It is with great pleasure that I commence what one gathers will be a lengthy debate on the Consolidated Fund. My pleasure is mixed with relief because every few years I hazard a chance in the ballot and usually end up making a 'nocturnal contribution. My pleasure in initiating this debate is doubled, therefore, by the unfortunate experiences of the past.

Education is a vast and important subject. I shall not range over it all, but shall fix on specific parts and, I hope, leave time for other hon. Members to participate in what is surely one of the most relevant debates that we can hold at this time. I shall deal with two aspects, both of them of national significance, although the first is of considerable local significance to my constituency of Leominster. I shall deal first with school closures, about which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has spoken in the past. School closures are of particular relevance to my constituency in terms of the future of rural schools. I shall deal secondly with teachers' pay and conditions, because this debate could not take place without talking about them.

In referring to school closures I shall emphasise rural schools in particular. I immediately declare my constituency interest because my constituency is one of the largest in south and central England, comprising 800 square miles and having within its circumference the grand total of one traffic light.

Ha, ha.

I see that my hon. Friend from Oxfordshire is bursting with merriment. Perhaps there are a few more traffic lights in Banbury. Nevertheless, it is a very pleasant constituency.

The education authority responsible for my constituency and the Hereford and Worcester county council remain, I am proud to say, Conservative-controlled. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree, and heed the fact, that Conservative-controlled areas such as mine feel strongly about some of the actions that the Department of Education and Science is rumoured to be thinking about—I say that advisedly.

Councillor David Muffett, the chairman of the Hereford and Worcester education committee has shown himself to be a champion of the small school. Pursuant to the injunctions of the Department of Education and Science, my local authority has been conducting a review. I am delighted that Councillor Muffett and his working committee have recommended that there should be no closures in the rural west, an area about which my constituency and I are particularly concerned. I am extremely relieved. Under the review, no fewer than two secondary comprehensive schools, two sixth forms in two other comprehensive schools are threatened with closure and numerous primary schools could be affected.

The Government and my hon. Friend the Minister of State should note some aspects of this review. I must say in their defence that this exercise is necessary whoever is in government. Both sides of the House are bound to ensure that the great amount spent on education—I shall not quibble about how much is spent here or how much there—is spent in the best interests of pupils.

In talking about closures, there must be a certain balance. I should like to give what is perhaps a slightly extreme and personal example. Obviously, every closure is a battlefield and every Member of Parliament becomes involved in virtually every campaign on closure. The first one in which I was involved concerned a small village school in my constituency in 1975 when Labour was in government. I pursued the matter right through to the then Minister of State, Department of Education and Science and I thought that I argued my case as well as most hon. Members could. But I found that I could not argue that the continuation of a school which then had 16 pupils, and whose population was to come down to 14 pupils, was a good thing. There must be a balance.

There is another side to the coin. Bearing in mind the pronouncements in recent years by the Department of Education and Science, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to beware of the sweeping macro solution, whether it comes from White Papers or from beautifully named circulars or is the result of a numbers game, appropriately played by that distinguished body, the Audit Commission. When I mention that name, I am sure that some of my hon. Friends shudder at the thought of the effects if some of its numbers are applied strictly and dogmatically and, perhaps above all else, if the case involving the numbers on which we settle is not argued with the British public and won. I do not think that we have embarked on that yet.

I said that each school represents an individual battlefield. I do not want to heighten the nightmare for the hon. Friend the Minister, but I must point out that 4,000 rural primaries and comprehensive schools could be affected. There are 2,000 village schools with fewer than 50 people. Many comprehensives, including Tenbury high school and Weobley high school, have well under the sacred numbers game mark of 900 pupils. Whatever we do in the House, we have to sell our case. In doing so, we must learn more about the economic, educational and social factors involved before we put up the backs of the entire rural world.

Hereford and Worcester county council, as part of its review, is commissioning a report on rural secondary schools from Warwick university. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who is in his place, and I are pleased to hear that. We know that our country will have something on which to base future decisions and will perhaps have a much better input when it comes to influencing the Department of Education and Science. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have shown that they have some sympathy with my comments.

I would like to quote a press release issued by Conservative central office, which contained remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister during her recent visit to Truro during the by-election campaign. That release is dated Thursday 19 February and it shows her general support for the points I am trying to make today. I wish to quote those comments because I believe that my hon. Friend may have something to say about them when she replies. The press release stated:

"We are aware that there is concern in Cornwall and throughout Britain about the future of many rural schools and particularly about the effects of the Government's circular on the viability of smaller schools. We are re-thinking our policy on rural schools because we feel that parental choice is extremely important. We recognise that there may be a case for a more relaxed attitude to the size and future of these schools. There may be costs involved in allowing smaller schools to stay open. But we must also consider children—especially younger children—in rural areas such as Cornwall and the distances they might otherwise have to travel."

I have deliberately put that on the record because it is relevant—indeed, we will welcome any further comments about that from my hon. Friend.

The second aspect that I wish to discuss is teachers' pay and conditions. It is appropriate to discuss this at the present time. Let me say—I am sure to the relief of both sides of the House—that I will do my best not to be overly partisan, unless provoked. Frankly, I believe that the subject is far too important to be over-partisan. Surprising as it may seem, there is considerable agreement among the various parties to the dispute which should deny justification for the exacerbation of the present conflict.

Yesterday, in preparation for this debate, I re-read some of the long history of the matter. I went through the Burnham committee, up hill and down dale, from the days of Lord Burnham, I went through Acts of Parliament, Houghton's, Clegg's, Nottingham, Coventry and everything else. I have mentioned those quickly because I will not refer to them in detail—I am sure hon. Members will be pleased about that.

After several hours reading about the various matters, I reached the conclusion that it is utterly wrong that the Government of the day—dare I say, any Government—should not act to ensure that the present chaos does not continue to harm our children and our children's futures. Such was the conclusion that I inevitably reached having studied the regrettable mess involved.

The background to the problem is tortuous, to say the least. I will not recite the details, but will extract a few essentials. First, I wish to concentrate on the Burnham committee. In many respects that committee is at the heart of the matter. Hon. Members will be aware that it is virtually agreed that, for many years, there has been general dissatisfaction with the Burnham committee. The problem is not that dissatisfaction, but what to put in place of the Burnham committee. Moreover, the problem is how to achieve the necessary agreement to put anything in its place.

I wish to draw attention to three relevant reasons for such dissatisfaction—it is necessary to highlight those reasons to find the answer to the problem. The first is the old historical chestnut which, to a large extent, rendered Burnham inadequate and signalled its demise—the fact that Burnham could not deal with conditions of service, but only with pay. That had much bearing on the present problems. In this, Burnham is almost unique in terms of a pay-settling body and its inability to deal with conditions has been at the root of the current problems. This has to be altered and there is a good measure of agreement among the parties involved about that.

The second problem concerns the multiplicity of union representation. For better or worse, there has been a constant history of disagreement between the various unions involved with the committee. Should the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) ever be in government, he will appreciate that such disagreement represents a negotiator's nightmare when trying to reach agreement.

The nightmarish aspect continues because of the problems connected with the employers' side of the negotiations. That represents the dichotomy of the control of education—that between national and local government. That is a subject for a one-and-a-half-hour debate in its own right. For the purposes of this debate, however, we must accept the present position. It is always likely—it has been the case since May 1985—that there is different political control of the employers' side whoever is sitting where in this House. Should the Government of the day not control the employers' side of the Burnham committee, that is bound to create friction, especially when the ideologies of the various parties in the House are so different.

In addition to the national and local friction, there is the friction between the local authority representatives. They are politically divided and must cope with the additional pressure in negotiations of keeping in either with the Government of the day or with the Opposition. They attempt to play the national game as well as trying to deal with the future of education. That is not easy. Everyone must accept that this system should be changed.

I wish to give some relevant quotations covering a time span that is also relevant to illustrate how long the problem has continued. Successive Governments have had a desire to play a role, to a greater or lesser extent, in Burnham. Successive Governments have been increasingly concerned with the pay negotiations because of the increasing financial constraints that are involved when the country's economy is increasingly under pressure.

In 1963 the late Sir Edmund Boyle, Minister of Education, and hardly a person who could be called one of the more desperately partisan elements of the House, rejected the Burnham committee and set in train the arrangements that were in existence for Burnham until a matter of weeks ago. He said:

"In essence, the Burnham Committee's provisional agreement seemed to me to have got its priorities and thus its balance wrong. It gave too much weight to the young and inexperienced teacher and too little to the older … It rewarded insufficiently those who have the prime responsibility for organising the life and work of the schools. In short, it seemed to me that it was not just the details but the whole strategy…which was wrong."—[Official Report, 25 April 1963; vol. 676, c. 431.]

That illustrates the time span of this problem. In my view, if the Minister of State or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made such a statement right now, it would be just as relevant. There seems to he an awesome prophetic quality in that quote. That speech led to the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1963, passed by a Conservative Government on an interim basis and then led to the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 passed by the then Labour Government. Indeed, since that time, successive Governments have implemented the new Burnham structure. It led to the Government's involvement in the Burnham committee via the so-called "concordat" which dictated the weighted vote, the veto and everything else with which hon. Members are extremely familiar.

An eminent Member of another place, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when speaking on the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill in another place on 9 February 1987, touched on the union differences, which are an admitted fact. I do not claim that Lord Houghton is generally in support of what I am saying but I shall quote one part——

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not quote directly from the speech of a Member of another place.

I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I was becoming carried away by my quotations. My hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that the quote from Lord Houghton's speech was to be my final quotation.

Lord Houghton made it clear, with all his experience, that it is not a good basis for negotiation to have a body representing staff within which there are political and ideological differences, not to mention a different emphasis in militancy. Lord Houghton said that it was with a great sadness that he felt obliged to make that comment. He made it clear that the business had to be sorted out, that seven voices were far too many, that an interim solution was proposed and that, perhaps, most important, a permanent solution still lay ahead.

In the light of those important words it seems that the joint negotiating committee that emerged from the Coventry and Nottingham negotiations and those that took place elsewhere is an inadequate solution and must be reconsidered.

I have referred already to the concordat and to the spring of 1985. Whatever he the merits, it seems utterly wrong, if not downright asinine, that about half way through a four or five year dispute with serious implications for the future of education, central Government, following repudiation of the concordat, should be excluded from participation within the Burnham committee. For many years the concordat had rightly allowed the Government to participate, and the exclusion augured badly for the future. It was an example of a lack of responsibility or of over-enthusiasm following the takeover of political control of the Burnham committee by those whom Opposition Members support.

Everything that I have said is relevant to present and perhaps even more relevant to the future. First, we must get away from the ghastly past. I have tried to underline the fact that the past is ghastly and that we must get away from it.

Hear, hear.

I am glad to hear that the Liberal party has an opinion on these matters. It has not had responsibility for anything for many years, and perhaps it will not have any in future. That being so, it can laugh at just about everything that my right hon. and hon. Friends and Labour Members say about serious topics. We deserve from Liberal Members a little more than laughter. It would be more appropriate if they acknowledged the faults of the past. It would be encouraging—we would be lucky if this were to happen—if we were to hear a few of the things that they have in mind on this score.

We must take a realistic and objective view. For better or worse, the Burnham committee is dead. We shall not return to anything like it. It is important that that is underlined. Secondly, there has been a fair and generous pay offer, which will soon be in effect. We can argue about the details and the structure, but that must he done in an atmosphere of peace. The first priority is that that should be done through the right national negotiating machinery.

The action of some of the unions will get us nowhere. I think that it stems—I am not trying to be emotive or emotional—from frustration about pay and conditions, and that can be attributed at least in part to the actions of some of the unions over the years. Their present stance will exacerbate differences, cause friction with parents and harm children.

There is no option but to have talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the future machinery. I think that the entire House should accept that my right hon. Friend is only too willing to talk. I am sure that he wants to establish suitable machinery for the future. As a human being, he probably wants to get these matters off his back and get on with dealing with the future of education.

The public expect and deserve progress. They are entitled to greater cohesion than has been shown in years past when the vital issue of education has arisen. It is up to us in this place to give them a better future.

I listened to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), with some interest. I must congratulate him on two instances of refreshing candour. Two sentences will be prominent within the Hansard report of his speech that we shall remember in future. First, there is his blunt and candid recognition of the past—his Government's past in education—which he described as "ghastly". That will be the burden of the speech that I am about to make. I shall give him some figures to go home with.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that it is time that we got out of this ghastly mess. I could not agree more. The ghastly past in education has been created by the Government over the past seven years.

Not only the present Government.

It is not good enough to go back to 1979——

rose——

I have a good deal to say but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I make it clear that I shall not give way a second time.

I understand that the past in education goes back at least to 1960, when I started teaching. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) was right to describe the past in education as "ghastly". To try to pretend that that situation has occurred only in the past few years is a travesty, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) must acknowledge that.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully to the rest of my speech. I believe that the past in education is ghastly, and that it has been especially ghastly over the past eight years. I say that—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit tight and listen to some of the figures that I am about to produce. If he feels like making a speech countermanding them or questioning them, he may have the opportunity to do so.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I have given way once already and I made it clear that I would not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has just made a 25-minute speech, and he has had the opportunity to advance his arguments.

It is a quick point.

I do not wish to be discourteous, but the hon. Gentleman has made a 25-minute speech and I think that the time has come for me to advance my arguments. I have given way once and I have made it clear that I shall not give way again.

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's speech that we shall remember is his contention that we cannot afford to invest in education because the economy is under pressure. We have just finished a four-day debate on the Budget, during which Opposition Members argued that the economy is under pressure. To this charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer contended that it was in wonderful condition. The hon. Member for Leominster cannot have it both ways. If the economy is under pressure, there will have to be spending constraints, which means that the burden of the Budget debate amounts to nothing. Alternatively, the economy is not under pressure, which means that the Government can invest in education for the future.

When we talk about policy we should not listen to promises. Instead we should examine the record. The Bible states:

"Ye shall know them by their fruits".

Some of the "fruits" should be catalogued for the benefit of the Minister of State, who is to reply. Since 1980, 1,791 schools have been closed.

What about the state of our schools? Twenty four thousand schools—about 66 per cent. or two thirds of the total—need substantial repairs or substantial decoration. That is the present position. One in three schools have leaking roofs, one in four schools have outside lavatories and one in five schools are overcrowded. Her Majesty's inspectorate report of 1984—I can take no more objective view than quoting it—states:

"Many of the country's schools are in a sorry state of repair and getting worse."

That is the legacy that the Government have left our schools.

The level of truancy in Britain is rising. One hundred thousand pupils regularly play truant. If Conservative Members wish me to put that information into terms that they will understand, that is equal to the populations of 50 full comprehensive schools regularly playing truant. I remind hon. Members that the crime figures published the other day stated that the peak age for offenders is 15, at a time when 100,000 children regularly play truant. A total of 141 schools have been forced to drop special subjects for less able, handicapped children because of lack of resources.

On average a child in a private school has 10 books. In state schools children have on average fewer than half that figure—slightly less than 5 books per child. Only two authorities in the whole of Britain—incidentally, both of them are London boroughs—provide enough books to meet the international standards that govern or at least, advise on such matters.

Last week, I asked the Minister of State about the GCSE. We discovered that resourcing for GCSE is almost a disaster and is producing something close to a crisis. Last week, I went to Bulmersh school in Reading. That school is not in any sense atypical. The teachers simply could not deliver the kind of resources that were required for rising 14-year-olds who are to take the GCSE next year. I was told by a master who is to take GCSE students through chemistry that there is one book between three students. Mock exam papers were withdrawn because they were inaccurate and gave a wrong impression. No further mock exam papers could be produced because, I was told, there were no financial resources to print them. The criteria for assessment of GCSE students of business studies were not even published until after the first assessment had to be made.

Our 14-year-olds who are rising towards taking GCSE are getting, as a national newspaper stated recently, a raw deal. That is putting it at its best level. At its worst, many are having their chances for the future completely blighted. When we talk about Government policy, it is fair to look back at what the Government promised. I have glanced through the Tory party manifesto for 1979. [Interruption.] Conservative Members might listen. This is its promise:

"We must restore to every child regardless of background, the chance to progress as far as his or her abilities will allow."

I see the hon. Member for Leominister and the Minister of State nodding their heads. Let us consider whether that promise has been fulfilled.

Commenting on the same matter, Her Majesty's inspectorate's report for 1986 stated:

"Disparities of provision within and between schools and, in turn, opportunities available to pupils, are widening."

They are widening under the Government, seven years after the commitment was made. The Government have not taken one step towards it. In fact, the disparities are positively widening.

Let us now consider higher and further education. It is reckoned that reductions in funding to universities will now mean that, to stay solvent, universities have to get rid of about 2,000 teaching jobs in the next impending period. University departments are closing and whole universities are having to amalgamate. Indeed, I am told that the figures show that about 20,000 academic posts have been lost. As a result of a want of £8 million, all research funded by the Science and Engineering Research Council has halted. The brain drain from British universities and institutions is reaching flood proportions. Eighty two fellows of the Royal Academy—Britain's premier research and academic brains—are now permanently resident in the United States.

But that is not my greatest indictment. That is that, in a period of 3 million unemployed, perhaps costing Britain between £18 billion and £20 billion a year, and with the prospect that it will cost four times that amount, British industry is being held back because of a massive skill shortage.

Our high technology industries, upon which the future of our nation will depend, are now growing at about half the average world rate for high technology industries. At least one of the reasons for that, as any high technologist will say, is the skill shortage that is affecting Britain. There are 30,000 too few graduates for new technologies. Next year, Siemens, the West German firm, will qualify more people at all levels of high technology than will the entire British education system. There are more graduate applicants for first jobs in Taiwan than in Great Britain. Whereas 40,000 people in Britain——

rose——

I shall not give way. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for my discourtesy. He will no doubt have a chance to make his own points in a moment. I allowed one intervention. I made it clear that I would not take another.

In Great Britain today, some 40,000 young people are going into apprenticeships. In West Germany, 90 per cent. of children aged post-16 go on to training and education. That compares with Britain's 31 per cent. who go on to post-16 full-time education up to the age of 18. The level of 31 per cent. who go on to post-18 full-time education is the lowest of almost all of our sister nations. It is even lower than the number that Portugal sends on to post-16 full-time education. Meanwhile, to meet the gap of skilled teachers in Britain, if the whole output of the physics graduates this year went into teaching—which they certainly will not do—there would still be too few to meet the needs for physics teachers.

The problem for teachers is even worse. Some 5,000 of our teachers—usually the best—have left the job to go to better-paid employment elsewhere. Our teaching force is demoralised and dispirited and lacks the commitment that it needs. I make it clear that I do not blame the Government for all that. The unions have their share of blame as well. But there is no doubt that 12 million lessons have been lost through disruption. At least a part of that disruption has been the Government's deliberately provocative actions in taking away teachers' rights to negotiate their pay and conditions without necessarily a limit on the Government's power. [Interruption.] Conservative Members know perfectly well what our policies are. We have said what they would be.

Education in Britain has been seriously damaged since the Government came to power. The Government claim that they have increased resources, if they are read as a teacher-pupil ratio. I do not deny that statistic. It is true that education resources per pupil in Britain have increased marginally, but the real point is that, with school rolls dropping, the Government had the opportunity, by maintaining spending, massively to improve education spending per pupil, but they have chosen not to take that opportunity. What a wasted opportunity that was. Education as a percentage of public spending has not risen. Even during the Secretary of State's term, it has fallen. Indeed, it now stands at 19·2 per cent. of public spending. That is lower than in any other OECD country. It is lower than Italy, Belgium and Ireland. The United States devotes about 24 per cent. of its public spending to education, and Japan about 36 per cent.

