of the community. Some of those who have signed the motion might try seeking an Adjournment debate so that the matter may be further ventilated.
When will there be a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade, even if it means summoning him from the House of Lords to the Bar of this House, to explain why he put his own vested interests before the jobs of more than 3,000 Scottish workers in his scandalous decision to allow his junior lackey to overrule the decision of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Anderson Strathclyde takeover?
As the matter is now before the courts, it is proper that I should reflect an inhibition on that account. If I were not so inhibited, however, I should say that the manner in which the hon. Gentleman raises the matter and the motive that he imputes are thoroughly disgraceful and reflect more on the hon. Gentleman than on his target.
Will there soon be an opportunity to debate the work of the new Select Committee? In view of reports in the newspapers today, will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that the Committee will not be televised by the back door without the full approval of the House first being secured?
The first report from the Liaison Committee, which has just become available to the House, raises many important issues wider even than those touched upon by my hon. Friend. I am sure that the House will wish to consider it very carefully before deciding how to proceed.
We are to have on Monday a debate on the impact of unemployment in the regions, but, as recent announcements regarding future employment in British Steel and in the British shipbuilding industry involve many thousands of people, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the prudence of arranging a debate on those two important industries at the earliest possible moment?
I noted the hon. Gentleman's sterling comments last Friday about the proposed steel closures in his constituency. I think that next Monday's debate will give him the opportunity to say indoors what he has already said outside.
As the Franks report, which is to be debated on Tuesday and Wednesday, contains many details, although I welcome the fact that we are to have a two-day debate, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of suspending the Ten o'clock rule on one of those days so that any hon. Member who wishes to make a contribution may be sure of the opportunity to do so?
I should be obdurate if I said that I would not even consider the possibility of suspending the rule, but I could not ordinarily recommend too nocturnal an approach to the matter. I think that the two days may well prove sufficient.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister responsible to make a statement next week about how a man so brilliantly able to break through the toughest and tightest security system in the world and to get into Buckingham Palace twice was found guilty of stealing a car, put into psychiatric custody, appealed to come out on the grounds that he was fit and was told that he was not but won his case at the tribunal, but for which he would still be incarcerated? May we be told who was responsible for keeping him there then, and refusing to release him, because we are now told by an independent tribunal that he should be released because he is fit enough to be out, provided he goes on with treatment? Why was he not allowed out without having to appeal?
The hon. Gentleman, in an ingenious fashion, makes some trenchant comments on the matter. The Prime Minister answered very comprehensively a few moments ago, and there is nothing that I can add to her reply.
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 209 about an allowance for blindness?
[That this House notes with concern that Her Majesty's Government has not introduced an allowance to offset the additional costs occasioned by blindness even after statements by the Prime Minister and successive Ministers with special responsibilities for the disabled have accepted the case presented by organisations of blind persons and given assurances that measures would be taken to introduce an all-purpose disability income when the economy inproves; and now believes that as inflation is now in single figures such an allowance should be introduced as a matter of urgency.] As is clear from the early-day motion, the Prime Minister and the Ministers responsible for the disabled have accepted the need for a blindness allowance for disabled persons when the economy starts to improve. As inflation is now in single figures, is it not time to have a debate so that we may discuss the possibility of granting a blindness allowance to people who deserve it?
My hon. Friend will have heard me announce that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to present his Budget on 15 March. I should have thought that that occasion and the ensuing Finance Bill would give him the opportunity that he seeks.
May a considered reply be given to a question of which I gave the right hon. Gentleman's office notice this morning? Could a statement be made on the American intelligence reports of the stationing of two squadrons of M5 extended range Mirage fighter bombers, especially in the light of the Prime Minister's replies which seemed to show that in the event of a bee-sting attack on the Falklands there could be—this is the only interpretation that could be put on it—retaliation on the South American mainland? Should not the matter be cleared up?
I am reluctant to comment on press reports of the character that the hon. Gentleman mentions for reasons that I am sure he will understand. However, I shall certainly ensure that his anxieties are put to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Defence. I have a feeling that the topic may be touched on in the debate next week.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention again to early-day motion 47. Is he aware that the Civil Aviation Authority has seen fit to ignore the views of the 105 hon. Members who have signed the early-day motion, and that in the absence of an independent appeals procedure, it is exercising dictatorial powers in a most insensitive manner?
I can add little of substance to the reply that I have already given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). However, I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to the points that have been put to me by my hon. Friends.
In view of the fact that we are to have a two-day debate on the Franks report on the Falkland Islands next week, shall we at the same time have a considered Government statement on what they intend to do to meet the numerous criticisms of the various Government Departments and the failure of co-ordination? Shall we at the same time have a statement about the long-term future of the Falkland Islands, in view of the fact that they have already cost the nation £7 million per family on the island, and leaving aside the financial aspect, the fact that there is the danger of a further military conflict?
I am sure that all the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will feature in the debate. I do not think that I can go further than that.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been no debate in this House on the civil sector of the aerospace industry since the passage of the British Aerospace Act in 1980? The military sector is amply covered in our defence debates, but the civil and space sectors which account for about one third of the output of our aerospace industries are not covered. As important decisions, particularly in the civil sector, are pending, will he allow parliamentary rime for a debate?
I am sure that the record of achievement by civil aviation could be well displayed in any debate that we had on that subject, and certainly it would reflect the skill and successes of my hon. Friend's constituents. However, it is unlikely that we shall provide Government time for it in the near future.
Does the Leader of the House remember that on Monday the Home Secretary, in answering questions on the Kensington shooting, said that it would be a good idea to have an early debate on the policing of London? Will he accept my assurance that many London Members, certainly on this side of the House, want an early debate on the police force that is, at least theoretically, directly accountable to this House through the Home Secretary?
I have noted the hon. Gentleman's interest, but I fear that I have to tell him that a debate certainly cannot take place next week.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made about the allocation of the contract for the Falklands housing project, in which a firm, Brewster Associates, managed to get the contract although its tender was for £4·2 million, while the tender from the Hallam Group, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher), was £3·8 million, in spite of the fact that Brewster Associates had not filed any company returns since 31 December 1979, as shown in the answer that I received this week, and that one of the directors of James Brewster Associates was an ex-diplomat from Argentina? Surely a statement should be made on this sinister matter.
I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister.
May we at last, after repeated requests, have a debate on disarmament so that we may be given an account of the negotiations which are taking place to find out what progress has been made? As the Leader of the House knows, there have been many protests in the House because many people outside, including the courageous Greenham Common peace women, feel that Parliament has not devoted enough time to this vital issue, and that it is not sufficient to say that this matter can be raised in defence debates. We want to concentrate on the peace issue and disarmament, not on building up nuclear weapons.
Secondly, before Christmas, the Leader of the House said that there was the possibility of a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, following the statement that was made. May we have that debate, because it is a matter of great importance to the West Yorkshire textile industry?On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I congratulate him on obtaining the Adjournment debate on Tuesday 26 January, which I understand will be devoted to the United States nuclear bases in the United Kingdom. That is just one way of demonstrating how these topics are often debated on the Floor of the House without using Government time. Of course, I note his concern that there should be a more general debate on these issues, and I have no doubt, taking account of the increasing degree of political interest, that there may well be one.
I shall consider the question of a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement discussions and recent agreement. I have shown some sympathy with the idea of having a debate, but I must confess that no time will be available next week. At this time of the year, things look a bit bleak.Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange lessons for junior Foreign Office Ministers as to how to comport themselves when abroad, in view of the fact that on a recent visit to Turkey a junior Minister fell asleep during a meeting and referred to Constantinople instead of Istanbul?
If it comes to lessons in comportment, there are some people whom I might have in mind before junior members of the Foreign Office.
As in the last election all members of the Government campaigned against any idea of an incomes policy or norm and no person was more vigorous in opposition than the Leader of the House, may we have a statement next week on the 4 per cent. pay limit, which has meant that the water workers have not been able to negotiate freely with their employers? Is it not important to have a statement to justify the present position compared with what was said at the election?
The Government's general economic policy was successfully argued yesterday. I have a sufficient sense of delicacy towards the feelings of the hon. Gentleman that I would not want to arrange such an infliction for next week.
Did the Leader of the House note that in the debate in the House last night the dominating issue was the problems in the international monetary system? Did he note also that only three Labour Back Benchers could be called because of the lack of time? Will the right hon. Gentleman give more time, prior to the Budget Statement, for a full debate on the problems of the international banking system?
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that yesterday's debate rested substantially on the issue of international monetary arrangements. That was appropriate, given the significant role that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer plays.