Education as a percentage of gross domestic product has again dropped under the Government, from 3·9 per cent. to 3·6 per cent., whereas the percentage for our sister nations is above 4 per cent. At the 3·6 per cent. level of GDP, we are significantly below the average of our sister nations. It is significantly less than the average for Austria, Ireland and Australia.

If the Secretary of State for Education and Science and other Members of the Cabinet believe that they should invest some of their personal finance to provide their children with the best education at private schools, why do they deny to other people the right to invest some of their personal finance in the education of their children at state schools? These are the bitter fruits of this Government's stewardship.

Many believe that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is using education much more as a vehicle for his personal ambitions than as a means of achieving something that will be lasting and useful. Many believe that he is using his ministerial post to drive forward his vendetta against local government. Whether or not that is true, it is assuredly true that this is a gimmick a day Secretary of State. The city technology colleges will do nothing to remedy the lack of specialist teachers in the inner cities. The interim advisory committee is his poodle to command teachers' pay tomorrow. Benchmarks were his next invention. He wants to centralise the curriculum, although 80 per cent. of it is already a common curriculum throughout Britain.

Does the Secretary of State intend to go over to the French system? He says that he does not want a state curriculum, but in an interview in The London Evening Standard on 17 March 1987 the Prime Minister said:

"Don't forget we are also considering having a model syllabus which makes jolly certain that your youngsters are going to be taught some of the proper things."

Is that the official view of the Conservative party? The country would like to know.

The Secretary of State's policy is a gimmick a day. A gimmick a day keeps attention away from the real problems of education. Those real problems are slum schools, demoralised teachers, disruption in the classroom—for which this Government bear at least part of the blame—falling resources, the closing of universities, the widening skill gap in our industries and the yawning gap that is now opening up in terms of the opportunities that are provided for our young people in a two-tier education system, which means that the best education goes to the few who can pay, the rest having to put up with what is left over.

There is one step that we must take. We must begin to invest in education. That is not an investment that this Government cannot afford to make; it is an investment that they cannot afford not to make. Spending on education should be nearer that which is common in other nations. We ought to be aiming at 4–5 per cent. of GDP. We believe in that investment. To make that commitment now would produce the education system that this country so desperately needs.

rose——

I remind the House that this debate must finish at 5.41 pm. Therefore, I appeal for brevity.

One must always listen with a strong sense of scepticism to Liberal spokesmen on any subject. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) scattered around statistics with the abandon of a hired guest at a shotgun wedding casting confetti. He has thrown them at an inappropriate target and it gives no cause for celebration. I shall cite just two of his points. He referred to the ghastly past and attributed it largely to Burnham.

No, I did not mention Burnham.

I recall that Burnham was wished upon us. It was born to the Liberal party in 1918.

I never mentioned Burnham.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Burnham in relation to the ghastly past. He also deplored the fact that there is a lack of training in technological subjects, yet when it comes to finding a solution, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has done, by means of the city technology colleges, it is dismissed as a gimmick-a-day approach.

I felt my age the other day when I was invited by the old boys association of my school to sponsor a dinner in Parliament for the association. It was not a grand school of the kind that the Opposition are so anxious to wish upon the Conservative party. It was a small grammar school in the slums of London. To those who lived in that part of London the school offered a ladder of promotion. They discovered their strengths by means of the teaching that was offered to them. When I first went into the science laboratory at that school, I remember that a saying was inscribed on the wall. It has stuck very clearly in my mind. It said:

"No structure without function.

No function without purpose."

It is as well to remember these three words, since they are the elements of education—purpose, function and structure.

Those of us who oppose the current educational nostrums and the modish educational theory that is propounded by education authorities such as the Inner London education authority are conscious of the fact that the educational priorities have been distorted or even inverted. The prime purpose of education is to educate children, not to employ teachers or to maintain buildings, important though that is. The second aspect, the function, is that teachers should work to a curriculum. The third aspect, the structure, takes into account the administrative back-up, the buildings and the education authority. We have indeed been placed in a ghastly dilemma over the last few years because these priorities have been put in the wrong order.

I continue to live in the part of London in which I was brought up. My children have gone to schools in the locality that I knew when I was a child. When I first qualified I taught at one of those schools. Then I became a governor of it, and subsequently I became a member of ILEA. I have wept over the fact that ILEA no longer provides the children of inner London with the same opportunities to find their place in life as existed 40 years ago when I went to Battersea grammar school. Many Conservative Members feel passionately about what has happened in inner London and in other education authorities that have been politicised. We believe that education has become a political football. Therefore, we are encouraged by the approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are pleased that a proper sense of vocation is being reintroduced into the teaching profession.

Education debates provide an opportunity for hon. Members to reminisce. I recall that when I first went to school the rigour of education, based on the classroom curriculum, was of great importance. It was through literacy and numeracy that one obtained the skills with which the other delights and opportunities of life could be enjoyed. Apart from the classroom curriculum, there was another curriculum. I refer not to a covert or secret curriculum but to a curriculum that demonstrated that teachers were committed to their pupils. They were prepared to give up time to referee games at weekends, to play chess with their pupils at lunch time, or to rehearse and produce plays late into the evening. That is what education was about. Alas, those opportunities no longer exist in very many of the schools in that part of London in which I live. That is to the great detriment of London schools, but, more important, it is to the great detriment of the children who attend those schools.

The hon. Member for Yeovil made great play of those who can and those who cannot pay for education, but it is more sinister than that. Those who can pay move out of the inner-city areas to the leafy suburbs. Many of the comprehensive schools in those suburbs are the kind of school that Conservative Members wish could be found everywhere. When people move out of the inner-city areas, they leave behind them pits of deprivation in the inner cities.

We shall still have to deal with that problem. If we as a party do not deal with it, no one else will. There is no evidence that the Opposition are able to deal with it in the places where they control the education authority. The efforts that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to introduce technological education through city technology colleges for those from deprived inner-city areas—where they can gain the skills that will give them the opportunity to proceed to work for Siemens or any other great organisation that requires that sort of skill—are a way towards that end.

I must confess that when I first came to the House and the abolition of the GLC was being considered I had grave misgivings about the abolition of ILEA, to the extent that I fought keenly for its retention. I did that, not because I had a great admiration for what ILEA was doing, but because I had an even greater fear of what might happen if it were transferred to the boroughs in which the various schools were situated. There was some benefit in inner-London boroughs being grouped together. There was strength that came from size and expertise that could be employed through that size. I feared for the children of Southwark if ILEA were to be broken up and they were to be subjected to the whims and wiles of a Southwark education authority, and I feared for the children of Lambeth if they were to be subjected to a Lambeth education authority.

In the intervening years, ILEA has not responded to the opportunity that was given by its being independent of the Greater London council and by having its members directly elected for educational reasons. That is something in which it failed to fulfil the opportunity and promise that was offered.

For that reason, we must seriously consider the future of ILEA: not because we want to destroy the structure, not because it is not functioning well, but because the future of ILEA and the purpose for which it is there is not being fulfilled. It is not giving the necessary skills, education or opportunities to the pupils that it is there to serve. I believe that there should be changes.

I can probably express on behalf of the small group of us who have attended education debates for some time a feeling of disappointment that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) is no longer spokesperson for the alliance. He brought a certain wit and charm to our proceedings and, as this afternoon's deliberations have shown, we may well miss that wit and charm from our future debates.

I should like to speak on one or two of the points that the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) made. I realise that time is short, so I shall be brief and concentrate on a few small points. The hon. Gentleman rightly said—I do not say this in a critical sense; it is a somewhat trite comment, but an important and obvious one—that education is about children. That clearly must be right and we must develop a system in which we can give the best possible education to children. One of my grave concerns at the moment is the level of morale among those who are crucially important for delivering high-quality education—teachers. That brings us back to the themes that were developed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) in his opening contribution about teachers' pay and conditions and the negotiating machinery.

I have felt for a long time that the Secretary of State has developed a risky strategy. It is risky in two senses. First, it is risky because it plays around with principles, rights and freedoms. In a democracy there is a basic right to bargain collectively with one's employer. I know that Conservative Members have said on numerous occasions that the Burnham machinery was not working. On that point there is some accord across the House and between employers, unions and the Government.

However, I fear an argument that then goes on to say that, because practice in one form does not work, a principle must be abolished. In this case, that principle is the right to bargain collectively. I would be happier with the Government's intentions if I could genuinely believe that we are dealing with short-term interim provisions. The record of the Government suggests otherwise, and I can understand the concern of teachers who feel that we are dealing with the long-term abolition of the right to bargain. That has led to frustration and industrial action.

That brings me to the second part of the Secretary of State's risky strategy. By allowing that frustration and industrial action to continue, the Secretary of State is responsible for the disruption that is occurring in our schools. He cannot impose a settlement and at the same time expect acquiescence or high morale from the teachers. That is an important equation that the Secretary of State has failed to understand. In a dictatorship—but not in a democracy— a settlement can be imposed, but we are not dealing with an agreement, because there is no consent. In a democracy and a system as sensitive as education, morale cannot be imposed on teachers. I fear that, in the aftermath of this dispute, however it is settled, our education system will be damaged for a number of years.

I say to the Minister that we should be not just talking, but talking with the possibility of some movement on the part of the Government. The hon. Member for Leominster said that the Secretary of State's door was open. That may be right— I do not deny it— but if the Secretary of State's door is open, to maintain the metaphor, his mind should be open as well. He should be prepared to discuss and move. There will be no substantial loss of face for the Secretary of State, but if he moves towards the teachers there will be a substantial gain for parents and children in our education system. I urge him, even beyond the 12th hour, to think again about his proposals and think again about the implementation of his powers.

The hon. Member for Dulwich talked about the inner cities and described some of them as "pits of deprivation". I welcomed his analysis of the way in which the welfare state works and the extent to which it almost redistributes resources towards the middle classes and away from the working classes. That means that we need much more positive discrimination and much more direct action towards the inner cities. What has happened in my constituency, and in many other inner cities up and down the country, is that, because of the action of the Government, money has been lost in rate support grant that is desperately needed in the inner cities.

The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to the recent reports in the Daily Mirror on our education system. That report concentrated a great deal on my constituency of Leeds, Central and referred to the Lincoln Green primary school in my constituency, where 197 children are on the roll. The hon. Member for Dulwich talked about pits of deprivation. I put it to him—I am sure that he will accept this— that there is a link between the physical fabric of education and the quality of education. Whatever teachers do in a school such as Lincoln Green— I know that its teachers perform excellently—the quality of the building will influence the climate and the ability of children to respond. That is why we need to invest in building.

The Daily Mirror pointed out in its excellent report that Leeds city council, using its own resources, will overcome the problems of Lincoln Green and a number of other schools. The council is coming up with devices to fund the inner city. How much better it would be if we had a relationship or partnership between central and local government to fund our inner cities so that children in schools such as Lincoln Green should not have to face the problems that they have in recent years.

The hon. Member for Yeovil made a point in relation to research and the problems which are facing the Science and Engineering Research Council. It is crucial— recognise the problems—that the Government make additional money available for research in our universities and polytechnics. That is a crucial investment in the future of the country. It is an investment in our higher education system and an investment in our economy. The sums about which we are talking are small in terms of the overall budget but their meaning in terms of the Government's recognition of basic research will be important.

I talked about morale in our primary and secondary sectors, but morale in higher education is also low. If the Government could come forward with money for research they would, at a stroke, substantially improve that morale. I hope that when the Minister replies she will give hope to our scientists. I remember that under the Labour Government of 1974–79, Conservative Members talked about taxation rates causing a brain drain. The only brain drain that we seemed to experience then involved pop stars and film stars. We are now experiencing a real brain drain of Britain's top scientists and potentially top scientists. The Government must act to stop that.

A Government's stewardship of the education system is measured by two criteria—their ability to maintain morale among those who work in the education system and their willingness to invest in that education system. On both criteria, the Government have failed badly. They have failed the country and our children. They have a deplorable record.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), first, on choosing a debate on education policy, and, secondly, on his success in winning first place in the ballot. That is particularly appropriate today after a substantial lobby of parents here and in Westminster Hall.

I congratulate the parents on the way in which the lobby was organised, and, in particular, the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations and the other eight organisations which, uniquely, came together to make it a successful lobby. I hope that they will go on lobbying for education. It is sad that in recent years resources for education in Britain have been given far too low a priority, as has the public's interest in the issue. I hope that those organisations will be successful in lobbying for education from now until the general election.

It is important in a debate such as this to pay tribute to the vast majority of our schools, their pupils and teachers. The vast majority of our schools provide a high quality education. Although all will lament the lack of resources, we should pay tribute to the high quality of work in our schools.

High quality education is fundamental to Britain's future. Britain's future prosperity will depend almost entirely on the skills of the British people, not on the skills of a small elite. It is incumbent upon us all to ensure that we confer on future generations the skills that will enable them to pay Britain's way in the world.

I do not want just to argue the importance of education in terms of our future prosperity. High quality education is fundamental if we want to live in a peaceful society. We must give people the knowledge and understanding to put fear in its place. We must persuade people that they can solve conflict by democratic processes. That means that we must confer on people the skills necessary to participate in a democracy. They must have the skills to evaluate information and to make choices and the self-confidence to speak up for themselves and genuinely to participate in a democracy. A good quality education is fundamental if Britain wants a peaceful democratic society.

Good quality education is equally important if people are to enjoy their leisure. Most leisure activities are enhanced and made more enjoyable by good quality education. The example that I often throw out at meetings is that even day-dreaming is more enjoyable when woven with knowledge, ideas and information. Whatever one's leisure activity, good quality education is likely to enhance it.

Moreover, we are entitled to have beliefs and a philosophy of life. In developing that, most people need knowledge, information and ideas. I would argue strongly that Britain needs good education if it is to be a prosperous, peaceful and democratic country in which people can enjoy their leisure and understand their own nature.

The tragedy is that instead of making vast strides in improving education in recent years, many areas have slipped back and opportunities have been missed. The Government's oil revenues could have been used to improve dramatically the quality of education, but instead most has gone to pay for unemployment benefit. Falling school rolls could have been a golden opportunity to expand and improve our education opportunities. As a teacher with a class of 36 or 40 pupils, I was always told that my difficulties would be ended because falling rolls and smaller classes were not far off. Much of that opportunity has been missed. Far too many classes are still too large for the teachers to be able to do an effective job and for pupils to obtain full benefit from the education that they are being offered.

On many occasions the Government have pleaded poverty, saying that they could not improve standards because of the lack of resources. Yet in the Budget debate the Government claimed that things are going so well that they have money to dish out. They have taken 2p in the pound off income tax despite the fact that most people made it clear in opinion polls that they would much prefer to see that money spent on better services. Nevertheless, the Government are saying firmly that they are not prepared to put the money into first-class education.

Let me take one or two examples. When the Prime Minister was Secretary of State in 1972 she firmly set out the Conservative party's commitment to provide, over a period of 10 years, nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. We did not get off to a tremendously good start, but at least up to 1979 we doubled the provision of pre-school nursery education. Since 1979, the improvement has been small. About 23 per cent. of children now have a genuine place in a nursery class or school. More telling is the fact that in 14 Conservative-controlled authorities since 1980 the number of nursery places has been reduced.

Many of my hon. Friends have been out this week, and will be doing the same next week, looking at pre-school education in Britain. All of them tell me what a marvellous job is being done in nursery education, but they also report that almost every nursery school or class has long waiting lists. Many people do not even have a nursery class or school in their locality.

In this day and age we should, like France, be able to offer a place in a nursery class or school to all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate she will give us some idea of the Government's proposals for expanding nursery education and making a reality of what the Prime Minister claimed in 1972 was a necessity.

I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster that we should not close the small village schools. However, it is also important to have the resources to keep such schools open as effective institutions. I should particularly like to see far more of them developed as community schools. I am always happy when Ministers decide not to close these schools, but they must accept that when they turn down proposals for closure they must provide resources to keep those as viable schools rather than give the children who remain in the schools a second-class education.

I am particularly worried about class sizes. Although we have seen dramatic improvements in pupil-teacher ratios, well over 1 million children are still taught in classes with more than 30 pupils. I cannot see how good quality education can be provided in such circumstances.

I agree that the quality of buildings is essential. At least £500 million must be spent, almost as an emergency provision, to bring Britain's school buildings up to even a minimum standard. I recently visited Bradford and Sheffield and saw the appalling state of the school buildings there, caused not by neglect, but simply by lack of resources. Time and again the authorities have appealed to the Government, who accept the case but do not provide the money. Both cities have a substantial number of people in the building trade who are out of work who would be only too pleased to be working to put those school buildings into good repair.

We should also consider the question of books. I know all the statistics, but one has actually to go into a school and pick up a text book to understand the problem fully. I left the teaching profession in 1974, but I often see the text books that I used still in use. That frightens me because, particularly in subjects such as geography, many of the facts are out of date. I found a dramatic example of that when I visited a school in Corby and found a book with a large section setting out the importance of Corby as an iron and steel centre.

How on earth can children be expected to believe what is in their text books when they contain whole sections describing industries that have completely disappeared from their locality? It is important for text books to keep up with the very rapid technical changes that are taking place. In subjects such as geography we should not be content for expenditure simply to stand still. We must get new books and materials into our schools much more quickly.

I am very pleased that the Government belatedly came up with a little extra money for the new examination, but I am sure the Minister will find that very considerable problems remain over providing resources for its introduction. In some places, people may have opted for an especially imaginative syllabus without weighing up the full resource consequences. In physics and chemistry, for example, some schools are committed to introducing a greater element of practical experiments for continuous assessment, but they do not have the necessary equipment or resources. Even at this stage the Government must turn their attention again to the problem of resources if the GCSE is to be fair to the children and to lead to the educational innovation that many of us wanted it to produce.

I want to highlight one further problem—the number of youngsters who do not stay on at school or in education. I suggest to the Government that it is a scandal that so many youngsters leave education when they would clearly benefit from remaining in school, in sixth form colleges, or in tertiary education. In Tameside in my constituency, 24 per cent. of youngsters who get five or more good O-levels leave school and do not remain in full-time education. The Tameside education authority area is, sadly, one of the worst in that respect, but in many authority areas where there is plenty of parental enthusiasm, and no poverty, the number of children who drop out of the education system at 16 is far too high.

I plead with the Government to come up with some system to encourage those with good O-level results to stay in education. In the past, many of them went into apprenticeships and then back into further or higher education on day release but, sadly, in many areas those apprenticeships have now disappeared. I challenge the Government to come up with a scheme to meet that problem. Unless we are prepared to introduce education maintenance allowances and to give the same financial encouragement for people to stay on at school as we give for them to go into the youth training schemes, we shall have a continuing, if not accelerating, drain on the number of young people who stay at school. They will continue to leave school far too early.

The Government should examine the status of education. They have dealt a blow to that status by the way in which they have dealt with teachers' pay and are dealing with student grants and resources for research. Youngsters in schools think that to have anything to do with education is to engage in an occupation and interest of which the Government do not approve. They believe that the Government approve only of people who go into the City and make vast fortunes through speculation.

The Government must turn the whole atmosphere round to promote a new belief in the importance of education. Only by doing that can they begin to ensure that we get the best out of our schools rather than a continuing decline in morale. Only by doing that will they ensure that we get the best out of our further education colleges and out of higher education in all its forms. If we do not give education its proper status, it will be considered something in which people become involved only if they are unsuccessful.