With regard to the difficulty of obtaining the facility for Back-Bench Members to speak, I should have thought that one way of surmounting the problem was by way of shorter speeches.British Railways (Serpell Report)
3.51 pm
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the Serpell committee on railway finances.
I am publishing today the full reports to me and copies are now available in the Vote Office. The committee was appointed on 5 May last year after the British Railways Board had proposed a review. As the House knows, the committee was chaired by Sir David Serpell, who has held many public offices, including membership of the railways board, for a number of years. The members were Mr. Bond, a member of the board of the Rank Organisation, Mr. Butler, a partner in Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co., and Mr. Goldstein, a leading transport consultant and engineer. Their work was delivered to me immediately before Christmas, as I informed the House on 23 December, and copies were sent forthwith to Sir Peter Parker. There is a majority report by Sir David Serpell, Mr. Bond and Mr. Butler and a minority report by Mr. Goldstein. The committee was asked to examine and report on the shorter-term financial prospects of the railway and on the options for many years ahead. The majority document fully reflects this. The minority document by Mr. Goldstein gives more attention specifically to the longer term, and places a different emphasis on certain aspects. The Government are grateful to the committee for its hard work and speedy efforts. The reports explore the broadest range of issues about our railways of any inquiry since nationalisation. I should particularly like to take this occasion to pay tribute to Sir David Serpell, who has discharged a most difficult task with great ability and integrity. The railway serves many customers and communities, but it also requires major support from public funds, which this year will exceed £900 million. There has been growing concern about the state of the railways, their cost and their future. These reports now give us a basis for decisions and for action. The committee does not support the view that yet larger injections of public funds are needed to preclude extensive closures, or that large parts of the system are at risk from lack of maintenance with present levels of support. No major backlog of renewals was demonstrated to the committee's satisfaction. Nor did the committee accept the case for what it called "a high investment option", although it recognised the need for some changes in existing investment priorities and for possible increased investment in the late 1980s. Nor do the reports recommend huge rises in commuter fares, as some wild speculation has suggested. The best way to keep fares down is by cutting costs; the reports point to large scope for that. Nor do they suggest that safety should or would be prejudiced. The committee has given close attention to the opportunities for considerable improvements in efficiency and the reduction of costs over the next five years. It has drawn attention to particular areas where present shortcomings need to be remedied. I welcome the efforts by Sir Peter Parker and his board to improve their management arrangements, to reduce costs and to get rid of restrictive practices. The reports now published point to further large scope for improvements in efficiency. I have made it clear to the British Rail chairman that I regard these improvements as the top priority for action flowing from the committee's reports, and I remain confident that they can be achieved. Vigorous and immediate action by the board will have my full support. The committee has not made recommendations about closures or the longer-term shape of the railways, but it has set out broad illustrative options for consideration. It would be quite wrong to respond with snap judgments or closed minds to any of these ranges of options, whether they concern track and signalling, rolling stock, network size or fare structure, or new objectives for the railways board. The committee makes it clear that more work would be needed to be done to translate any of these illustrations into policy options. Indeed, it would be foolish to come to settled conclusions on any one of these questions in isolation. Other questions—such as the relationship between road and rail services and subsidies for public transport generally, the introduction of private capital and the relationship between British Rail and the private sector—also remain to be determined. The public have the right to know more clearly what value for money they are getting from their railway services and how funds for public transport can best be used. We now have the opportunity for informed discussion about the sort of railway that we want and are prepared to pay for. It is on this basis that the Government now propose to reach lasting decisions that will be in the best interests of the nation.Does the Secretary of State realise that most of those who have studied the network options A and B in the report, for a so-called commercial railway, have been absolutely appalled to find that an 84 per cent. cut in our railway network is involved and, if implemented, would leave no lines operating in Scotland north of Edinburgh or Glasgow, no eastern main line beyond Newcastle, no lines in Wales beyond Cardiff and no lines whatsoever in the west country? The Secretary of State said that the committee did not accept the case for a high investment option, but will he concede that the committee did not even examine the proposals for main line electrification? It did not consider British Rail's proposed investment programme. Does that not show the most horrendous anti-rail bias on the part of the committee?
When the Secretary of State said that the report did not propose fare increases, I wondered whether he had read the chapter that refers to an option for substantial real increases in fares in London and the south-east. Has he looked at the amount that the report suggests might be saved? The figure is about £55 million, which implies an increase in fares of about 40 per cent. The report suggests that acceptance of its options would lead to congestion, which is a contradiction of the aims that we thought were intended for the running of a modern railway service. Chapter 6, which refers to the writings of Travers Morgan, carries a clear implication that the safety standards of British Rail are too high and suggests that savings might be made by curtailing track and equipment maintenance that is currently considered essential for the high standard and safety of British Rail. Is that not absolutely disgraceful? I have serious doubts about the propriety of paying more than £500,000 to consultants in which members of the committee had a direct financial interest. This report appears to show blatant disregard for the needs of passengers. It uses a financial criterion that bears no comparison with that used by any other national railway system. All it does is waste time and delay critical decisions that need to be taken to maintain our railway service. As such it should be totally rejected.The right hon. Gentleman, in his indignant condemnation of a substantial report—I do not believe that he can possibly have studied it fully and thoroughly—overlooks the fact that it was the British Railways Board that eagerly sought this review and welcomed the setting up of the committee. Now that the committee has come to several conclusions that the right hon. Gentleman does not immediately accept, it would be sensible if he were to examine and evaluate them rather than jump up and condemn the whole thing out of hand.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the network options. I have already said that they are illustrations. Neither I nor the Government wish to see substantial closures. If that policy were changed, it would be after a long and informed debate. That remains our policy. There is a statutory procedure for closures which is endorsed and reinforced in this report. The right hon. Gentleman does himself no justice by shutting his mind to any consideration of the value for money to be obtained from different sizes for the rail network. Electrification investment depends upon the ability of British Rail to bring forward proposals on how it can put its inter-city business into profit. I believe that it is intending to bring forward those proposals quite soon. I look forward to receiving them. The right hon. Gentleman talks about anti-rail bias. When the committee was set up, its chairmanship and the committee members were welcomed by British Rail. That undermines what he has said on that matter. This report does not confirm the speculation, which was given a good run by Opposition Members, of a 40 per cent. increase in commuter fares. In looking at the structure of fares, it is necessary to examine the suggestions on the size of the discount. There is no mention of 40 per cent. in the report. Nor is there any suggestion that safety would be prejudiced. As to the appointment of the consultants, I and my Department chose Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Butler and their consultant firms in line with proper procedures. Travers Morgan has made studies of railways throughout the world, including British Rail. It is a very substantial and reputable firm. For the right hon. Gentleman, because he does not like the immediate conclusions and because they do not confirm his prejudices, to try to undermine the committee and the consultants to the committee is a transparent and feeble reaction. I hope that he will give a more open-minded approach to a very full and substantial report.The Secretary of State should acknowledge that British Rail has said that the reports are a disappointment to it. In its view, the committee has reflected its inability to agree on important issues. British Rail stated that the report contains unreliable information. It makes few specific recommendations. BR has said that the report mixes procedural matters with policy, and that little attention is paid to the need to maintain momentum behind the current initiatives.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that that is what British Rail has said? if so, how can he suggest that this is regarded by those currently responsible for running British Rail as making any sensible contribution to the important debate that should be taking place on maintaining and sustaining the railway system?British Rail has indicated to me that it sees constructive aspects in this report and it wishes to build upon them. It is true that it has expressed disappointment. There are criticisms in both the majority and minority reports. British Rail has a perfect right to challenge and to meet those criticisms. I do not think that there is any indication that British Rail is taking the oyster-minded approach of the right hon. Gentleman and closing its mind to the challenges in these reports. This report shows that there are substantial opportunities for cost savings, thereby building on the spirited efforts that Sir Peter Parker and the board have made in trying to overcome some of the absurd restrictive practices and poor customer service in the industry. British Rail is ready to take those opportunities, obtain the cost savings and run a high quality modern railway on the basis set out in the report.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the snapshot judgment he condemns becomes inevitable if a report is dribbled and leaked to the press and the media in the way that this report has been? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Transport Select Committee were the last people to receive the report, although it was being discussed throughout the media? Does he accept that the main conclusion of the report is along the lines that the committee thinks that British Rail can improve its efficiency and reduce costs while keeping the railway
Is he aware that practically none of the leaks suggested that?"at broadly its present size."
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. That is the most important conclusion. I deplore the great deal of speculation. As soon as I received the manuscript of the report, I reported that fact to the House. The printers have been working on producing a report of 200 pages, 19 maps and many diagrams since that time so that hon. Members might have copies of the report and the supporting material.