While the present atmosphere remains, our future is at risk because education holds the key to a prosperous, peaceful, democratic society in which people can enjoy their leisure and develop their individuality. Unless we put resources into education and accord it a genuinely high status, our future will be very bleak.

I join the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on introducing this wide-ranging debate on education. I am delighted to respond to it because hon. Members on both sides of the House have made some most interesting points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster wisely reminded me that his constituency was in Herefordshire. I recently visited Hereford and Worcester in the course of my ministerial duties. I was interested to learn that the chairman of my hon. Friend's local education committee,— who had no doubt studied the publication "Better Schools" and the draft circular "Providing for Quality" on which my Department has asked for comments— had recommended to his committee a no-closures policy for his county.

Such a decision is entirely at the discretion of individual local education authorities. My hon. Friend did well to draw the attention of the House to the importance of making such decisions with educational, as well as economic, considerations in mind. That is extremely important. In some rural areas—where a long journey to school would be detrimental to the health of children and worrying to their parents—it is difficult to imagine children receiving education in anything other than a rather small primary school. However, authorities are responsible for ensuring that children at those schools can have the benefit of a broad-based curriculum within the constraints of primary school organisation.

Local authorities have an important judgment to make. That judgment applies to secondary schools, too. It is obviously sensible for my Department to offer advice on criteria—but not lay down definitive criteria—for the size of secondary schools. In Truro, I tried to reinforce my belief—and the Government's strong belief—that it is important for parents to be able to choose the school that they believe will be right for their child. That choice should have a high priority in our education policy. It is not possible to have a policy whereby some very popular schools are eliminated, thereby depriving parents of choice, and at the same time enable them to have freedom of choice of schools. This is an extremely important point.

The other point which my hon. Friend raised concerned the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act. I am very grateful to him for pointing out that the reason why something had to be done was basically the existing disharmony— particularly the differences between the teachers' unions. He was quite right also about the local education authorities, and I would point out that very often in the past it was not merely that local education authorities were of different political views from the Government; even when they were of the same views, it was not necessarily the case that in the negotiations in the ill-fated Burnham committee they were in agreement. Indeed, I was present on two occasions when that was clearly demonstrated.

We have been left in some disarray as far as our negotiations with the teachers are concerned. The unions want a new negotiating committee, and I understand that. The problem is to devise a committee in which we, and indeed everyone else, can have some confidence. There does not seem to be any point in setting up new machinery which is no more effective than the old machinery which we have just abolished.

Under the new Act, the Secretary of State is required to set up an interim advisory committee to consider school teachers' pay and conditions. At present, he has no choice. The committee will consult the unions and the local authorities before making recommendations for April 1988. The Secretary of State is then required by the Act to discuss those recommendations with the unions and the authorities before putting proposals before Parliament. Those discussions will inevitably have something of the character of negotiations. The interim advisory committee will bring a welcome respite, as my hon. Friend has so wisely said, with regard to the breakdown in sensible negotiations. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that the arrangements set up by the Act are interim. The Act is due to expire in 1990 and can be extended beyond that date for a year at a time only with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

On that point, will my hon. Friend confirm, as I hope she will be able to do, that during this interim period the Secretary of State's door will be open for informal discussions between the Ministers concerned, union leaders and members of the parent-teacher associations? There is a good initiative in Norfolk to try to bring people together. The unions are saying that the door is closed, but I believe that the door is open. Can the Minister confirm that?

I am very happy to confirm to my hon. Friend and also to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that my right hon. Friend has reiterated that his door is open. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) would be wise to wait and see how many of the teachers come to see my right hon. Friend to discuss. I am sure that he will be very happy to see them and to listen with the greatest care to what they have to say.

I hope that the Act will be recognised for what it is—a temporary measure to make it possible to escape from a negotiating cul-de-sac. It is most important that it is put into operation.

Can the Minister say whether the order is going to be laid this week or whether the Government are going to delay so that we can have these negotiations?

We are not intending to delay any longer than we have to, because it is extremely important that we get the orders laid in time to allow the back pay to go into the teachers' salaries. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen would not wish that to be delayed at all.

It is very sad that the hon. Member for Yeovil should have made such a destructive speech. It is a shame to come to the House and do nothing but pull to pieces the whole education structure. We heard nothing but a saga of destructive comments about education in this country. I share with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) the belief that there are many teachers throughout the country who work extremely hard, produce extremely good results and have a very important effect upon the life of young people in this country. So it seems to me to be an absolute disgrace that someone should come to the House and not recognise that.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, certainly not; under no circumstances will I give way.

The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned truancy, which is interesting when one thinks of an authority which operates not a hundred miles from the House, where the schools are adequately resourced—indeed, according to an HMI report, in one case so adequately that the resources could be called lavish. The number of pupils is 900, the number of teachers is 118— an amazingly higher number than one can find in many parts of this country—yet it still has a problem because it does not have many children going to it. The reason is that the children are not motivated and do not want to go to school.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No. I am very sorry, but the hon. Gentleman refused to give way to anyone on the grounds that he did not have enough time, and I do not have much time either.

With regard to the general certificate of secondary education, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this new examination was introduced after long negotiations and discussions with the teachers' unions. They wanted this examination very badly indeed because they believed that it was the right thing. The Government agreed with that and thought that the best thing to do was to get on with introducing the examination. We have done exactly that.

The Government have committed substantial resources to the general certificate of secondary education. There was £20 million directly, in 1986–87, for books and equipment, £100 million through the rate support grant in 1987–88 for all aspects of GCSE non-teaching costs, including books and equipment, clerical and technical support staff and storage facilities; £10 million of this is for books and equipment going to local education authorities directly.

I understand that there is some concern about training among the teaching profession. It is quite natural when a new examination is introduced, one that is so testing to both teachers and children, that there will be a settling-in period, but I do not and cannot accept that it was wrong to introduce this examination, because I believe absolutely passionately that it is for the benefit both of the children and of the teachers themselves. I suggest that it is very important that we concentrate on that.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), who said that the prime purpose is the education of children. He is absolutely right; he has the priorities right. He is quite right, too, to draw our attention to the devastation of the grammar schools started by the Labour party and continued by the Liberal party at the present time where Liberals are in control of local authorities— as in Kingston, where I used to be the chairman of the education committee, in Sutton and even in Devon. So it seems to me that there is some point in asking Liberal Members just exactly how they are going to improve the standard of education throughout the country.

I want to say one or two things to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, on nursery education in particular. I understand the point that he is making, but I think it is important to draw to his attention the Government's belief that the devolved and discretionary basis on which nursery education is currently available is the best way to ensure the flexible and effective use of scarce resources. Furthermore, not every young mother believes that compulsory nursery education is the right thing for her child. There should be alternative methods of introducing children to peer groups when they are young. This can be done through nursery classes, through nursery schools or through the very valuable experience of pre-school playgroups.

I am very glad to be able to say that the Government have been making grants, in particular to the Pre-School Playgroups Association. The Government make grants in excess of £400,000 and this year the DES grant was increased by 50 per cent., from £60,000 to £90,000. I was very pleased about this because I believe that that experience is extremely important to children. But 1 have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have heard from some of my own constituents expressions of concern that my own authority was planning to institute nursery classes attached to every primary school in the borough.

This would put pressure on mothers who choose not to send their children to nursery schools, because they would fear that they could not get them into the primary schools of their choice when the time came, simply because of pressure on primary school places. That is an important point.

A point was raised about participation rates for people of post-compulsory school age. Many figures were quoted but my figures come from good sources and show that participation rates for 16, 17 and 18-year-olds in any form of education or training, whether full-time or part-time, range from about 65 per cent. in 1981 in France, Italy and the United Kingdom to 84 per cent. in Germany. The level of take-up by 16-year-olds in the United Kingdom undertaking some kind of educational training, including the YTS, was 87 per cent. in 1983. That seems comparable with, if not better than, the percentage for other countries. We are proud of that and are planning to increase it because we are concerned about what happens to young people after they leave school. We want to see that they have the opportunity to increase their skills and to have educational opportunities which will bring them into a better work force in future.

Before announcing the next debate, I should inform the House that there is a mistake in the title of debate No. 4. It will be on the beef industry and not just the Scottish beef industry.

I welcome the opportunity for this debate— [Interruption.]— and judging from the "Hear, hears" from Conservative Members it is clear that I and my hon. Friends are not the only ones who welcome it.

Why has a significant debate on sport not been held since April 1977? At that time there was a debate on a sports White Paper which had been published some 20 months previously. This is all the more surprising since sport plays such a major part not only in the nation's social and leisure calendar, but in its economic life. For those reasons, it demands greater stature and prominence in this House.

Sport accounts for over £4·4 billion of expenditure each year, a figure that is comparable to expenditure on the gas or electricity industries. The Government's income from sport is now £2·4 billion from taxes and betting duty, yet only £545 million is injected back into sport through rate support grants, the Sports Council and the urban programme. More people are employed in sports-related jobs—about 376,000—than are employed in Britain in the manufacture of cars and their ancillary parts. Nearly 16 per cent. of the BBC's television output is coverage of sport and that is comparable to other networks.

When one looks at the diversity and the importance of sport in Britain, one wonders why it is debated so infrequently in the House. In the last debate, the two Front Bench spokesmen were so delighted at the opportunity to debate sport that they spoke for one and a quarter hours—over half the debating time. What they said, and especially the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), was worth listening to. This debate is the first in over 20 years to allow hon. Members three hours in which to display their interest in the sporting issues of today and in the problems associated with sport. With very little opportunity for them to support sport, it has been left to people outside to highlight and often to distort the problems of sport.

Just 13 days ago, at the Central Council for Physical Recreation's annual general meeting, the Duke of Edinburgh contrasted the arts with sport and said that from the sports point of view it is not a particularly happy picture. How right he was. He recognised the importance of sport to the economy and to British life by pointing out that on top of employing twice as many people as in the arts in Britain, more than 43 million hours of volunteers' time is taken up each year in helping sport. I do not wish to knock the arts, which are also under-funded, but these comparisons put the matter in a better context.

Among other things, His Royal Highness called for a stop on the selling of playing fields for development. I concur with what he said. In today's Order Paper, 44 hon. Members from all parts of the House have signed an early-day motion in my name on the subject. I hope that after today's debate many more hon. Members will do likewise. I shall return to that later in my speech.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the hon. Members who signed his excellent early-day motion, and many others who have not yet signed, are opposed to the disposal of even one more school playing field? Many are under threat but not one more should go.

I am pleased to hear that intervention and I hope that many Conservative Members will press their right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to see that this practice is discontinued.

The Duke of Edinburgh highlighted other areas for reform, including a reduction in taxes and in the rate burden on non-profit making sports clubs. He called for reform of the administrative structure of sport, which he said should be streamlined. I shall later deal with those issues, but suffice it to say now that the lack of time available to us means that sports lovers like the Duke, rather than the politicians, must set the agenda for sporting issues.

At the CCPR annual meeting, Cliff Morgan delivered a stirring address which highlighted the emotion and the power of sport for good in today's tough society. In a plea to all of us he said:

"Please don't sell our sport short. It breaks down the barriers, it unifies people."

As a former Northern Ireland Minister, I know that sport in Northern Ireland breaks down many of the barriers facing young people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) can vouch for that. Cliff Morgan went on to say that in Britain, the birthplace of much of modern sport, there is still no Minister of Sport even though Lord Hawke, an old-fashioned Tory, commented in 1919:

"Ministries for dafter things than sport had been set up".

I agree with that.

The most recent past Minister with responsibility for sport is the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) who recently wrote about his time in that post. In his book the Government's view of sport comes through clearly when he relates what happened when he was first appointed. At that time, he says, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said to him, "You do like sport, don't you?" One of his predecessors, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) recalled his days in the post. He said that he spent

"four years … as a member of the smallest, most unimportant trade union in the House, the trade union of Ministers with responsibility for sport".

The Prime Minister's answer to my recent question calling on her to list the responsibilities of the Minister with responsibility for sport clearly shows the post's lack of stature. She said that her hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey)

"has special responsibility for sport and recreation and, in addition, supports his colleagues on planning, regional affairs, housing, inner city and gipsy issues."—[Official Report, 2 March 1987; Vol. 111, c. 464.]

At a time of crisis for one of our most famous football clubs— Fulham— is it not extraordinary that the Minister responsible for sport is unable to speak out against bulldozers levelling the ground for housing, because that application may well be referred to him when he is wearing his planning hat? This crazy situation whereby the Minister spends only 20 per cent. of his time on sporting matters must be ended. Of course that is not the Minister's fault, but how can he allow a club that was established in 1879 with a stand, the Stevenage stand, which was built in 1905, to be bulldozed to the ground in this way? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) will expand on that matter if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I have touched upon one issue facing football now, just as I spoke on football's problems in the debate 10 years ago. Football continues to have its problems—although they are much overstated by the press— and is not helped by the Government's knee-jerk reactions being followed by ill-thought-out legislation. Our national game deserves more than that, and I should like to dwell on two ways in which the game can be improved. The first is an old hobby horse of mine because I introduced a Bill last year which ran out of time because of the summer recess.

The establishment of a football levy betting board could give real and continued financial support to the game. Last year the Government took £234 million in pool betting duty out of a total take of £550 million on football pools— a duty level of 42·5 per cent. The Royal Commission on Gambling, chaired by Lord Rothschild in 1978, thought that a 40 per cent. tax was then too high. By reducing the duty level to 40 per cent. and adding the money from VAT on spot-the-ball competitions and from copyright payments for football fixtures, more than £50 million would be available each year to benefit football.

I ask my hon. Friend to compare the treatment that horse racing and football have received from this Government and from past Governments. Football is the poor relation in that respect, although it provides massive amounts of money for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am trying to make that point, but I do not want to fall into the trap of knocking one sport or another, or the arts against sport. We must fight for a higher volume in the whole sporting area. The money that I suggest would accrue from the football pools through the football levy board would be invested in grounds, in new terracing and seating, in better refreshments, and new stadiums for the 21st century. We would have schemes that would attract people to football, to league clubs and to non-league clubs, and also to the rapidly developing game for women in this country.

The recent measures agreed between the Government and the football authorities should help to combat hooliganism. The membership aspect of the agreement has been highlighted by the press, but I believe that the local plans idea that emerged will have more impact. I am sure that the Minister agrees with me and will elaborate on that. The clubs will have to meet with the police, the local authority and the local supporters clubs, and create a local plan which would assess the issues affecting games at the club.

The channels of communication that will be opened by this move are long overdue and will benefit football. Our football clubs have not been standing idly by in the past year waiting for Government measures. Closed circuit television cameras are now in place throughout the first and second divisions and they will be extended throughout the league. Family enclosures now exist in 67 clubs. Segregation of fans is better than it has ever been before, and attendances at matches this season are up on last season. These positive moves are often overlooked. Football is attacked far too often when it should be praised for meeting many of the challenges that are facing our national game.

The second way in which football can be improved is through better community use of our clubs. The community programme backed by the Football League and by the Professional Footballers Association is being expanded from the original six clubs in the north-west— clubs as varied as Manchester United and Bury— to 10 more clubs ranging from Liverpool at the top of the league to Rochdale at the bottom of the fourth division, and I hope eventually to all 92 clubs.

These clubs are becoming focal points for the community, not just for football but for women's aerobics and pensioners' bowls as well. Surely that is the direction in which we must move, rather than building bigger and better fences around our grounds and banning supporters from matches. Coupled with the admirable Sports Council Action Sports initiative going nationwide, the community focus for sport is at last being taken seriously, even though these schemes are getting little support from a Government who are determined to tackle the problems in football through legislation rather than understanding.

The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly pointed out the part played by football clubs in the community and the encouragement that is being given to them. Will the hon. Gentleman agree that that role can be encouraged also by the use of synthetic pitches so that clubs are able to use their pitches 365 days in the year, for all the various activities described, without detriment to the club? Is he therefore somewhat worried by the attitude of the Football League and Football Association towards synthetic pitches, which may reduce the community use of those club grounds?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would have wished to declare his interest when making that intervention, as he is the hon. Member whose constituency covers Luton Town. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and develop his point. I believe that plastic pitches cannot be ruled out at the lower end of the divisions. I believe that that should be the experimental ground for much of what may come later, but the plastic pitch has not been perfected—certainly not at Queens Park Rangers or at Luton Town. Eventually, with the advances of modern science and with many companies engaging in manufacture, we shall some day be able to play in the first and second divisions on plastic pitches.

I should like to move on, because I know that there are other speakers. We must remember that the Government cut the Sports Council grant this year, but we can see some hopeful signs. I have seen much development of women's participation in sports. Women are often left out of sporting debates, but what is happening in this area is very heartening. It is encouraging to see that at last we have on British television an expert in her field—Sally Jones—who has a couple of blues at Oxford and who can speak with great authority on the subject. That is a very good sign that we are moving in that direction.

The relationship between the Sports Council and other sporting structures needs further examination. [Interruption] My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has strong views on this subject. I have touched on the role of the Minister, a post which has not been adequately filled since my right hon. Friend was there. In my sporting travels to the Olympics in Munich and Moscow and to the Mexican world cup, his was the one name that rang out as the politician who had done most for sport, even though he is no longer a Minister. I know that he is not well today, but wild horses could not keep him away from a debate of this kind. I am sure every hon. Member is pleased to see him here.

The current situation with the Sports Council and the Central Council for Physical Recreation working against each other rather than in tandem was highlighted by the second report of the Environment Committee— with many of whose conclusions I and others did not agree. Those problems continue to worry many of us. Admirable work has been done by both bodies. Especially, Peter Lawson of the CCPR and John Wheatley of the Sports Council are doing invaluable work for sport, but those two bodies must work more closely together and give a collective voice to sport. I do not believe that politicians receive adequate pressure from those bodies or the media generally to respond to the problems facing the league today. I do not think that pressure is adequately applied.

The sporting voice desperately needs to be heard. Sports pitches throughout the country are threatened by the Department of Education and Science's regulation 909. The commitment from the Labour party to repeal this ridiculous legislation has already been made clear by our Front Bench spokesman on education. With each week that passes, more and more pitches are lost for ever to the developer. We must preserve the spots of green land that dot our inner-city landscape and if they are no longer needed by schools because of falling rolls, they should be seized on by the community for the community. I know that my colleagues wish to develop this point, so I shall not go on about it for too long. It was nice to hear the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Many small non-profit-making sports clubs face an unreasonable burden from the rates. The rating system must be reviewed and harmonised throughout Britain, not by increasing the rate charges to the higher levels experienced in Scotland but by looking at the system in Northern Ireland. When I was Minister in that Department—I am bragging here— I introduced an order which provided a statutory rate reduction of 65 per cent. for clubs that are recreational and non-profit-making. This followed wide consultation with many sporting bodies and it was welcomed across the whole of Northern Ireland. My office rang the Northern Ireland Sports Council this morning and heard that it is still extremely happy with it, so it could be a model for the rest of the United Kingdom. We should be helping sports clubs whose volunteers give us their precious time in the name of sport, not penalising them for doing so.

I hope that we will debate sport more regularly than once a decade. Earlier this month, a "Panorama" programme brought out the issues bandied about concerning school sport—participation versus excellence, team sports versus recreation for all, specialist helping versus health for life. As chairman of the parliamentary Labour sports committee, I make it clear—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath will do the same— that the health of sport in our schools will influence Britain's sporting future for years to come. The undermining of the value of school sports by the Government selling off playing fields, by cuts in school budgets and by the confrontational attitude to teachers is leaving sport in a sorry state. These attacks must be reversed and a clear philosophy spelt out to schools.

Excellence should be encouraged in those who can attain it, particularly through links between schools and local sports clubs. Those who find sport difficult should be helped and encouraged so that they develop an interest in sport that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Competition in sport is enjoyable and exciting for some, but that is merely one approach. There should be a choice, with a real emphasis on participation so that everyone can play on his own terms in his own way at his own level. Competition and participation can and should work closely together in schools, particularly in areas where joint use of facilities between school and community is a reality. Only if they do that will sport stay healthy.

On the subject of joint use, I firmly believe that it is misguided Governments and local councils who threaten sport far more than head teachers, because they see sport as a peripheral rather than an integral part of life, and refuse to open facilities for maximum use to the community. I could go on, as I have barely scratched the surface of this subject. However, I know that many others wish to speak.

I end as I began, by calling for sport to be treated seriously in the House. The subject deserves regular debate rather than having to wait for a tragedy, a crisis or luck in the ballot for it to reach the Order Paper. Sport is of vital importance to so many people in Britain. Over 13 million people take part in sport at least once a month. The House must take the lead in sport not by making people fit Olympic training schedules into their lives but by promoting the joys, exhilarations and sheer diversities of sport. In a period of change, when leisure is of real importance, as the working week shortens and people retire earlier——

The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the expansion of sport and its importance in society. Will he lend his voice and that of his party to improving the chances of Sunday racing being introduced, as it is long overdue?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in this subject. I hope that he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to develop this point further. I was coming to the end of my speech and the hon. Gentleman rather spoilt it. I shall try to pick it up. It is my fault for giving way, but I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen on this subject.

As all these factors—the shorter working week, early retirement and unmployment—come together, we have to look to sport in a way that we have not looked to it before. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, I and my colleagues will make sure that the Labour party will strive to ensure that sport has a higher priority on the political agenda.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his good fortune in drawing this subject high in the ballot and for having a good three-hour debate. I hope that we shall have many contributions from both sides of the House. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's idea that the House should debate sport much more. The hon. Gentleman spoke sensibly. I did not agree with all that he said—he would not expect me to do so— but I pay tribute to him for the work that he has been doing, in his party and on the all-party football committee, in trying to promote our national game. As he rightly said, it is a pity that it needs a crisis for us to discuss this important subject. That is why I hope that today we can discuss it in an atmosphere of calm and all-party understanding.

As chairman of the Conservative party Back-Bench committee on sport, I feel it incumbent on me to say that we are proud of the Government's record in sport, warts and all. The Government have faced some of the real problems presented to us for reasons in many cases far outside sport—such as the breakdown in law and order—which have nothing to do with football but which are attendant on the sport. The Government have tackled the problems with vigour and enthusiasm. In particular, I associate my remarks with the present Minister with responsibility for sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey).

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell) made some remarks about the Sports Council grant being cut next year. I remind him, although he needs no reminding, that the budget has not been cut. It has not been increased. Two years ago the increase was stated as being for two years. I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in this subject.

Our difficulties in the House and as a Government stem from the fact that we should not be seen to be interfering too much in sport and sport administration. We should be here to guide sport through the various labyrinths of legislation and to put in legislation where it is necessary. However, the Conservative party is most reluctant to dictate to sportsmen, sportswomen and administrators the path that they should follow. Ours should be no more than the guiding, and gentle, hand on the tiller, rather than the direct interference that I fear that some Labour Members may wish to have.

The Government have tackled the most recent problems in football. I know that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is well versed in football. The crisis that we had to face after the events of Birmingham, Luton and the Heysel stadium and the tragic events of the Bradford fire have resulted in legislation, and encouragement has been given to clubs, with a gentle hand from the Government, to put their house in order.

I endorse the recent agreement made by my hon. Friend the Minister with the Football League on membership and the various measures that he has taken. However, the Government could have done more about tobacco sponsorship. I was interested that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde avoided that subject. I remind him—and perhaps either he or the right hon. Member for Small Heath would like to confirm it—that it seems to be written into the Labour party manifesto for the next election that it sees an end to tobacco sponsorship for sport. That is the information that we have been given, and I notice that Labour Members are not denying it. That step would have a devastating effect on sport, and it is totally out of keeping with many sports lovers on the Opposition benches—and perhaps the many smokers as well.

Sport needs all the friends that it can get. If members of the tobacco industry are interested in pouring large sums of money into sport, to its direct benefit, not only at high national and international levels, but at lower levels through the clubs, we should accept that money, which is very welcome. I do not agree with the argument that other money is available. If it is, it can be used in addition to the tobacco sponsorship and not as a replacement.

I do not know whether the matter of tobacco sponsorship will he in the Labour party manifesto—I hope that it is—but does not the hon. Gentleman recognise the conflict whereby sport encourages people to be healthy and active and smoking does precisely the opposite?

I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) has said, the agreement is voluntary. Until smoking becomes illegal, it is perfectly moral for any sport to accept money from the tobacco industry. Indeed, the money that is given to sport encourages people to become and remain healthy—very much along the lines that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde suggested.

It has already been mentioned that school sport is very much to the fore, particularly because of the industrial dispute in education. I found it distressing to learn from a recent "Panorama" programme on television that some schoolchildren are now considered to be less fit at the age of 15 than their parents are at the ages of 40 and 45.

We are all aware that, in many schools, not necessarily those in Labour-controlled authorities, competitiveness has been taken out of sport. That is to be regretted. I am very pleased to see that the Inner London education authority— I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has an interest in this—has reversed its policy on competitiveness in school sport.

One of the keynotes in the Duke of Edinburgh's speech at the annual general meeting of the Central Council for Physical Recreation was that we must encourage competition in our schools. Some independent schools are not averse to that type of criticism. It is to be regretted that, in many schools, competition has been reduced for all sorts of reasons—not only because of the teachers' unwillingness to teach sport, but the problems with caretakers, groundsmen and so on. Sport in schools must be competitive and be part of children's education.

As the Duke of Edinburgh said, when referring to the rising rate of juvenile crime, about which all hon. Members are concerned, the real alternative of sport and leisure, particularly in the inner-city areas, is now under threat because of the attitude of some schools. We should consider that more closely and try to encourage more competition within those areas.

I endorse what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said about the selling of playing fields. He will recall that, about two years ago, I introduced a Bill that expressed regret that playing fields were being sold. I do not believe that we should follow the line of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that no school playing fields should ever be sold. That would be foolish. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to establish a register which shows the number of playing fields and how many are lost during the year.

While undertaking research for my intended Bill, I could not, regrettably, obtain information from either the Department of the Environment or the Department of Education and Science on how many fields were being lost. We need a national register of the number of playing fields that are available. That is rather different from a register of vacant and derelict land on which there are some playing fields.

Such a register will make us and the Secretary of State aware of the position, and that will force some local authorities to change their minds about selling, playingfields. It is a sad fact that far too many pitches are being lost despite the admirable campaign of the CCPR and other bodies.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred to the community use of playing fields. I must take up the hon. Gentleman on that matter. I declare an interest as Luton Town football club is in my constituency. Its synthetic pitch is used by other clubs in and around Luton and the rest of the country throughout the year. About 18,000 people have played football on Luton Town football pitch this season. I believe that no other club in the country can boast that amount of use. We have used if for show jumping, motor shows, American football and concerts, and it was used for a recent meeting of teachers concerning their industrial action. They went to Kenilworth road and had their meeting on the pitch.

That type of community use is assisted by synthetic pitches. The Football League, the Football Association and some Opposition Members are burying their heads in the sand if they believe that that type of pitch is not to the good of the club and the community.

Hon. Members may say that such a pitch is fine at the lower levels of the sport where experiments can take place, but that is rather like having a horse and not knowing how it will run until it is put into a race. The moratorium of the Football League is wrong because its attitude will stifle the development that is needed to improve the standard and quality of pitches.

If grounds are to become truly community services, as they should, I suggest to hon. Members, who are unfortunate enough not to have clubs with synthetic pitches in their constituencies, that they should understand how such pitches could be used year in, year out, and day in, and day out whatever the weather, with no loss of facilities and without wear and tear on the pitch.

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that artificial pitches would encourage community use of grounds, but does he accept that, unless all the league clubs switch over to plastic pitches, clubs with artificial pitches will have an unfair advantage in knockout competitions such as the FA cup?

The figures relating to Luton Town before this season do not bear out that assertion. Luton Town gained more points away from home than at home. That was extraordinary. This season, Luton is riding high in the first division and it is likely to take the championship. If synthetic pitches are to be a part of our future, as many people believe, clubs should be encouraged to make use of them.

One of the reasons why life is so happy in Luton at present is that people are looking forward to returning their Member of Parliament for Luton, North at the next general election.

As Luton Town football club has banned away supporters, Luton has become a safe place not just for people to come and watch our football team, but to come and enjoy facilities that the town offers on a Saturday afternoon. I am aware that one or two Opposition Members have come to Luton and there is an open invitation for them to come whenever they like to watch a game. There has been not one arrest at the ground all season. Policemen go home before the match begins and children go to matches on their own. There is a marvellous atmosphere at the ground. Our membership scheme and the fact that we have got rid of the element in football that nobody wants has benefited not only the club, but football in general.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred to the rate relief for non-profit-making sports clubs. A week ago, four or five heads of major sports, from rugby, cricket, tennis and soccer, went before the Conservative Back-Bench committee to plead their case on the basis of rating relief, particularly for the smaller clubs. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister about the matter. I believe that it is incumbent upon the Government to consider carefully the basis on which discretionary relief is given or refused. Some clubs, although small in number, do not receive any rate relief from their local authorities, although by statute the local authority is able to give discretionary relief.

I believe that in the forthcoming reform of the rating system, which I welcome as do most of my hon. Friends, it should be written into the legislation that the discretionary relief should be put at a minimum level, very much on the lines of what is happening now in Northern Ireland. There, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, a former Minister, will know, some 65 per cent. is guaranteed. We are looking forward to the Scottish system and we are encouraged by the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland when, in a recent speech, he gave some indication that perhaps that type of system may come about and, perhaps more importantly to hard-pressed local finances, that some subsidy will be given in rate support grant.

Some clubs, especially smaller clubs, are suffering from enormous rates burdens which may well put their future in jeopardy. One has only to quote one or two clubs. For example, the rates of the Havant rugby club in Hampshire have gone up from £50 to £2,600, the rates for Eastleigh rugby club, in the same county, have gone from nothing to £1,500 and, without embarrassing my hon. Friend the Minister, he will know that the hockey club in Surbiton is now liable for a £1,645 rate levy and that it is charged £120 for refuse collection. I know that my hon. Friend will be aware of those figures and that they have been put to him, but I hope that he will note the plea, which is genuine. Those clubs are providing for our youngsters and others, in terms of increased leisure, a facility which in some cases is second to none.

Some of the reasons that have been given by local authorities for not giving them rate relief are totally spurious. It is nonsense to suggest that the fact that some of them have bars—in fact, many of them have bars—would upset the local licensees. It is nonsense not to get them rate relief on the basis that some of them have had some connection with South Africa. I assure the House that that is the only time I shall mention it. It is also nonsense to say that sport is only for the rich. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that if he has any hand in forming legislation or rating reform in the next Parliament, it must be written in to legislation that the clubs must have the minimum discretionary relief and, if need be, that it may have to be credited from the Government.

This is a subject that is not talked about enough. Politicians are not perhaps as conversant as they should be with it. They are not aware of the importance of sport in people's lives, the fact that leisure time will be increasing and that there are many people giving up a lot of time, most of it voluntarily and unpaid, to try to help our youngsters along the road to fitness and good health. We need to talk more about sport. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde on initiating the debate. I hope that some positive measures will be taken and that we shall hear a positive message from my hon. Friend the Minister.

I add my tribute to my hon. Friend and colleague the member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for introducing the debate. We were both elected to the House for the first time in 1970 and he has maintained a keen interest in sport throughout that time. Indeed, in his maiden speech on 26 November 1970 he revealed to the House that he was an ex-ABA boxing champion. Perhaps I should state one or two of my own credentials in this matter.

The first occasion on which I played for the Lords and Commons cricket XI, I was assured by the late Sir Eric Bullus that I had established a club record because I was hit for 26 off one over. In the nature of an arithmetic progression, it was four, two, four, six, four, six. In my own defence I should say that the fifth ball was skied to fine leg and was dropped and went for four. Out of deference, I shall not reveal the indentity or the party of the hon. Member who dropped it.

Should anybody be wondering about my future place in the Wisden hierarchy, I should say that when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury I could play only in matches that were near the House, so that I could be available in an emergency. I used to give my private secretary the telephone number of the pavilion where the team was playing. On one occasion when I was playing at Vincent square, he rang the pavilion and asked whether it was possible to speak to the Chief Whip. He was told that the Chief Whip was just walking out to bat. Showing the customary loyalty, he said, "In that case, I will hang on."

In the Bristol area we have, through the foresight of the late Alderman St. John Reade, some magnificent school sites in a ring around the edge of the city. He had the foresight to plan the great school sites where the Bristol comprehensive system developed very early on, and they are, by and large, in the centres of large housing estates.

Falling school numbers at secondary level create surplus capacity in land and buildings. My plea is that over-zealous disposal of those assets at this stage is incredibly short-sighted, because once those great sites are redeveloped they are irretrievably lost to future education and community purposes.

To date, the CCPR has been notified of about 577 sports fields and recreational facilities in England and Wales that are disposable. I am not at all happy about the guidance given in 1982 in the Department of Education and Science building bulletin No. 28, "Playing Fields and Hard Surface Areas", which says that if the local education authority decides to sell the land to release assets for other purposes, some of it may be used for the improvement of other playing fields. That seems to be a fairly wishy-washy sort of instruction, because the assets locked up could never be reproduced, except at the most enormous cost, if they were wanted again.

I join the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) in asking for more information from the Government about what assets are available. The 1986 annual report of the south western council for sport and recreation expressed its concern over sports fields being taken over for development. At present in the Avon county area—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) will understand my reluctance to pronounce the word "Avon" in those circumstances, but I have to face the present reality—there are seven sports fields listed by the CCPR and they are threatened with disposal.

The council also expressed its concern at the loss of recreational land that could be used to provide pitches for local football teams. I should mention here the Bristol. South Labour club. I must declare my interest, because I am not only a director but the chairman. I regret to say that no dividend has been paid or is likely to be paid on any occasion in the future. The club has a football team of keen young men and it is difficult to find a pitch for them. Yet, in the area there are secondary schools with large playing fields which, for a large part of the time, are standing idle.

To show the catholic nature of the club, we also have two men's darts teams, ladies' darts team, five skittle teams using the alley during the week, and a crib team. When I was a small boy I could never understand the great interest in the Oxford and Cambridge boat race. I thought it was a national event that everybody hung on. However, now that I am a little older I realise that a small coterie follow that occasion, and that activities such as those at our club are the activities of the ordinary people of this country. Some senior wranglers would be astonished at the mental arithmetic of people who do the chalking up at darts matches. Those things should not be overlooked, but should be encouraged.

Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 local authorities must register land that is derelict. The CCPR is concerned about that requirement and about school fields that are surplus to requirements. There seems to be a lack of information about what is involved and it is not possible to monitor the exact acreage that is under threat. I hope that the Minister will consider collating or compiling figures so that a more national view can be taken.

Two of the grounds that are threatened in the Bristol area are private or industrial sports grounds. Despite the fact that in 1983 the Minister with responsibility for sport asked the top 100 companies to see whether their facilities could be used for the benefit of the community, if a firm has cash flow difficulties, or wants to raise enough money for expansion, there is a great temptation to sell the land for development instead of giving a higher priority to the community's interests. I hope that this issue will be looked at much more seriously.

In my experience in government, I found that the problem of hypothecation was ever present. As that is a long word to master I shall dwell on it for a moment. It is epitomised by the lack of any cross-departmental thinking. If I may use a local authority example, I am sure that all hon. Members will many times have had the experience of trying to get a young couple rehoused near their elderly parents who need care and attention. They will have pointed out to the local authority that if that change could be made and the young people were near their parents, much of the burden could be lifted from the social and caring services. Even in an individual case, the net saving in money would be substantial. However, the system is so rigid that it is difficult to get those factors taken into account.

When the Labour party was in government, the only Minister who managed to break through that barrier was our dear colleague the late Frank McElhone, who represented the Gorbals. He did some absolutely pioneering work for Scotland and was beginning to develop that idea. The House and the nation suffered a great loss by his tragic and premature death, because he was beginning to break down the terrible compartmentalisation that bedevils these problems.

There are problems if the community and the education authorities are using the same premises. However, it is not simply that the playing fields are over-used. There is also the question of the change of accommodation, and who will supervise and care for it and deal with the administration and the lettings. Headmasters are under pressure in many different ways these days and are reluctant to tread in that area and face the problems of dual control, insurance and so on. This is important, and the Minister should consider encouraging his right hon. and hon. Friends to develop the idea that there should be some outside input into and control over premises, because it is not fair to try to foist it all on to the teaching profession. However, if it is done, I am sure that there will be the utmost co-operation and that, where such facilities exist, the communities will benefit enormously.

At the end of the war there was widespread damage and we needed to replace what are sometimes called the "Coronation Street" areas of our cities, where the old Victorian back-to-back houses were no longer adequate. However, when people were moved out to the great housing estates, the sense of community did not travel with them. As Whips are not noted for their culture, perhaps I may be forgiven for quoting two words which I have managed to master and which are used by German sociologists. They are "gemeinschaft" which is the feeling of community and togetherness that one feels in a village and "gesellschaft", which is the loneliness of being in a big town and not knowing anybody. We have the strange anomaly that the loneliest people in the country live in the biggest conglomerations of population.

I am sure that on some of the large estates that were laid out primarily to rehouse people, but which were not provided with the proper facilities, an interdepartmental study of the way in which the work of one Department could help another would make an enormous contribution to bringing a sense of community and togetherness into those areas. That would be an antidote to the problems of rising crime and the violence of which we are all aware.

The right hon. Gentleman made a valid point about the migration of people from traditional centres. Does he agree that that is one of the reasons for the sadly declining attendances at professional football matches? The grounds are still where the people used to be, but the people are no longer there.

Yes, that is an important point.

I have not mentioned the team in my own area, which is Bristol City, for fairly obvious reasons. Nevertheless, I have been a loyal supporter of that team since 1946.

I finish with a plea to the Minister. He has the opportunity to make his mark, not only in relation to sport, but on the whole issue of community caring and in building up the spirit that is the real answer to the problems of divisiveness and destruction in many parts of society today. Will he please do what he can to encourage all those who have these sites within their purview to resist the temptation to go for a quick cash return and to concentrate instead on how the grounds, which provide one-off opportunities, could be used for the benefit of everybody within the area?

The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) has just made an important and thoughtful speech. I hope that his points will command the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Environment. I had no idea that the right hon. Gentleman was a cricketer of such style and prowess, as we learned at the beginning of his speech.

The right hon. Gentleman is modest.