In the meantime, it is true to say that there has been some highly selective speculation—that is to be deplored—including putting out "facts" that were not facts at all and giving a totally false perspective. Now that the entire report and supporting documents are available, it will be wise and prudent for those who are interested in the future of a modern railway to study what is of value in this report and to look at it in a balanced and critical way.Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this report is almost in line with the Beeching report in as much as it will create tremendous alarm throughout the transport industry? Will he give an undertaking, either now or in debate, that a large part of this report will be consigned to the dustbin? Will he concede that the six options as to the size and scale of the railway that will remain will mean that in the northern region nothing can travel east to west on British Rail north of Leeds and south of Edinburgh? All six options in the report suggest a direct distinction and separation between east and west.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also take this opportunity to say that he does not accept the recommendations that are designed to destroy British Rail Engineering Ltd? Some of us have had a very short time to look at this report. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that British Rail's policy is to buy British, so that the purchase of 100 per cent. of rails from the British Steel Corporation will continue? That is criticised in the report. Will he turn that down at once? Does he accept that many of us believe that this report reads more like Hans Christian Andersen? It is not a serious report. Will he consign it to the dustbin?I do not think there is any comparison between this report and the work of Dr. Beeching. The report covers a wider area. It is concerned with the cost and structure of the railway. The report also puts forward a number of illustrative options of what the public is getting in the way of value for money in transport services in the railway system. I do not think that it compares with the Beeching report at all. The hon. Member said "Put it in the dustbin". One of his hon. Friends yesterday said "Burn it." That does no credit to the hon. Gentleman. When he studies the report, he will see that it contains information and illustrations that are of importance and value. Let them be tested against the views of British Rail. As a railwayman, the hon. Gentleman will see that there is information of considerable value for building a better future for the railways.
The future structure of British Rail Engineering Ltd is considered in the report. The aim of the report is to identify ways in which the capacity of British Rail Engineering Ltd. to build railway equipment can be preserved and made competitive. It looks at the different relationships that might be developed between BREL and British Rail to achieve that aim. If the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are really interested in the future of British Rail's engineering capacity and in the competitive supply of equipment, both at home and abroad, I should have thought that they would be interested in these opportunities and would support discussions to see how they could help BREL. I very much hope that British is best, that British equipment will be competitive and will be supplied to our railway system. That is what we all want to see. The best way of achieving that is to ensure that BREL has a proper structure and is highly competitive. The report puts forward a number of options on how that might be achieved.Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the report contains no comparisons with other countries and is short on recognition of safety standards and on replacement and transition costs? Does he also agree that Serpell seems to assume that the present recession will continue ad infinitum? I agree that a debate will have to take place on this detailed report, but will the Secretary of State ease the purse strings of British Rail so that it can at least place some orders for badly needed replacement rolling stock? Will he also look at map C2 and say who will take the train to Crianlarich?
As I told the House yesterday, the £960 million external financing limit for 1983–84 allows for an increase in British Rail's investment projects. A number of projects are in the pipeline, including some for new forms of rolling stock.
The Government have always said that they look with sympathy at the financing of transitional costs to meet the problems of adapting a great service and industry to future needs. That has been reflected not merely in words but in action and money as well during the last two years when transitional costs have been met. It is true that the report looks at our system and needs and does not go too far into international comparisons. Those can vary from countries that run their systems at a huge loss to others that are desperately trying to cut the loss and those that run relatively economic systems. We must choose what is best for us, what we can afford and how we can best achieve it. The report helps us along that road.Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, despite the fact that he told the committee that it need not concern itself with electrification, it has commented negatively on the prospect of main line electrification, particularly the east coast main line, in paragraph 8.14? I accept that British Rail must recover from the disastrous strikes of last year, cut its costs and become more efficient, but does my right hon. Friend accept that if he were influenced by that paragraph his decision would be viewed with disquiet by a number of his hon. Friends?
That paragraph shows that decisions about electrification, including the immediate proposition for east coast main line electrification, turn on the board's capacity to put its inter-city business into profit. The board will bring those figures forward shortly and I look forward to receiving them. It is on that basis—this is in no way altered by the Serpell report—that we shall reach decisions on the worthwhileness and timing of further electrification projects.
The report looks back a long way and looks forward a long way. It requires a more sober and balanced reaction than we had from the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) this afternoon.Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the conclusions in the report are far worse than anything recommended by Dr. Beeching, because at least even Beeching recommended that there ought to be a basic rail network? Does he also accept that, because of his refusal to condemn those parts of the report that refer to the network, many parts of the country will now be wondering whether under the Conservative party they will have railway services in the future?
Even if the right hon. Gentleman will not condemn those parts of the report that refer to the route network, will he condemn those parts of chapter 6 that specifically say that safety standards in track maintenance and signalling ought to be reduced?I do not accept that this report is comparable with the Beeching report. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to dismiss information that is valuable both to British Rail and the tax-paying and travelling public about how best we develop the railways. I have frequently said that the Government do not wish to see substantial closures. If, as a result of a long-term review, a different policy were necessary, the House would be informed of the Government's views and would wish to debate them.
I do not accept that there should be any prejudicing of proper safety standards, so long as the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness does not use safety arguments to justify unnecessarily high costs. I know that he wants as much as I do to see a tight-cost, safe and efficient railway.Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has used selective quotations for the purpose of scaremongering to an extent that almost verges on dishonesty? By suggesting that the report urges wholesale closure, is not the right hon. Gentleman quoting directly contrary to the principal conclusion in the main report that, given greater efficiency and reduced costs, the railways can be maintained at broadly their present size without any increase in subsidy in real terms? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give the lie to the suggestion that either the report or the Government are in favour of major cuts in the present size of the network?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reaction of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness was below his usual standard. He knows that the report contains a number of valuable conclusions. My hon. Friend has reminded us that the conclusion in the majority report is that, with the railway system broadly in its present shape, substantial savings could be achieved over and above those on which British Rail is now working.
I have made it clear that the Government do not want to see a substantial number of closures. If there were to be a change in that policy, it would be after informed debate. That debate will be more informed as a result of this report, and any decision will be debated in the House and declared before the House. That is the Government's position and I am sure that it is the right one.The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that at Question Time yesterday the House was alarmed because this report was not before it. The right hon. Gentleman knew then that he would be making this statement today, yet hon. Members did not receive the report until 2.30 pm. Surely that is an abuse of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has read and studied the report. Is he prepared to say, given that his knowledge of the report is greater than that of hon. Members, that he will oppose the proposals and options on the removal of subsidies on the inter-city lines? Will he remove the electrification and safety options? Indeed, is he prepared to remove the option on buying British? Will he also state whether he will uphold the principle of a fully developed and invested rail system as part of an intergrated transport system in the United Kingdom?I am prepared to enter into debate with the hon. Gentleman and any others on sensible measures, consistent with the nation's resources, to support and develop a modern and highly efficient railway system. As part of that, unlike the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, I am prepared to look at new facts and illustrations—including the engineering costs, which have never before been examined except by the railway industry itself. Those figures are now available to the public. I am to consider where investment priorities can be switched for the greater benefit of passengers and customers—who also come into the equation—and the railway system. That is what I am prepared to do.
I resent the hon. Gentleman's remarks about abuse of the House, because I have taken the greatest care to ensure that the full report, with all the maps, all the details and all the diagrams, is available to all hon. Members. I do not accept his remarks about abuse of the House.Does the Secretary of State accept that this is a thoroughly negative report and that in putting forward six options it creates maximum uncertainty, which must have an effect on the economic regeneration of the areas affected? Does he further accept that by saying that he will consider all six options he is adding to the uncertainty and that in areas such as Wales, where with three of the six options we would have nothing but a transport desert, grave difficulty will arise for those who are trying to overcome the unemployment problem?
In putting forward illustrative options the report tells us the value that we are getting for the money being spent on a number of railway and transport services. Although I have said that it is the Government's view that we do not want to see substantial closures and that a change of policy would follow only after the most intense and careful debate, the hon. Gentleman owes it to his constituents, the transport services, and the transport standards that his constituents want, to try to find out whether they are getting the right value for money from the considerable expenditure that is involved in some of the lines described in the report. His constituents will expect that of him. Far from condemning it or merely saying that it should not be considered, he ought to set out his views on some of the facts in the report. I should welcome them.
Will the Secretary of State do the honourable thing and withdraw his allegation yesterday at Question Time that right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition were indulging in scaremongering? Is he not aware that the cat is now out of the bag and that many of the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends are included in the options in the report? Is he not further aware that in the north, in Scotland and in Wales the rail communications system is being decimated? Is he further aware that the option put forward to buy steel for track on the Continent flies directly against what the Prime Minister has argued about people buying British? Is this not nonsense in anybody's terms?