As my hon. Friend points out, the right hon. Gentleman is also modest. Of course, not every member of the Lords and Commons cricket club is as agile or, I suspect, as wily as the right hon. Gentleman. I am told that on one occasion the Lords and the Commons cricket team arrived to play at their opponents' ground, one man short. Therefore, they recruited a young man who was a member of the Marylebone Cricket Club's ground staff, arguing, with impeccable logic, that as he was employed at Lords it was only reasonable that he should play for the Lords and Commons cricket team. So far, so good. He was instructed to field on the boundary. He asked, "Which part?" "All of it," came the reply.

I agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South—not least with his sensible plea for the abolition of the country of Avon, in the interests of the counties of Gloucestershire and Somerset and of the great west country city of Bristol.

I wish to speak about the single matter of Sunday racing. I declare an interest as a shareholder in and a director of the Taunton race course, which is one of the smallest courses in the United Kingdom. It is also one of the most attractive and is one of only three National Hunt courses in the west of England. That course is typical of the many throughout the United Kingdom which provide great encouragement to all those who love the sport of kings, who love horses, who want to race horses, who enjoy watching horses race and who derive some simple amusement by betting on the results. It is not only one of the smallest courses in England, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) pointed out in his admirable speech, in which he made some important points, it has great difficulty, as do many other small enterprises——

Such as Plumpton.

Yes like Plumpton, it finds the greatest difficulty in remaining viable.

We have only 11 race meetings a year and it is inevitable that more than one is interrupted, if not completely spoilt, by weather conditions during the winter and early spring. It is a hard job to ensure modest profitability.

I should like to pay tribute to all those who work so hard without thought of personal reward to keep those smaller sporting enterprises going. Certainly in Taunton we have hard marvellous leadership — from my late friend, the former chairman of the company, Colonel Mitford-Slade, from the present chairman, Mr. Reading, from Mr. Dunn, who have been associated with the course for a long time, and from others. I am glad to mention those names because throughout the United Kingdom a multitude of people have not so much a financial interest in these smaller enterprises, as an emotional commitment to their communities and a practical interest in those enterprises.

I agree that we all owe the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde a debt of gratitude for his initiative in securing the debate. He is one of the best liked and most respected hon. Members. Perhaps it is easier to say that when he is not present than to his face, and I hope that paying him a compliment will not do him harm. I hope that his early-day motion 732 will command the support of an increasing number of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says we talk too little about sporting matters.

The horse-racing industry is a great national asset, employing 100,000 people. So expert are our breeders, trainers, and jockeys and so wise our owners that it brings in to the balance of payments no less than £3 million each year net in prize money. Nearly 4 million people attend the race tracks every year and as we have just finished our debate on the Budget, the House will be familiar with the huge sums which are raised in betting duty.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was most wise to abolish on-course betting duty, for which several of us have argued for many years. This will give a much-needed boost to the spectator sport of racing and will undoubtedly be instrumental in making certain that the number of people visiting race tracks to watch will, at least, not decline and may continue marginally to rise. That practical encouragement for the racing industry and the sport is appreciated.

Another problem facing the racing industry is that the United Kingdom is the only major racing country unable to stage meetings on a Sunday because of the present betting restrictions. They are to be found in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and to a lesser extent in the Sunday Observance Act 1780. But conditions and attitudes have changed considerably since we passed the legislation of 24 years ago and certainly since the climate of opinion in which the 1780 Act was passed.

Racing is the only major sport in the United Kingdom unable to provide entertainment for the public on a Sunday. It is remarkable to reflect that other events held on Sundays include Wimbledon tennis finals, the final round of the British Open golf championship and of the Ryder Cup, the Littlewoods Cup final, the one-day Sunday cricket league matches—which have given such pleasure to many people and perhaps have saved cricket as a professional sport from extinction—Rugby League matches, snooker championships and the British Grand Prix. It is absurd that in an increasingly competitive environment racing should continue to be deprived of the opportunity to hold meetings on a day of prime leisure time.

I commend to the attention of the House, not least my hon. Friend the able young Minister responsible for sporting events, the report of the working party of the Jockey Club published in January this year. It follows two years study and recommends that there should be a change in the legislation affecting Sunday racing. There is undoubtedly a majority in favour of that and it would be both logical and fair to change the rules. While I appreciate that the prime responsibility for doing that may rest with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can say that that matter will undoubtedly engage the Government's attention and that he will be good enough to report to the Home Secretary the probably unanimous and certainly majority view of the House that that would be sensible.

If the law is changed, not only will a demand be satisfied, but the Government will gain substantially. If the Irish experiment sets a sensible precedent, as I believe it does, the Government would undoubtedly gain considerably more in revenue duties. Moreover, there would he the prospect of additional employment; which is warmly to be welcomed at this time.

The Jockey Club is properly consulting interested parties about this matter. If any one has anxieties about the effect of the proposal, I believe that it should be relatively easy to agree reasonable working conditions for those involved. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), were encouraged by a public statement made by the chairman of William Hill on this subject only yesterday.

I agree with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North commented wisely on tobacco sponsorship. Much as I should like to comment on their speeches, my single point is that this anomaly affecting racing should be removed promptly. If it is, everybody will gain. It is reasonable that the House should unite in saying that in future it will provide conditions for racing which are as fair as those for other spectator sports. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, in whose judgment I have such faith, will be good enough to say that the Government will certainly study this matter in future and come forward with specific proposals.

The House may understand that as a Liverpool Member I have listened with particular interest to the three preceding speeches, especially that of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann). Each year the city hosts the Grand National, so racing is of enormous interest to the people of Liverpool. However, I do not entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the betting associated with horse racing. 'The misery associated with betting shops in inner-city areas where people waste their savings, earnings and benefits represents the other side of this argument.

I agree with right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) about the need for facilities and for the Departments that administer those facilities to be better integrated. He touched on a matter dear to my heart when he said that some playing fields which ring the city of Bristol have been disappearing—we have similar fields round Liverpool— and how important it is that they should be safeguarded. That is also true of the beautiful Victorian parks in the city of Liverpool which provide a marvellous open space for recreation and are a great legacy from our Victorian forefathers. We must do more to safeguard them too.

Before that we heard from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) who told us about synthetic football pitches. In Liverpool, I like to think that we know a little about authentic football although I would not like to say which of the two football teams in Liverpool is the best.

Before any of my political opponents accuse me of sitting on the fence, I had better say that this is a good occasion for doing just that.

Like other hon. Members, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on choosing this very important subject and on giving us the chance to discuss sporting issues. There is a great deal of cross-party support for a number of the points that he made in his cogent and compelling speech. I want to refer to some of the issues that have already been raised and to issues that I have raised on previous occasions with the Minister who is to reply.

There is a desperate need for an integrated and coordinated sports policy. I agreed with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that it is a tragedy that the "Sports Department"—if I may call it that—was hidden away inside the Department of the Environment. I want to see a much higher profile given by the Government to that important function. That in no way underestimates the Minister's own personal contribution.

There should also be a greater role and more support given to the sports councils. When I was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, it carried out an investigation into the work of the sports councils and we concluded that they were doing an admirable job. However, we recognised the need for those councils to be given greater support. I met members of the north-west sports council a few months ago when they came to meet representatives from each of the parties. They were led by the secretary, Mr. Roger Pontefract, and they underlined the need for more resources. They said that in the northwest this year the budget of £1·5 million is the same as last year and is, in effect, a cut. Nationally, a request was made for an additional £4 million for inner city areas and that was turned down. The north-west sports council is also concerned about the possibility of water privatisation measures being re-introduced and the disastrous effects that that would have on the north-west.

A colleague of mine, Mr. Chris Davies, from Saddleworth, has been leading a campaign to safeguard Saddleworth Moors for recreation, open space, walking, running and many other leisure activities. As he has said, it would be a great tragedy if those facilities were lost to the nation if they were sold off for other purposes as a result of water privatisation.

The north-west sports council also expressed concern for schemes which will collapse later this year when money will finally run out in the aftermath of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. The sports council said that this under-provision of funds will come back to haunt us later in the year. I would welcome the Minister's reactions to those worries expressed by the north-west sports council when he replies.

A national strategy and a more dynamic role for the sports councils is needed. However, quite properly, mention has been made throughout the debate to the country's No. 1 spectator sport. On 2 March the Minister will recall that, along with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I visited him with a delegation from the Football Supporters Association, a Liverpool-based initiative. During the course of our discussions we raised a number of issues. I want to ask the Minister what progress has been made on some of those matters.

We raised the question of mergers and asset-stripping. Has the Minister been able to make any progress on drawing up new guidelines? With regard to the Heysel stadium disaster, he will recall that the hon. Member for Walton and I asked whether he would pursue with UEFA the question of its responsibilities during the course of the disaster. Has he been able to make any progress in that respect? We also raised the question of the need for a new national football stadium. Everyone recognises— the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has regularly raised the issue—the need for a national sports stadium outside London. Has the Minister given that any further thought?

We raised points about membership schemes, ticket allocation and the need for more facilities for handicapped people, especially at Wembley. We also raised the continuing ban of English participation in European cup competitions. The Minister will recall that we met him before the UEFA meeting in Berne that took place on 10 March. Given the UEFA criticism at that meeting, when it gave as one of the reasons for non-readmission the proposition that the British Government had not taken sufficient or imaginative measures to reassure UEFA about the future conduct of British fans, what is the Minister's response to that fairly serious claim?

The Minister will recall that members of the Football Supporters Association set out a number of other points during the course of the discussions. In its charter, the FSA includes a number of points which should commend themselves to the House. The FSA claims that its aim

"is to achieve representation for its members in all areas of the game where currently their interests are completely ignored. This includes such basic matters as ground safety and comfort. It includes involvement in decisions about where 'prestige' and international games are played. It includes involvement in decisions about ticket allocations for these games. In pursuing these aims, the FSA will act on behalf of its members irrespective of which club, league, national or international association may be involved. The FSA will reclaim the game for its members by using its strength—the membership itself."

In its charter the FSA also state that:

"We will not allow any further alienation of the game's traditional followers—ordinary people who use football at all levels as a recreational pursuit—by fanatics who see it as a duty to resort to violence to uphold allegiance to a particular club or team, or those who see football as a platform to reflect their own individual power or wealth. The FSA will take on the task of restoring football to its rightful owners—the supporters."

In effect, the FSA is claiming that the game belongs to the supporters and not to boards of directors. Many hon. Members would recognise the need to ensure that responsible fans are themselves more fully involved in the policing of the game and in ensuring that discipline is maintained in the grounds. This is a better way of going about things than simply passing more legislation.

I hope that the FSA will continue to be supported and that it will be recognised as a genuine voice for genuine fans and that the Government will ensure that it is not frozen out. Clubs should positively encourage its development. The FSA also raised with the Minister the suggestion that an "ombudsfan" should be appointed with the same role as the local government ombudsman or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. He would be able to take up complaints and grievances. I think that that idea has something to commend it and I wonder whether the Minister has been able to give it any further consideration.

Having spent so much time on a spectator sport, I want to consider participation sports. As I represent a constituency that is half in the inner city and half in the suburbs, I am especially worried about the lack of proper changing facilities, pitches and places. Young people should be encouraged to participate in sport especially at a time when they have so much enforced leisure time on their hands with so much youth unemployment. However, in a city such as Liverpool where the fastest-growing group is the over-80s and where one in four people are over retirement age, there is also a desperate need to provide facilities such as bowling-greens for the elderly. More special initiatives should be taken in that respect.

There are very few swimming pools in Liverpool for young people. Perhaps we could use unemployed people in the construction industry to provide these sort of facilities. People who have time on their hands, nothing to do and nowhere to go, almost invariably and inevitably fall into the hands of common criminals, into vice rings or the abuse of drugs. It is important to recognise the links between crime and the failure to harness the energies of young people. Great frustration is born out of enforced time on the dole or through living in miserable ugly surroundings such as those described by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) in the ghastly overspill estates. It is important that we recognise the consequences of there not being places for people to go to and the conditions in which they live.

Many hon. Members will have listened to the hon. Gentleman with interest and sympathy on the problems affecting the young unemployed. He will know of the various schemes whereby, for example, reduced entry to swimming pools is allowed to the youth unemployed. The problem in many cases— I am sure that this is so in Liverpool—is educating the youth to use those facilities. Does he agree that many local authorities should take more of a role to provide trained officers through the Sports Council to go to young people and educate them in the use of facilities that already exist, let alone those that might exist in future?

I entirely agree. The Sports Council's role as a catalyst—its dynamic role, which I described—is important in providing that type of training. The know-how does not exist in many local authorities, so there is a positive role for the sports council to play. Buildings could be liberated and used for dual purposes. I agree with those hon. Members who have touched on this matter that, far too often, facilities built for health, education or social service purposes are not always released to the local communities for other purposes. There should be much more dual use of buildings.

Last year, I saw the Minister about ice rink facilities in my city. He will be sad to know that the facility about which we talked closed because the resources to maintain it were not available. This means that a city of 500,000 people has no ice rink facility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the north-west sports council will ascertain whether there is any way to enable that facility to be re-opened.

There should not be a piecemeal approach to these problems. There is a need for a national strategy and for a lead role for the Sports Council. There is a great challenge, especially in inner-city areas where there are so many young people. Half the 3 million unemployed are under 25, many of them desolate and with pent-up emotions. Sport can provide them with a positive and powerful outlet. It can lead to them remaining healthy individuals and being vibrant people who feel that there: is something in life for them. Sport trains them in the idea of teamwork, so preventing them from becoming isolated and embittered. For all those reasons, I am pleased that we have had the chance to debate this important issue.

I am pleased to participate in this debate about sport, which has already been so well contributed to. Sport plays an important part in our national life, as I think every hon. Member who has spoken has said. There is only a limited, although a proper, role for the Government in sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) put it so well, guidance is one thing; dirigiste intervention is another. I believe that the Government have it about right, and that goes for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey)—as well.

Some would make a contrast and say that eastern European regimes have far more success on the games field and athletic tracks because they intervene much more than we do and provide many more resources than we do for sport. So they do, but this is not eastern Europe. I do not want to live in eastern Europe, and I do not want to live under that sort of regime either, so I think that we shall do our sport our way, even if perhaps we do not always collect quite as many medals as they do.

Government funding of sport is of about the right order. I should not be surprised if some Opposition Members argued about that, but that is certainly my view. After all, in a healthy state of affairs, amateur sport is sustained by enthusiasm and professional sport by the market, including sponsorship. I am prepared to concede, having said that, that there is an important role for grant-aiding facilities and coaching, especially youngsters, but I am bound to say, even when making that concession, that the history of most of the sports that one follows clearly shows that real talent breaks through anyway. I do not know whether Mr. Ian Botham or Mr. Sevvie Ballesteros ever had a Government grant, but I suspect that they did not.

The crisis in sport today is riot a crisis of resources. A greater crisis exists in standards of behaviour. I refer to the behaviour of both participants and spectators. The last time that I went to see one of our great, proud Birmingham football teams, the pitch was invaded three times. I was in a fairly safe position but I considered that a very frightening experience, and I would be reluctant to invite anyone to accompany me for an afternoon watching a match if that was likely to happen. Luton football club is to be congratulated. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North has spoken eloquently for the club. Its initiative in issuing identity cards is a proven success and, with the benefit of hindsight, is the obvious solution.

I have been on cricket grounds when that loveliest of games has been played to the accompaniment of banal chanting and waving. I have watched international rugby on television when the crowd has bayed at the place kicker in an effort to put him off. I have watched darts matches when the partisanship of the crowd has gone quite beyond any sense of fair play. Yet, on the other hand—there are always redeeming features in the contradictory pattern that is our lives— I have seen snooker, that working man's game that has risen to the stars, produce sportsmanship and good humour, losing with good grace and generous winners paying tribute to the losers, which are examples to anyone, especially young spectators. Outstanding, too, have been the professional golfers, who, despite the chill solitude of their sport, have tended, almost without exception, to behave like ambassadors of their game and of good sportsmanship.

Priorities and encouragements are very much part of the portfolio of my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will do what he can to let it be known that there is a priority for sportsmanship and an encouragement for fair play.

Although I share a common interest with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), in as much as we both love the game of football, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal in any way with that because, like the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), I want to devote the few minutes that I have to a specific subject about which I am very worried—greyhound racing.

Greyhound racing is the No. 2 spectator sport in the country, but it is in decline and great difficulty. In 1960 about 15 million people visited greyhound tracks, but by last year attendance figures had dropped to 3·8 million. I want to say for the benefit of those who have not had the pleasure of visiting greyhound tracks that they are much more than places where people go just to place bets. Most have high-class restaurants, with first-class service. In many there are play areas for youngsters and first-class facilities for social pursuits when the racing is over. In other words, the modern greyhound track is an ideal centre for social enjoyment for people of all ages. These centres must be preserved.

The House is aware that the Horserace Betting Levy Board has been a boon to horse racing. In fact, horse racing has probably been saved from extinction by the horserace betting levy, which was introduced in 1961 when betting shops were legalised. Last year, the amount of money raised by the Horserace Betting Levy Board amounted to more than £20 million. I believe that a similar levy is essential for greyhound racing. Of course, the bookmakers will cry out in great anguish at such a suggestion, but I wonder why? In the end, it is just the good old punter who pays the bill. I must explain to the House that I have no pecuniary interest in greyhounds or horse racing; I am merely a punter who occasionally goes with his family to the greyhound track. I sometimes win a few bob, but more often I lose. Therefore, I speak as just a punter.

Greyhound racing provides between 20 and 25 per cent. of the off-course bookmakers' turnover, and that amply justifies the establishment of a levy. Last year the turnover from off-course betting shops from greyhound racing amounted to £760 million. Of that amount, the sport benefited by a measly £1·75 million. The levy on horse racing amounts to 1·5 per cent. of the turnover, and if that principle were to be applied to greyhound racing, the amount brought in would be a massive £114 million. As a result of such a levy prize money could be increased and that would encourage more people to purchase greyhounds and to become involved in the expense of training and running the animals. Stadiums could be modernised and people would enjoy even greater comforts.

I wish to say a few words about what are known in the racing world as the "Big Four"—Coral, William Hill, Mecca and Ladbroke. Between them those four firms own 4,000 betting shops out of a total of 10,200 shops. Therefore, they own less than half the total number of shops, but the turnover from their shops represents more than 50 per cent. of the total wagered because, in the main, those four firms occupy prime high street sites up and down the country.

The Betting and Lotteries Act 1934 laid down that the owner or occupier of a track could not engage in betting of any kind. Of course, in those days, there was no legal off-course betting. There must have been good sound reasons for the provision in the 1934 Act. However, the Betting Levy Act 1961 legalised betting shops and did not have a similar provision. Consequently, there is a massive loophole in the 1961 Act, because the people who run betting shops can be involved in the ownership and management of greyhound tracks. Therefore, there are bookmakers who own and operate dog tracks. I believe that this is a serious mistake and that the loophole in the 1961 Act should be rectified.

Unlike some people, I do not go so far as to suggest that the dual responsibility of owning and running a track, and at the same time being involved in betting, will inevitably lead to the rigging of odds. I firmly believe that the administration of racing should be wholly separate from bookmaking. It is not the reality that matters; what is important is the public perception of that reality. The administration and organisation of racing must be seen to be wholly independent of the placing of bets and the fixing of odds.

I wish to say a few words about the Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services, commonly known as BAGS. This body was established in 1967 to provide betting information from the greyhound tracks to the betting shops when there was no horse racing because of bad weather. The House will readily recognise that there are many days in winter when there is no horse racing. The betting shops need to meet staff wages, lighting, heating and other overheads, so it is necessary for them to have a substitute for horse racing, and this substitute has been greyhound racing. Although this service was intended to be temporary to meet exceptional circumstances, I am afraid that it has become permanent and BAGS is now operating on most days.

Of the seven tracks that are currently used for afternoon racing, four are owned by bookmakers. Two are owned by Coral and two are owned by Ladbroke. Therefore, more than 50 per cent. of afternoon greyhound racing is owned and controlled by those two bookmakers. I believe that that is extremely unhealthy. The potential conflict of interest has been recognised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I am delighted that he has decided to refer the matter to the Office of Fair Trading. We will await the outcome of its deliberations with a great deal of interest.

Finally, I wish to refer to Satellite Information Services. I believe that this represents the most serious threat to greyhound racing and, indeed, to horse racing. This service is due to become operative on 1 May this year. The principle is that betting information and pictures will be beamed directly from the greyhound tracks and horse racing tracks, by means of television and satellite, into the 10,200 betting shops throughout the country. Satellite Information Services is the company that will operate this facility.

I understand that 45 per cent. of the shares of the company are owned by the big four bookmakers, 10 per cent. are owned by the Racecourse Association Ltd. which is restricted to horse racing, and the tote owns 5 per cent. The rest of the shares have not been allocated, but I believe that that allocation will be extremely important. For instance, will the National Bookmakers Association be allocated any shares? About 4,000 of its members have betting shops. They will be dependent upon the service. Will the National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd. be allocated any shares? It certainly should be, because much of the turnover of betting shops will come from greyhound racing.

Those are the weaknesses in the structure of Satellite Information Services, and I believe that the big four have too large an influence in the company. As I have said, it will be obliged to provide a service at a price to all the betting shops. The 10 per cent. share that is owned by the Racecourse Association Ltd. provides a virtual veto on decisions that the association does not like, but no such safeguard is presently provided for greyhound race courses. This a fundamental weakness and I think that the problem should be addressed.

Both greyhound racing and horse racing have a bright and glittering future, provided that the sports are properly organised and that high standards of integrity are maintained. This must surely entail the organisational side and the betting side being kept completely and entirely apart.

It might be alleged that what I have said is an attack upon the bookmakers, but it is nothing of the sort. As a punter—and there are millions of punters throughout the land—I am concerned about the continuing integrity of the sports. Therefore, I am launching no attack on bookmakers. I am merely asserting that the sports will best be served by keeping the organisational side and the betting side completely apart.

If the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) is the Frank Bruno of the Labour Benches, I am delighted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have had the wisdom to call the Tyson of the Tory Benches. I wish only that I had an interest to declare in the match. Regrettably, that is not the position.

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde for providing the House with the opportunity to discuss sport and recreation, and it is especially apposite that the hon. Gentleman concentrated on the problems affecting sport. They are numerous and they spread across the spectrum of sport and recreation. We face problem after problem. There is tremendous potential among our young sportsmen and women and great enthusiasm among the governors of the various sporting bodies and those who work in the world of sport and recreation, but we are not taking up positively the challenge that confronts us on both sides of the House. We must face the challenges and recognise that the time is right for a fresh look at a sport and recreation policy that is appropriate to our time.

There are challenges in three specific areas. First, we need a clearly defined policy for the promotion of excellence in sport. The British Olympic Association is especially well placed to take on more responsibility than at present. Secondly, we must recognise that people have more leisure time and that recreation should be part of a social policy. That means that the Sports Council will have an increased role in working with local borough councils, sports clubs and schools to initiate mass participation. I know that it has already started to follow that road, and admirably so, but we could construct a framework that would give it more assistance in taking that route. Thirdly, professional sport requires our attention and the greater attention of governing bodies that are involved in it.

Professional sport is becoming constrained more than ever by commercial criteria. Restraint of trade considerations are hindering or preventing many governing bodies from controlling their sports properly. Many such bodies are fast becoming bodies of no control. It is extremely difficult for a governing body. acting in the interests of sportsmen and women or the sport itself, to try to stop a sporting event taking place—it may feel strongly that it is not in the sport's interests—if a writ is about to he slapped on it for restraint of trade. The various governing bodies could work together to consider the problem and to assess it in depth.

Boxing, a sport that I know particularly well, could benefit from thrashing out a policy with the cricketers and some of the professionals who are involved in athletics that is in the interests of the sports that they seek to represent.

We should pay tribute to those who have worked for the Sports Aid Foundation and the Sports Aid Trust, which have done so much good work in bringing on youngsters in our society who are in need of financial help with their training and preparation for tournaments. Many of our top stars could never have reached the level that they have attained without the assistance that they have received from the Sports Aid Foundation.

Under the trust deeds, the objectives of the Sports Aid Trust are different from those of the foundation, being concentrated on education and social needs. I should like to see the foundation and the trust concentrating in different areas but working towards the same goal of assisting youngsters. I should like the trust to recognise the importance of getting youngsters to participate in sport, possibly even by financing a coach on a Saturday morning so that people who would not otherwise participate can engage in sport and develop the excellence for which the foundation has always stood. The trust can help youngsters through its charitable status by concentrating on education and social needs. I hope that imagination will now be applied to that sort of initiative to develop participation. As I have suggested, participation should he linked directly to the identification and development of excellence, which is the objective of the foundation and the trust.

The implications for sport and recreation in terms of leisure are far-reaching. I do not believe that sport can he considered only in the context of good health or after-work recreation. We need to distinguish much more clearly between assistance to our international athletes and the promotion of and participation in sport of those of all ages and both sexes within the population.

The Sports Council, operating under a royal charter in 1972, admirably and rightly had an all-embracing role in sports and recreation which was right for the time. I was rather surprised by the comments by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossly Hill (Mr. Alton), who argued that a more dynamic role was required of the council. The fact is that the council concentrates its energies in every sphere of sport and recreation. If by a more dynamic role the hon. Gentleman means a concentration on excellence as well as participation, I disagree with him. I should like to see the concentration on excellence directed far more towards the British Olympic Association, with appropriate financial support. The association could direct itself to national centres of excellence and the Sports Council could concentrate on mass participation. This would lead to the development of a triangle, which would work downwards through the regional councils of sport and recreation to the local boroughs and schools.

Last year, the London boroughs spent £182 million on sport and recreation, which was about 600 per cent. more than the Sports Council's budget. Given the magnitude of spending at local borough level, we should recognise that it is at that level that we should be developing participation in sport and recreation. Many of our school facilities are lying idle. Many school playing fields are under threat of development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde pointed out. I strongly support the views that he put forward on that matter. I should like to see local initiatives to gain more participation from the grass roots level up rather than trying to impose a structured sport and recreation policy from the top, working down.

I should like to see more money put into local sport by linking local business with local schools and local newspapers. In one area, one could encourage a garage, say, to give a £500 donation to the Sports Aid Foundation for the development of sport and recreation in a local school, enabling it to highlight two or three people or a team and for the local paper to be linked in promoting it. So there is something in it for local business. We would begin by developing sports interest at a local level and bringing on the talent of tomorrow at school level and locally based in local communities.

There are a number of other problems in sport. All hon. Members will pay an enormous amount of respect and tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for the work that he has done in the Olympic movement. There is not one matter upon which hon. Members have touched that has not been of interest and concern to him during his years of involvement in sport and recreation. In the Olympic world, he has contributed to and participated in some new and imaginative thinking.

I shall add a few comments on which we will not find ourselves in total agreement. I am concerned that we are not looking more closely at a permanent site for the Olympic games. I am concerned about moving the games from one capital to another, with the overt political concentration that inevitably results from the world's press looking in on one site, as has been evident not only in Montreal and Munich but in Moscow and Los Angeles, and will inevitably feature in Seoul.

I am concerned that we are not trying to develop some imaginative thinking about a permanent site—I hope, in Greece. I should like to see it developed along the ideas and the organisational lines of the Vatican State. Greece would welcome the opportunity to be the host country, not least because of the enormous amount of tourism and financial interest that would inevitably develop as a result of having the permanent site of the Olympic games in one country. That matter needs to be looked at further. Otherwise, I fear that the Olympic movement and the Olympic games will not survive our lifetime.

The abandonment of the Olympic Games will be an enormous loss to young people who, once every four years, at the pinnacle of sporting excellence, can get together and compete, not on the basis of any differences in colour, class or creed, but on the basis of respect for each other and the ability to compete as sportsmen.

Equally, I hope that the Olympic movement will recognise once and for all that we must move away from "shamateurism". It involves the idea that someone is an amateur simply because, even though we give them a large trust fund of £100,000 or £200,000 from which they may draw all their living and other expenses, every four years they compete as an amateur. That puts a totally unacceptable onus on a sportsman. We must move towards open games. I am not one of those who say that the moment a sportsman is paid, sport loses its original ethos, the appeal of the de Coubertin ideal, and the appeal of amateurs who used to enjoy sport but are suddenly corrupted as a result of the financial incentive. I do not believe that for a moment.

I do not believe that one achieves sporting excellence simply because one is paid. There is no doubt that Eastern bloc oarsmen are paid a fortune. They are effectively full-time professional oarsmen. There is no doubt that, when they are on the starting blocks of a race, they have everything to lose, and they are frightened of losing. Equally, there is no doubt that when young British eight is put on the starting blocks at the last minute to compete, with all the odds against them— probably even their own rowing association saying, "You will not have the money, you are not good enough to be selected"—they have everything to win and nothing to lose. At the end of the day, the urge to win is in their heads.

All athletes on the starting blocks at international Olympic events are technically superb. It is in their heads that the winners and losers are finally decided on the day. I do not believe those who argue that the moment sport becomes professional and the Olympic games become professional, the Olympic games are dead.

All hon. Members who have attended debates such as this will know that the one subject that I never pass by without a mention is the vital importance of Governments—not only Governments of both political persuasions in this country but Governments abroad—recognising that we have to continue to tackle the drug problem which besets modern day sport. It is nothing short of cheating to take drugs in sport. We should stamp it out with all the strength and commitment that we have at our disposal.

It should be absolutely essential for any governing body to accept random testing as a precondition of accepting Government or other sports grants. There should be random testing of every athlete. The Sports Council, which does admirable work, should be able to attend any training session of a national or international squad and test it. That should be a precondition of receipt of Government grant. We need to tackle drug abuse in sport with all the vigour at our disposal.

I endorse the remarks made about tobacco sponsorship. The voluntary agreement should be tough when we believe that there are important health and social reasons to make it tough. As long as smoking is a legitimate activity in our society it will be quite wrong to take away the right and the opportunity for tobacco and tobacco-related companies to sponsor sport in this country. It is not just a matter of finance for sport; it is a fundamental matter of liberty in our democratic society.

There is no greater challenge facing those of us who love sport and believe in excellence in sport and participatiom than that which exists in the present education system. There is such a challenge in my constituency. It is exemplified by educationists telling the parents of boys and girls—young primary school kids who wish to compete in competitive primary school football leagues on Saturdays—that they do not believe in such sport because it breeds sexist and competitive instincts. That is not only educationally damaging—this view is shared by many hon. Members— but fundamentally mitigates against every child's inherent wish to perform, participate and strive for excellence in sport. That is especially so in primary schools in which half the football teams are made up of boys and girls. The idea that this breeds sexist instincts is wrong.

We must concentrate strongly on that area of educational policy and attack those who think otherwise. Then, and only then, will the grass roots— the youngsters— have the ability and the opportunity to excel. Only then will we have sports stars in the future and the international status that we have experienced and enjoyed in the past.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) made a thought-provoking speech that covered wide ground. I shall not attempt to refer to his remarks. I intend to keep my remarks brief, as other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on bringing forward the debate. I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are not sufficiently involved in sport. The fact that the Government do not have a Minister who is directly responsible for sport should be examined closely. A wide field of sporting endeavours could be brought together by using the available resources and ensuring that they are looked after and controlled, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) did.

A number of problems have not been referred to this afternoon. I shall refrain from mentioning football because we are having a tough time in Newcastle and Sunderland. Reference has not been made to the leisure centres that have been established in areas such as mine. They have done a tremendous job for sport. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that an ice rink had had to close down in his constituency because the local authority would have been rate-capped if it had tried to keep it open.

Sunderland has a tremendous leisure centre. It provides us with the pleasure of an ice rink, an indoor bowling green, pool, snooker, squash and table tennis. Competitions are run on a regular basis. There are reduced fees for the unemployed and the young. Similar facilities are also provided in Gateshead, and there is another fine centre in Newcastle. These leisure centres have been doing a tremendous job in an area of high unemployment. If they were forced to increase their charges because of restrictions on local government finance, the tragic result would be that people would be unable to afford to use them.

In the winter, old people use their bus passes after 9.30 am to go to the leisure centre in Sunderland. They have a warm day out and enjoy using the bowling facilities. They save money on fuel, and as they reach the centre for nothing, because of the travel concession, it represents a tremendous social wage for them. In the past, when there was just an outdoor bowling green, they had to wait throughout the winter before they could play bowls again, and by then some of them had died. They love their facilities at the leisure centre and their competitiveness is now being seen on our television screens.

The Club and Institute Union and the working men's clubs provide nationwide competitions and facilities. The Minister should try to find out where facilities of that nature are not provided. Local authority facilities are lying idle at the weekend. Given the will, sports facilities could be made much more widely available.

I had intended to say something about greyhound racing, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) has done such a good job that there is little more that I can add. May I point out, however, that the satellite service that is to be introduced in May will put greyhound racing at a tremendous disadvantage. If The Times feels that the story is important enough to get on to its front page and on to two inside pages, there is something to worry about.

If a bookmaker owns tracks and by means of the satellite information service distorts the odds and also tries to squeeze out the body that has governed greyhound racing for the last 60 years—the National Greyhound Racing Club—it should be incumbent on the Minister to find out why. The National Greyhound Racing Club should be involved in the development of satellite information services, but it is not being allowed to be involved. Their tracks are providing income for bookmakers. There is something the matter and it needs to be investigated. I am delighted that the question has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on initiating this debate. I hope that debates of this kind will take place much more frequently.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on initiating this debate. I shall speak about football. Hon. Members know that I have an interest in tennis and that I have been a Wimbledon umpire for a number of years. I enjoy cricket, too, and my height perhaps gives away the fact that I like horseracing as well. I was delighted by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on betting duty.

The point that I wish to raise concerns Leicester City football club at Filbert street, and the very courageous way in which it has tried to control crowd hooliganism and abuse on the terraces. The club has just been granted £100,000 to undertake a study of why there is crowd abuse. I gave oral evidence to the Popplewell inquiry. I knew John Fletcher extremely well and was on the same management board with him.

Proper membership cards are needed for all football clubs. Membership cards would cost money, but if the club's name was assigned to each member and if their names were logged on a central computer, nobody would be allowed into a football match without his card. If people abuse the system, they would no longer be eligible to go to their own or to any other football club. Regular miscreants would have their names published in the programmes of football clubs. It would be rather like a roll of shame. They would be barred from football matches and it would stamp out some of the problems.

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

I should prefer to continue with my speech.

A number of video cameras are in place at Leicester City football club. They have caught some of the major offenders. There are stop-and-search powers to ensure that if people are carrying offensive weapons they are caught as they try to enter the ground. On Friday I hope that the House will approve my Crossbows Bill. A number of people have entered football grounds with crossbows hidden on their person. They are easily assembled once they are inside the ground, and 50p pieces or other coins have been used to take potshots at people on the other side of the terrace. There are also provisions relating to drinking.

The Act that prohibits the sale of alcohol at football grounds is welcome. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is probably aware of the loophole that if people go to a motorway service station they can tank up with alcohol at the same time as they tank up with petrol. They can then enter a football ground when they are well over the top. It is nonsense that the pubs surrounding a football ground should not be allowed to sell alcohol just before the start of a football match when supermarkets are able to sell alcohol to football fans before they go to a match.

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

That point needs to be looked at urgently.

As for lighting at football grounds, no general provision is made for emergency lighting. Many football matches have been delayed because of a fault in the power supply. We should introduce proper emergency lighting regulations so that in the event, heaven help us, of a major disaster we could ensure, by having emergency lighting at all the exits, that the crowds were properly protected. In the event of an emergency they would be able to leave the ground quickly and safely.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) that there seems to be a general feeling in Labour-controlled authorities that it is a sin to win a match, or a cross-country race, or anything else. That is nonsense. Britain is a competitive country and sport, by its very nature, is competitive. We must encourage and allow competitive sports to continue.

My final point is on sponsorship. I welcome the continued sponsorship of sport, whether it relates to tobacco or alcohol. Ind Coope in my constituency has sponsored Leicester City football club. It is still not winning, or very rarely winning. I would love to see it stay in the first division but I am very fearful for its future at the moment. It has an excellent team under Ian Wilson, the captain. I thank those sponsorship organisations for ensuring that competitive sport continues. Sport is a great recreation. It will not be allowed to die. Britain benefits by its leisure activities.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for giving us the opportunity to place on record the fact that sport is doing pretty well.

May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on introducing the debate at such an opportune moment. My constituents in Fulham have a particular concern in the problems that are facing sport at the present time. Like the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), I shall refer to the troublemakers who are associated with football, but a rather different group of troublemakers. I shall be talking about those troublemakers who are, in effect, no more than parasites and who have been acquiring football clubs—who are possibly considering acquiring other football clubs and other sporting organisations— not with a view to furthering the interests of the sport but purely with a view to making a personal gain out of exploiting a club's assets.

The affairs of Fulham football club in the last month have painted a sad and sorry picture of a gross act of misbehaviour by people who claim to have the interests of sport at heart, but who have revealed themselves to be crude asset-strippers simply trying to make a large personal gain out of the demolition of a proud football club. Fulham football club has had a long, proud tradition and it has a remarkable tradition of complete freedom from trouble at the ground. People can go week after week to Craven Cottage and enjoy a game of football, in the confident knowledge that there will be no crowd trouble and that there will be a pleasant, happy atmosphere and environment. Yet this club's survival has been put at risk by people who do not have the interests of football at heart but simply see it as an opportunity for property speculation.

Last summer, Marler Estates acquired control of Fulham football club. Despite the protestations of the chairman of Marler Estates at the time who claimed, rather like a wolf in sheep's clothing, that he was coming to save the club's fortunes and to help the club develop its potential and rebuild its fortunes on the field as well as its financial fortunes, it became clear that his long-term objective was property development of the site. Despite that, he gave many pledges of support for the club and its supporters. He gave pledges to myself and pledges in writing to the local newspaper. He said:

"We have already stated that it is our intention to have Fulham playing at Craven Cottage, for the next few years at least."

That was printed in the Fulham Chronicle on 27 November 1986.

Imagine the feelings of everyone who cares about the future of football and about Fulham when less than three months later Mr. Bulstrode, the signatory of that letter, announced that he was merging Fulham with Queens Park Rangers, thus ending football at Craven Cottage, and that he intended to build luxury houses all over the site. That would effectively have killed Fulham football club, when he had pledged three months earlier to keep it going for the next few years at least at Craven Cottage.

That announcement deeply shocked all those who are concerned with sport. Nevertheless, it led to a rapid rise in the share values of Marler Estates, which must have delighted, among others, the chief executive of the company, who had had the foresight to acquire a holding of 15 per cent. of the shares of the company just three weeks earlier.

There can be few more blatant and disgraceful examples of the unacceptable face of capitalism—crude asset-stripping accompanied by gross breaches of faith and bare-faced betrayal of promises. That was against a background which gives me real grounds for belief that there has been insider dealing in the shares of the company. That latter point is not a subject for debate this evening, so I shall say no more. I hope that the Minister with responsibilities for sport will urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take rapid action to investigate the affairs of Marler Estates in that respect.