The hon. Gentleman has again alleged that what is included in the report, and what his hon. Friends were saying was included in the report, are firm recommendations, including a statement that there would be a 40 per cent. increase in commuter fares. I know the hon. Member studies these things very carefully. I hope he will take the opportunity to read the report in full. If he does, he will see that these are not firm recommendations. They are illustrative options to show where the money is going. He would be the first to say that we should have value for money and good, integrated transport systems. The options deserve study and we should not close our minds to any changes in the structure and pattern of our railway system. That is not a constructive approach. I do not believe that in his heart of hearts it is one that he wants either.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding the options outlined in the report, there is no foreseeable threat to the future of the Aberdeen-Inverness line, which is so important to the communities in the north-east of Scotland?
The Serpell report considers a number of illustrative options. My hon. Friend will have to take it from me that it is not the Government's wish to see substantial closures in the railway system. I cannot stand here, and I never have sought to do so, and guarantee the future of the entire system for all time.—[26 January, c. 916.] No Transport Secretary has undertaken that and I would not seek to do so.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the more constructive part of the Serpell report has been canvassed for many years in the House by many hon. Members, particularly as it affects London? Of course, successive Governments have not implemented the proposals. Has the Secretary of State any comments on paragraph 6 of the section on the longer-term options, where there is full support for subsidies for London commuters? Will he remember that in the Transport Bill which is now in Standing Committee he is not proposing to pursue that policy'? Will he tell us that he is prepared to take that paragraph out of Serpell and make sure that there are adequate subsidies for commuters in London?
I think that the hon. Member is confused about the Government's attitude towards subsidies for transport, and certainly London Transport. This year London is receiving a larger share of national taxpayers' support for transport than ever before, and very substantial levels of subsidy support for London's transport system are fully supported by the Government. In the Serpell report the question is raised of the level of subsidies. In one paragraph it is made clear that the subsidies are well worth while because they prevent totally unacceptable and antisocial congestion on the roads, so that is a sensible policy.
rose—
Order. I propose exceptionally to call five more hon. Members from either side, which will give much more time on this statement than on others.
Can my right hon. Friend give me a simple message of encouragement and reassurance that I may take back to Cornwall? For the last 20 years, whenever there has been a hint of a rail closure in Cornwall, we have seen hotels and guest houses converted to old peoples' homes and private nursing homes, with a loss of tourist capacity. Industrialists who had expressed an interest in coming to Cornwall decided that it was not for them. There are six options in Serpell, and three of them ignore Cornwall. In the remaining three there is the total elimination of the economically vital and socially relevant Falmouth to Truro branch line. What will the Secretary of State tell me to say to my constituents about this?
My hon. Friend can take one comment from me and a comment of comfort from the Serpell report. First, as I have already said a number of times, it is not the Government's wish to see substantial closures in the network. I have made that absolutely clear. Second, the Serpell report, by illuminating some of the expenditure on railways, indicates ways in which better transport facilities can be brought to rural and outlying areas by the better expenditure of funds and a more imaginative development of the transport system than Opposition Members are prepared to acknowledge. That will be for the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituents and is a message worth taking to them.
Is it possible to make a reasonable assessment of what the level of subsidy to British Rail should be, without international comparisons, when every other major country gives subsidies to its railways which are far in excess of ours? Is it not absurd that in the chapter on British Rail Engineering Ltd. the Serpell committee should have examined and rejected the desire of British Rail to keep BREL going on the basis that there is no alternative information about its productivity and its capacity to make profits? It states specifically that the information is not available, yet it goes on to suggest that it might be privatised as one of the options.
On the second point, the committee considered a number of options, of which privatisation is one, and putting it much closer to British Rail is another. The committee's basic concern—as it is mine and would, I hope, be that of the hon. Gentleman with his constituency interest—is to see that the capacity, competitiveness and effectiveness of British Rail Engineering, with regard to both engineering maintenance and railway building, are maintained. That is a common concern and one to which options such as these address themselves.
As to international comparisons, it is not true that every country subsidises its railways to a much larger extent than we do. To take one example to do with urban systems, we are often told that we have a low subsidy for the London transport system, but the subsidy for the greater Tokyo rail system is only 5 per cent., which is infinitely smaller than anything here. Many countries have different circumstances and many are seeking to reduce their railway deficits. We have to be sensible and confident and choose the levels that we want for our railway system. That is the right starting point.