We must focus on the sporting implications. We are in the middle of a fight to preserve Fulham football club against the wishes of Marler Estates to bulldoze the club and build luxury housing over the entire site. Against that, there has been an impressive response from supporters of the club. The local authority organised a remarkably well-attended public meeting—again, completely trouble-free—which showed the strength of feeling of supporters and well wishers of the club to keep Fulham at Craven Cottage. The football league has made clear its opposition to the proposed merger, and to that extent the proposals of Marler Estates have at least been halted.

We need to go further. We need to explore positive alternatives to keep Fulham at Craven Cottage. There is a positive alternative. The club is sitting on a huge potential asset—there is no point in hiding the huge land values—because of the grossly inflated prices in land in Fulham and other inner-city areas. If used positively, such land can provide a safeguard for sporting institutions that have these land assets. The use of those assets to provide redeveloped grounds and improved facilities for the club—possibly with a subsidy to help the club operate in the future if gates are low—is a positive way of looking at the matter rather than simply stripping the assets for private greed.

Two weeks ago, in front of the all-party football committee, Mr. Bulstrode, the chairman of Marler Estates, gave an undertaking that he would explore such an alternative, and members of that committee were pleased to hear it. Despite those pledges, within a few days Mr. Bulstrode was pouring cold water on the possibility and issued threats to sack the staff and players at Fulham. What a dreadful background for the staff at Fulham football club and players to try to keep on playing football, with no certainty that they will have their jobs from one week to the next because of the behaviour of their chairman. That is staggering behaviour from someone who pledged at the end of last year that it was his intention to keep the club playing at the site and safeguarded its future. That behaviour is unacceptable in any walk of life and people who are capable of that degree of duplicity are unfit to control the future fortunes of any football club.

Survival of the club depends on firm action to resist the chairman's intentions. The local authority has shown the way and it led a magnificent campaign to save the ground. I regret that up until now the Government have not shown such enthusiasm and determination, but I gather that today the Minister has taken action to spot-list certain buildings at Craven Cottage, which will put a further obstacle in the path of Marler Estates and prevent a total redevelopment of the site. If that is so, I must congratulate the Minister on taking, albeit belatedly, positive steps in support of Fulham football club to make it clear that we have a combined purpose in ensuring the survival of football and not allowing property speculators to close football clubs.

I hope that the message will go out loud and clear to Mr. Bulstrode, Marler Estates and any other speculators who want to strip the assets of football clubs and other sporting institutions, that we shall not accept it, we shall not tolerate it; there are more important values and we must defend them. We must ensure that clubs are able to continue to play the sport which they are in existence to play and give entertainment to the public. Clubs' assets should be used for the public's benefit, not the personal greed of individual speculators.

I shall be brief and endeavour to sit down just after 8 o'clock, but I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Indeed, it is a very important debate and I hope that the Minister will not only take note of what has been said by many hon. Members in all parts of the House but will take action on the valid points that have been raised in such an articulate way.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) on what I consider to be a most outstanding speech from the Back Benches. His knowledge of sport is well known. His contribution to the sports of rowing and boxing is exceptionally well known and I congratulate him on making such an important speech in the debate.

I also pay my respect to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). His involvement in sport is well known and greatly respected. Hon. Members from both sides of the House are united on many issues. Perhaps the message from the debate is that many of the points that have been made are shared across party barriers. My hon. Friend the Minister would be well advised to accept the advice that he has been given by the House.

Let me briefly, in the one or two minutes at my disposal, raise one or two issues that have already been taken up. One relates to local authority playing fields. I share the concern expressed by many hon. Members and by the Central Council of Physical Recreation about what is happening to many local authority playing fields. They are being taken out of sport and developed, and that is wrong. It must be wrong for the local authorities in whose areas they are located and it must be wrong for sport and recreation in Britain, particularly its provision for young people.

I was present at the annual general meeting of the Central Council of Physical Recreation when His Royal Highness Prince Philip made a dramatic speech. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), a distinguished member of the council, was present, and I hope that that speech has been noted by my hon. Friend the Minister.

I am also deeply concerned because many such sports fields are located in the centre of our urban areas and cities. Once they have been lost, they will be gone for ever. Even if they are replaced, they are replaced many miles away. With transport costs as they are today, it is unacceptable that young people in particular should be expected to go many miles in order to participate in sport of any sort.

I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister that he intercede with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the spending of the capital receipts of local authorities. It is outrageous that my authority of Macclesfield should have been forced to borrow money when it had money in the bank from receipts from council house sales, and in the general rate fund from the sale of land and other properties that was not required by the borough council in the foreseeable future. The council should have been able to spend that money to build the swimming bath that was so urgently required in Macclesfield. A further debt had to be incurred which was a liability on the ratepayer, despite the council having money in the bank. For some extraordinary Treasury reason, the authority was not permitted to spend it. I hope that my hon. Friend, representing sporting interests, will take such points on board so that sport does not suffer in this way.

Several sporting clubs in my constituency, particularly the Poynton sports club, are concerned about the amount of money that has to be paid in rates. I hope that my hon. Friend will give emphatic guidance to local authorities that they should use their discretionary powers to grant substantial rate relief—in many cases, 100 per cent. relief. Sport is important. Local private clubs can provide facilities, often much more cheaply than the local authority. Therefore, that is money well spent.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath wishes to speak and I have been longer than I promised, but coming from an area which has the Silkmen football club and many leading lights in the sporting world—Martin Edwards, the chairman of Manchester United and even Hurricane Higgins, the snooker player who has not necessarily always behaved as everybody would wish—I feel deeply involved in sport and I know how valuable it is to the community. Will my hon. Friend take the advice of the House and act?

There is so much to say, and so little time in which to say it, but we have had a wonderful debate. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) summed it up. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for the opportunity that he has afforded us, in conjunction, I suspect, with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who also tried for a debate.

What has come out of the debate more than anything else is something which the nation and certainly our colleagues in the House, even more so the Treasury often fail to understand. As the Minister and I know from our rival experiences, and as ministerial colleagues often fail to understand, sport is vital to the life of Britain.

Wherever one looks at present, whether at areas of social stress in inner cities, Britain's general recreation, the evils of unemployment and its enforced leisure, at people who retire earlier and live longer international affairs, Britain's role and the esteem in which we are held in international affairs, are all personified through sport.

When I was the Minister with responsibility for sport I sometimes thought, as I am sure the Minister does, that we were running the Government. I thought that were were running the Home Office over hooliganism. South Africa—mercifully, the hon. Member for Luton, North did not talk about that today—the Olympic Games in Moscow and whether the East was wrong not to go to Los Angeles are matters of international importance. They are all questions understood by the British people through sport. That is why sport is so vital. When we get it wrong, as we do so often on our housing estates and in our inner cities, we pay the price. We cannot fail to pay the price. We either provide facilities for people to enjoy themselves, or we pick up the tab for violence, hooliganism and vandalism on our estates and in our communities. We must get the Treasury and everyone else to understand that. So many problems arise from boredom.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) said eloquently that sport is the means by which people express their individual personalities. That is its great contribution to our national life. Sport, and team sport in particular, is the means by which we learn to relate to our fellows—to win well and to lose gracefully. Those are lessons of tremendous importance to the nation.

If ever one goes to Covent Garden, one cannot fail to be inundated by permanent secretaries whom one never sees at Wembley or any of the other sporting meccas. In the British Council's report which came into my hands today, despite its £221 million spending power, there was not one word about sport. There was not one word about how the British Council sees its job of projecting sport throughout the world as a British interest. All its money is spent on cultural pursuits. Nobody objects to its work on the culture front, but it is out of balance, as we so often see in the Treasury and elsewhere.

The Sports Council grant is disgraceful. I do not blame the Minister. He was not present when the grants were decided this year. I prefer to believe that, because he already has a feel for sport. It is ridiculous that the Secretary of State for the Environment should fix the grants without consulting the Sports Council and certainly, if what I have been told is true, the Minister.

Although a two-year grant was decided upon, as the hon. Member for Luton, North mentioned, nobody in his wildest dreams thought that the grant for the second year would not be increased in line with inflation. This has never happened before with any other quango. It is always understood that inflation is allowed for in succeeding years. That is the Sports Council's grievance, and justifiably so.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the British Olympic committee. The committee, according to the information with which it has supplied me for this debate, wants to do a great deal in providing medical services. It should be encouraged to do things in the medical field—psychological and physiological testing, medical screening and so on, for which it does not get a penny.

The British Olympic Association is unique in the world. As far as I can discover, it is the only Olympic association in the world that does not receive a penny from the Government and pays abnormal taxes out of the money that it raises to send British Olympic teams abroad. That cannot possibly be right and I draw the attention of the Government to it. We definitely need to put that right.

When I was a Minister, I tried to get my colleagues in the Government, and particularly in the Department of Trade, to understand that many other countries recognise the importance of international sports provision. They send ambassadors abroad, they train people, the Government pay money to exert their influence, whether it be China, the Soviet Union, Cuba or any other country. They understand that their influence will be felt as a result of training. Their architects build stadiums and training facilities throughout the world, and that aid through sport is understood, particularly in Asia, Africa and South America, as the means by which they extend their influence. We in this country have not even started to think along those lines. Perhaps I could make common cause with the Minister, because I am sure that he shares these views. He has been abroad with me on the Birmingham Olympic campaign, where his assistance was very much valued. That represented a joint national effort and I hope that we can get more in that area.

We must talk about the decline, because of the cuts in our sports facilities. I had a terribly depressing statistic from the Amateur Swimming Association. Does the House know that 48 per cent. fewer children are being taught to swim now than was the case five years ago? That is the result of cuts in education, the increase in transportation costs and the increase in the cost of hiring swimming baths. That is a disgraceful statistic and it is a disgraceful situation that is facing the country.

We know, too, that the Sports Council is at the moment considering a consultants' report which recommends for example, that the swimming pool at Crystal Palace should be closed. Nothing could be more crazy. It is the only swimming pool in the south of England that is capable of taking international diving and water polo as well as general recreational swimming. I hope that that is kicked into touch. I hope that the Minister will tell the Sports Council not to waste another minute on the question of closing down the Crystal Palace pool. I hope that he will also look into the decline in swimming in our schools, which is a matter of national concern.

I should like—and the House would expect me to do so—to spend a moment praising the revolution in leisure that has been going on in Birmingham. I think that the Minister knows about it. I am glad to see him nod his head. We have got over the problem of not using our schools out of school hours during the week, because immediately 4 o'clock comes, and on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, the control of the swimming baths, the sports fields and the sports halls passes to the leisure department and they are used for general community purposes. There has been a tremendous revolution as a result of that thinking, but I must say to the Minister that if this is to happen throughout the country, political initiative is necessary. Somebody has to take the lead. Somebody has to break the bureaucracy that is stopping us using the facilities that are already there. That is, indeed, what we expect of the Government.

Nothing could be more important than school sport, because it is the foundation stone of all British sport. If people have not developed a love of sport by the time they leave school at 16, if they have not been taught the skills, our national and international sport will he in decline. One need only think of tennis to see the obvious truth of that statement.

I am glad to pay a tribute to the Inner London education authority, because it has been rather maligned, although I noted what the hon. Member for Luton, North said in this connection. I have looked into this matter in some detail and have come to the conclusion that there are very few local authorities doing more for sport, team sport and excellence in sport, than ILEA. For example, it has schools of special ability in cricket, table tennis, lawn tennis, gymnastics, volleyball and basketball. It is one of the few educational authorities that actually bring coaches into the primary schools. It has done a deal with the Surrey county cricket club to bring cricketers into the primary schools to foster a love of sport. That is in every way commendable and ILEA should be praised for doing it.

I know that the deputy chairman, Mr. Bernard Wiltshire, has invited Professor Peter Macintosh to head a working party. What he wants to do, he says, is not drive out team sports, but to make them popular again. It has been reported to me that after all the trouble that there has been with school sport, there is an increase in the number of team sports being undertaken on Saturdays in the ILEA area, and all of us will welcome that.

The Central Council of Physical Recreation has done a tremendous job of work. I speak as a former chairman, although I have worked with it mainly since I left office. I am glad to pay tribute to the council for the way in which it keeps everybody on their toes. Often people in the sports council of this House do not like it, but we need gadflies about in sport, stinging here and there, and if people can defend themselves, they ought not to worry about that.

The council has provided me with a lot of information and I shall quote in juxtaposition two statements about the health and sport of our youngsters in society. First, this is the Home Office in 1986:

"The Young Offenders Act which established Youth Custody Centres requires two hours per week compulsory physical education training for offenders aged between 15 and 21."

So far so good, but the Health Education Council and Physical Education Association survey of schools in the west midlands said:

"83 per cent. of children are engaged in less than five minutes' vigorous activity per day."

In other words, if a young person has been sentenced to custody because he is a wrongdoer he will be fitter and have more facilities for sport than if he is in a school. That cannot be right.

One of the most distressing things is the failure of colleges of education to provide physical education teachers. The situation is now reaching crisis proportions, and this is something that I hope the Minister will look into, especially as so many PE colleges have been closed down. I am thinking of those at Dartford, St. Luke's, Exeter and Nonnington, Kent. This is a serious matter. There is now a shortage of PE teachers within the teaching profession, and it is important that we pay some attention to the situation. I hope that the Minister can use his influence with his colleagues in another Department to get them to understand the situation.

With regard to the Sports Council, I took note of what was said earlier about keeping a balance and not interfering too much in sport, I did not support the royal charter when it was first issued to the Sports Council, but I believed that it was there to protect and maintain its independence, particularly from the Department of the Environment. I am worried that increasingly the Sports Council seems to be becoming sucked into the Department of the Environment. I hope that the Minister will tell us what Mr. Teasdale is doing now that he has been seconded from the Department of the Environment. I know that it is only for a short time and that he will be going back, but he is now working full time.

Mr. Teasdale has done some good work in his time, and I am not casting any personal reflections on him, but he ought not to be there; he ought not to be in an institution with a royal charter. We can all imagine what the BBC would say if suddenly it was told to take on an official from the Home Office who had been in charge of broadcasting. If that happened there would be uproar throughout Britain. A royal charter ought to be as honoured and as hallowed in sport as it is in broadcasting. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

About 550 school playing grounds are up for sale. This is disgraceful. If the school population is going down, the youth population must be going up. If some school playing fields are not fully used, they should be taken over for use by the community. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) and other hon. Members who talked about the vital importance of football and football clubs. We must ask the football authorities to look at their regulations, because nobody should be able to corner any of our football clubs. Shareholding should be strictly limited.

I hope that local authorities will use their powers to prevent planning applications that change the nature of football clubs. Grounds in the middle of our built-up conurbations must be protected as lungs. If the football clubs leave their grounds, they should be used by the local authority for general sport and recreation—even if it is necessary to make a compulsory purchase order. I am now dealing only in headlines. VAT on sport and rates are important subjects for discussion and we shall have to come back to them. In the context of tax on sport, I ask the Minister to ensure that British sport does not suffer compared to European sport. We entered the European Community because we believed in harmonisation, but we are not getting harmonisation in British sport. There is no time to talk about Playboard, but I hope that the Minister will do what he can about that.

Many hon. Members have spoken about violence in sport. Anything that is unlawful on the streets of Britain must be unlawful on the playing field, and administrators, referees and everyone involved should make sure that that is the case. I believe that Sunday racing will come. The two correspondents Brough Scott and Richard Baerlein have written about this and the only thing that I add to what they have said is the advice that I gave the Jockey Club when we met its representatives in Committee—do not get mixed up in Sunday trading. This is Sunday sport, and should be treated as such. Certainly there should be negotiations with the trade unions, which have every right to be fully consulted.

Again I thank the Minister for supporting Birmingham's Olympic bid. That bid has produced about £60 million in investment in the city, so we have had a very good return, which shows the importance of the international role of sport. The Government ought to think again about financial support for Olympic and Commonwealth initiatives, and it is important for the Government to be seen to do so. Sport is vital to the life of the community.

I calculate that it is five years since the House last discussed sport. I hope that we will discuss it much more frequently in future, because all hon. Members are united in the view that one of the essential purposes of sport is to unite the nation. We agree on that, whatever other divisions we might have. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, this debate has shown that hon. Members in all parts of the House are united in declaring the importance of sport and are determined to see that it gets a fair deal from Governments of any colour.

I congratulate hon. Members on a good-natured and interesting debate on this important subject. There has obviously been a great deal of cross-party agreement. I certainly congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) who in his usual good-natured way has raised a whole range of topics and given the House a good opportunity to discuss the important subject of sport in our nation.

The hon. Gentleman began by saying that we ought to have more debates on sport. I would welcome that, too, and only three weeks ago we hoped to have such a debate when my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) put down an excellent motion congratulating the Government, the football authorities and the police on their work in combating football hooliganism. That was to follow a debate on the inner cities, but because of some rather lengthy speeches by Opposition Members I am afraid that we did not reach that motion. It would have been a great opportunity to discuss sport but we could not take it up on that occasion.

In this debate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that he wished for more Government involvement. Perhaps he suggests that I have some bigger job. I consider that I have been greatly involved. I have now been doing the job for less than 18 months but in my first year I attended well over 400 sports events, even though I was not able to make a great number of speeches in the House about sport. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was in the job for 11 years and certainly managed to extend into wind and water. He seems to be quite renowned for stopping or starting the rain—I forget which it was.

In the context of more Government involvement, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said that the Government get intervention in sport about right and I think that that view is widely held by my hon. Friends. We also get financial involvement about right. I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want some kind of Eastern European involvement in sport because along with that sort of attitude come various other attitudes that are certainly not desirable. I think that the right hon. Member for Small Heath would agree that the governing bodies of sport would not wish to see the kind of intervention that would follow the much more dirigist policies followed in sport by eastern European countries.

The debate focused on the problems of sport. Not surprisingly, many points were made about finance. One of the most compelling problems facing sport is behaviour on the field of play. Many hon. Members spoke about that and, as is well known, the Government are doing a great deal about crowd violence. From time to time we talk to the governing bodies and ask them to exercise better control over players. Late in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) spoke about drug taking. I shall return to that later in my speech.

First, I shall deal with the problem of crowd violence that is associated with football. We are well aware of the disastrous effects that a minority hooligan element has had in recent years on our national sport. That has had disastrous consequences for our country's reputation and for our prestige abroad. That is clear from the attitudes that continue to be taken by the European football authority, UEFA. Regrettably, football-related hooliganism is not the sort of problem that lends itself to an immediate or single solution. Through our partnership approach we have worked hard to develop a package of measures designed to ensure public safety and the future well-being of the game.

Crowd disorder at football matches is not a new phenomenon. Football is a physical sport that has traditionally aroused passions and emotions on the field and in the stands. In recent years football has witnessed a truly tragic shift from rowdy but largely good-natured behaviour amongst spectators to appalling acts of violence. I pay tribute to clubs such as Luton and Leicester—raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels)—and so many other clubs such as Watford and Wimbledon which are doing what they can to combat this unfortunate hooliganism. The Government and the football authorities have introduced far-reaching measures to clamp down hard to try to wipe out hooliganism.

The Government have introduced stringent controls on the sale and possession of alcohol inside grounds and on transport to fixtures. We are providing the courts with powers to ban troublemakers from attending matches and we have tightened up fire and safety requirements throughout the Football League. The Football Association has revised ground regulations and has tightened up on disciplinary procedures. We have seen the first-class effects of installing closed circuit television throughout the first and second divisions, and the Football League is now proceeding to install that facility, with the valuable help of the Football Trust, in the third and fourth divisions. We believe that we shall see further improvements in the behaviour of football supporters across this country because unless there is a deep-seated improvement, the prospect of our English clubs returning to Europe are dim and distant. I appeal to the spectators to remember that football relies for its reputation very much on their good behaviour.

I pay tribute to the work that is being done in the clubs to bring back local community involvement. That very important work touches closely on the community involvement in general that was so well addressed by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) in his excellent speech. It was good to hear what he had to say about what should be happening in the community, with sport very much as a driving force, and I hope that more clubs will be able to do this.

I share the views expressed by several hon. Members that it was a short-sighted approach by the football authorities when they put a moratorium on artificial pitches. Recently, for a whole day, I was present at Preston North End where the chairman was beside himself with frustration at the action that had been taken by the Football League when he, the chairman, was doing all he could to attract revenue into his ground at Preston North End.

I saw that pitch, during the whole day that I was there, being used by the schools and by various members of the community. I understand that the ground is hired by fathers for birthday parties for their sons. We should be seeing that sort of spirit in football clubs throughout the country. For the moment that effort has been cut short by the football authorities, but I hope they will think again about it.

The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) raised—not surprisingly—the question of mergers of football clubs and the threat of redevelopment at various football grounds. I would find it always deeply saddening if an historic club were to lose its home and its link with the local community. We need to keep some sense of proportion about this issue.

Football clubs are private companies limited by guarantee. It is for their directors to decide who they should respond to market pressures if they are to keep in business. Football clubs have to move much closer to their communities if they are to survive. Only a handful of clubs are in the black, and too many football clubs are seriously in the red and beholden to the banks.

The Football League should address the question of mergers and shareholdings through their regulations. That view is shared by the right hon. Member for Small Heath. The League must carefully scrutinise applications for registration and re-registration so that they can truly take care of the game that we proudly say is our national game.

There is some light on the horizon for Fulham football club. This matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Fulham—who was slightly cynical in his remarks—and I was grateful to hear him acknowledge that today my right hon. Friend, following advice from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, has formally listed as buildings of architectural and historic interest several of the buildings and structures surrounding the pitch, which date from 1905. That is an indication of the particular interest that the Government have taken in Fulham football club, this historic ground, Craven Cottage and the related stand accommodation which is part of the heritage of football.

I now turn to the loss of recreational ground and pitches. We have to keep this in proportion. Today there are approximately 160 more swimming pools and 600 more sports halls than in 1979 when this Government were first returned to office. Between 1982 and 1985 there were created 127 new natural turf pitches, and a further 50 synthetic all-weather pitches have been laid since the early 1970s. This is an indication of a very important growth of resources for mass participation in sport in this country.

I am pleased that the Sports Council has formed a joint working party with other interested groups to consider ways of co-operating and protecting recreational land. We desperately need accurate statistics of these related problems. My Department will be looking closely at the results of the working party and at any recommendations made by it.

Loss of playing fields was mentioned by the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). In recent times it has been brought to my attention that Labour authorities in Ealing and Brent are planning to build houses on playing fields. Will the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde be able to do something about that? As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, I bring to his attention a problem in my borough of Kingston upon Thames where the Liberal-SDP council is also planning to build houses on two sports playing fields. I have taken up that matter with the chairman of the recreation committee and I have chided him, this very day, on returning to me just a one-line reply—when I asked for reassurance—saying that he has taken note of my comments. More than that is required before the Opposition party can tell the Government that they ought to be doing more about this disgraceful situation to which we are addressing ourselves.

Coming to finance, the Sports Council grant has been mentioned. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was being somewhat mischievous when he suggested that I was in no way consulted by my right hon. Friend about the sports grant. The truth is that the Sports Council last year received the biggest increase that it has ever had—£6·372 million—and it was told at the time that that was an increase for two years. That was a real terms increase of 16 per cent.

It is no good the right hon. Member for Small Heath complaining. When he left office, the Sports Council grant was £15 million, and it now receives £37 million, a real terms increase, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box, of 42 per cent. during the period of this Government. That is perfectly good evidence of the first-class support that we are giving to a strengthened Sports Council.

In my time as Minister responsible for sport I have strengthened the Sports Council by introducing the regional chairmen. We now have a flow of information on sport from our regions so that we are involving the local authorities, who are members of the regional sports councils, in communication with us here at the central Sports Council. Local authorities can give sports clubs a 100 per cent. rates discretion, any rebate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North spoke about tobacco sponsorship. It seems that there is some difference on the Opposition Benches about that. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is against it, and the right hon. Member for Small Heath is in favour of it. We have a balanced approach, as we have in all matters of sport, and as we shall continue to have.

I am grateful for the opportunity to set out again the Government's dedication to the sport of this nation which we consider so important to our people.

I begin by apologising for the state of my voice. Yesterday, I was visiting nursing homes in my constituency and the combination of the deafness of the inmates and my attempts to communicate with them has resulted in my finding it difficult to address the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of trade unions and industrial relations. I believe that it is of great importance as we discuss the next step forward in the Government's plans for trade union reform.

In May 1979, the Government were presented with a situation of chaotic trade union power and militancy which had been encouraged by labour legislation between 1974 and 1976. The unions had excessive bargaining power which led to wage demands far outstripping inflation. Strike was the only response and trade union immunity from legal action had been so extended that as a result industrial action was licensed even if it were directed against those far removed from the dispute.

While there has been much play from the Liberal party and elsewhere that we should not dwell on the events of the period 1977–79, my right hon. and hon. Friends should spend some time considering those matters as they consider their plans for the future. It is constructive to remember that in 1977 a Gallup poll showed that 53 per cent. of the population believed that Jack Jones was more powerful than the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who was a much younger man then. Some 76 per cent. thought that the country was in a serious economic difficulty and, despite the Lib-Lab pact, 73 per cent. thought that the Liberals had little or no influence on Government policy.

I must not dwell on those unhappy times. Suffice it to say that matters came to a head in 1979 with the infamous winter of discontent when the myth that Labour could work with the unions was finally laid to rest. Action taken by workers involved strikes in the motor and haulage industries, bakeries, on the railways and in local authorities. Cancer patients were turned away from hospitals, refuse was piled high in the streets, while pickets blocked entry of food into our ports. Ambulance men threatened to refuse to answer 999 calls and, in Liverpool, even the dead lay unburied.

The Prime Minister of the day openly admitted that the Government were impotent to reduce unemployment. Mrs. Williams cheerfully admitted that there was

"no real answer to the rising youth unemployment."

Today, she tells a different tale.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely what the unemployment figure was when the last Labour Prime Minister made that statement? If he cannot tell us, I will tell him. It was 1,300,000. It had come down every month since 1977. Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us what the unemployment figure is now, after eight years of Tory Government?

I can do rather better. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what a Minister in his Government said in 1978, writing in the Glasgow Herald. One of his colleagues predicted that there would be 3 million unemployed within five years and said that to blame any Government for that did not get us very far. He went on to demonstrate that it was part of the demographic effect. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be able to confirm that a Minister in their Government predicted that there would be 3 million unemployed. Under his Government, unemployment doubled and the leader of his party claimed that they were impotent to reduce unemployment.

What about unemployment now?

The hon. Gentleman should read the writings of his colleague the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who was quite authoritative on that matter.

When they were elected, the Conservative Government were determined not only to tackle the problems of unemployment but to restore the balance of industrial relations between the employers and the trade unions, which had been so distorted under Labour. They also wanted to make union leaders more accountable to members.

With all the talk from the Liberal-SDP alliance of the need to have pacts to moderate Governments, the period of the Lib-Lab pact did not restore Britain's economic fortunes or bring the trade unions to heel. The pact's aims were to make some progress in devolution, to get direct elections to the European Parliament under proportional representation and to get through the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. Only the last of those aims was achieved, with a shoddy, ill-drafted measure which has created immense misery and the effects of which every hon. Member has to face in every surgery every week. That was the sole achievement of the Lib-Lab pact other than maintaining in office a Government that went on to nationalise and preside over a disastrous period in industrial relations.

The price of that pact was trade union militancy, spiralling economic decline and the winter of discontent, 10 million working days lost during 1979 and the spectacle of Mrs. Shirley Williams on the Grunwick picket line. Despite that, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), as recently as 3 December 1986, said:

"that was one of the best periods of Government that Britain has had for a very long time."—[Official Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106. c. 1039.]

I hope that in the forthcoming election, whenever it comes, the alliance will not be promising us that.

My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the efforts that have been made by the Government through existing legislation. As one who has been cynical about the step-by-step approach, I must admit that it has been an immense success. So far, we have removed legal immunity from unions when taking certain unacceptable forms of action such as sympathy strikes, blacking and picketing away from the place of work. We have provided public funds for ballots of trade union members on such issues as strikes, election of officials and amending union rules. We have made unions liable to injunctions for damages when they are responsible for unlawful industrial action. We have made the legal immunity of trade unions in organising industrial action conditional on holding a secret ballot to be held before the trade unions endorse a call for action.

We have ensured that every voting member of the trade unions' governing bodies is subject to election directly and by secret ballot of union members once every five years. We have given union members the chance to ballot every 10 years on the continuance of the political fund. We have compensated those who were dismissed from closed shops between 1974 and 1980 and provided for a regular review by secret ballot of closed shops. We have given employers the possibility of dismissing, without having to face unfair dismissal claims, those taking industrial action, provided all those taking part at a particular workplace on a particular day are dismissed.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who elected the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) as vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland?

As the hon. Gentleman is always at pains to diminish the influence of the Scottish Conservative party and the nature of its influence in Scotland, I find it surprising that he should seek to compare the question of democracy and accountability of the trade unions to the internal workings of a political party. However, looking at his own party's record in the Division Lobbies, I can see that it does not treat it with the same seriousness as I do.

Our legislation has succeeded in its aims, not only of restoring a balance to industrial relations but in making trade union leaders more accountable to their members. It is no coincidence that the number of strikes has recently been at its lowest for nearly 50 years. For example, the National Union of Railwaymen voted three times against any strike action between August 1985 and July 1986 in defiance of its leadership. Under the previous Labour Government, working days lost through industrial unrest reached 29·5 million in 1979 alone. The figure for 1986 is 1·9 million.

What about 1984?

The miners' strike of 1984 showed only too clearly the need for legislation, coming as it did before the Trade Union Act 1984. The Prime Minister said at the time that it was "a dispute about the right to go to work of those who have been denied the right to go to vote."

That right ought to have been guaranteed to them by the National Union of Mineworkers' rules. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) may make no justified criticism of the Conservative party in implementing its own rules, but I should like to think that he would criticise the way in which the NUM behaved in terms of failing to implement its rules. Had they been followed, a national strike could have been entered upon only as the result of a ballot vote of the members, with the support of a simple majority of those voting. However, Mr. Scargill continually refused to hold a national secret ballot. The issue of a secret ballot dominated the strike and showed the Labour party's contempt for union democracy.

Better industrial relations have been recently reflected by the growing number of long-term pay settlements, often secured in exchange for more flexible working practices and no-strike agreements. For example, the Electrical, Electronic, Plumbing and Telecommunications union has negotiated such deals with Sanyo, Toshiba and Hitachi. The Green Paper represents a further step forward in that process of giving rights to trade union members. I particularly welcome the proposal to give union members the right to restrain their union from authorising or endorsing industrial action involving a breach of employment contracts where a union has not obtained majority support from those taking part in the action in a strike ballot and the right for union members not to be subject to disciplinary measures by a trade union for refusing to take industrial action.

The Wapping dispute serves well to illustrate the necessity of those measures. If they had been in force at that time any SOGAT wholesale worker could have obtained an order restraining his union from calling a strike without balloting the wholesale workers—which is what SOGAT failed to do. An individual member could have saved his union from financial ruin. As Brenda Dean, general secretary of SOGAT, said in the Financial Times on 20 February 1987:

"the lesson for me is that you can't postpone change, and you certainly can't stop change. If you attempt the results are so often much more unpleasant for the very people one is trying to protect."

If only those who have positions of authority in the trade unions in the Caterpiller factory had followed that advice. Yet again, we see the dinosaurs of the trade union movement leading the workers up a blind alley at considerable cost to their families.

The Secretary of State for Scotland condemns the Caterpiller Tractor Company and criticises the men for the action they have taken. The men were provoked. They were promised a £62·5 million investment and then after three months the whole factory was thrown into disarray and 1,221 men lost their jobs. What would the hon. Gentleman, as a man with any backbone, do in a situation such as that?

The first thing I would do would be to ensure that the workers were given a secret ballot to decide what sort of action they should take.

There was a secret ballot at the outset.

The hon. Gentleman knows that there was considerable dissension among the work force on the question of continuing the occupation of the plant. By refusing to give the work force a secret ballot on the decision to continue the occupation of the plant, I believe that the trade union members responsible showed a degree of irresponsibility that was, to say the least, worrying. The consequences for those men will be that their families will be poor and the prospects of finding an alternative use for the plant are that more remote.

There are far too many people in the Labour party who are much more concerned about leading great crusades and winning headlines than about looking after the long-term interests of the work force. That was reflected in the conduct of those who refused a ballot for the work force. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland's criticism of the management, but, at the end of the day, the only way in which the dispute will be settled is if the management and the trade union representatives get round the table and get the best possible deal for the work force to secure the future of the plant. One does not do that by indulging in sit-ins and pyrotechnic displays for the benefit of the media.

In considering the Green Paper, I believe that the statutory duty on trade union trustees not to apply union funds in contravention of the terms of court orders is a vital measure. In the light of the experiences of the past few years, the right of trade union members to inspect their union's detailed accounts is also important.

Further steps to remove trade union immunity from industrial action to establish or maintain a closed shop are important, as is an extension of the statutory election requirement to cover the election of all trade union executive members, presidents and general secretaries. That measure would prevent people such as Mr. Scargill from waiving their voting rights in return for a seat for life on the committee. It is also important to provide a new commissioner for trade union affairs to pursue any improvements in the conduct of elections, as identified by a certification officer.

The legislative programme of the Labour party is deliberately designed to enhance trade union power in Government and society. The Labour party is committed to repealing all the trade union legislation that has been introduced by this Government. The TUC-Labour party document on industrial relations entitled "People at Work: New Rights, New Responsibilities" gives details of the Labour party's proposals.

It is a splendid document.

The hon. Gentleman says that it is a splendid document. I am glad that he is prepared to endorse it because its

"new framework would in no way give employers, or their customers or suppliers, any opportunity to seek damages agains unions."

In addition, there are plans to legalise secondary picketing and secondary action and to strengthen the closed shop.

It is all about democracy.

The hon. Gentleman says that it is all about democracy. However, the document states:

"any future legal framework must include provisions encouraging trade union membership".

In other words, it seeks a coercive closed shop and to end pre-strike ballots. The document continues:

"trade union members also seek and expect rights to secret ballots on strikes … (but) not necessarily before a strike … but within a reasonable time if the strike continues."

It is difficult to find out what the alliance parties believe. However, if one considers their record, none of the SDP leaders voted against any of the trade union legislation that was introduced between 1974 and 1976 by the Labour Government. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) voted against the Employment Act 1980. The alliance split three ways on the Employment Act 1982. Liberal Members and 17 SDP Members voted for its Second Reading, while five SDP Members voted against it. A further five Members of Parliament abstained or were absent. Liberal Members also voted for the Third Reading, while the SDP abstained with the exception of their then employment spokesman who voted against it.

In its document entitled "Industrial Relations: A Fresh Look", the SDP argues strongly for positive rights for trade unions and includes proposals to undermine the effectiveness of pre-strike ballots and to reinforce the closed shop. Pre-strike ballots would no longer be compulsory and would be required only when at least 10 per cent. of the work force involved demanded one. To establish a closed shop only 66 per cent. of the work force would be needed to secure approval. Subsequent reviews of the closed shop would be held only if a set proportion of the work force demanded them.

I have no desire to dwell on the policies of the Opposition parties. Suffice it to say that they would take us back to the period of the Lib-Lab pact, remove the rights of trade union members, and restore power to the trade union barons.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) shakes his head, but I refer him to a comment made by Lord Grimond in July 1977. He had some worries about the Lib-Lab pact and showed a certain perspicacity because his prediction came to pass. He said that he was worried that the pact might

"entrench a Conservative closed-shop type of bureaucratic Socialism"

which would mean the death of Liberalism forever. His prophetic words have come to pass.

I congratulate my hon. friend the Minister on the success of his policies. I urge him to press ahead with the Green Paper proposals. Britain has been transformed from the mayhem of the Lib-Lab pact into a country in which the number of working days lost is the lowest since 1963, and less than one fifth of the days lost in 1977 and 1978. During the Government of the Lib-Lab pact, there were 4,300 disputes, with the loss of 15·9 million working days. Opposition Members cannot escape that, because that is their record.

Today the CBI forecast record orders and prospects for our country. The budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor offers hope of a complete transformation in our economic position,. None of that would have happened under a hung Parliament or under the policies of Opposition Members, and they must face up to that. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to continue with the step-by-step approach and to take some wider steps.

Perhaps I was a little naive to think that we would have a constructive debate on trade unions, especially as the debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). We certainly had an extraordinarily wide-ranging speech from him and one or two of his points deserve some response.

In his rather selective way, the hon. Member tried to draw conclusions from a period some years ago. I do not propose to go over that period, other than to point out that unemployment and inflation decreased and that for a short time there was a degree of stability in the economy which had not been there previously. There was also the appointment of the first-ever Cabinet Minister for small businesses. [Laughter.] It is interesting that Conservative Members find that amusing. Many small businesses appreciated that development and would like to see a Cabinet Minister with similar responsibility in the present Government.

How does the hon. Gentleman define stability in the economy?

Perhaps stability was the wrong word, but inflation, interest rates and unemployment all decreased and the economy moved in the right direction. If a Conservative Government had presided over that, they would have been pleased to boast about it. The Minister knows perfectly well that the ensuing winter of discontent arose against our advice, when an election should have been called and the matter resolved.

The hon. Member for Stirling picked on events that happened at a given time and blamed them entirely on the Government of the day. As he referred to the miners' strike I presume that he will not object to the Government accepting responsibility for that. Many working days were lost then. We have had riots at Wapping and in Birmingham, Liverpool and London. All that has happened under the Conservative Government, who therefore stand indicted for it. I am not as uncharitable as the hon. Gentleman in assuming that all those matters are the direct responsibility of the Government. but the Government certainly had a hand in creating that unrest and provocation. Indeed, when historians consider this period of government, they will not see it in the spirit of Nirvana in which the hon. Gentleman wishes us to dwell. The electorate is capable of making its own choice.

The Conservative Government's great concern with the details of the democratic process within trade unions has been of considerable benefit to some trade unions. Indeed, I have supported several of their measures. But they are selective and it is extraordinary how keen they are on the nitty-gritty detail of trade unions while they refuse to counternance any legal regulation of the City. Indeed, it seems that Mr. Gorbachev will be elected Secretary of the Communist party of Russia before the chairman of the Conservative party is elected. If Conservative Members are so concerned about democracy, it would help if they were consistent about it.

If the hon. Gentleman talks seriously, as I do to people involved in industrial relations, he will find that the type of sentiments he expressed are not greeted with great enthusiasm by employers, but are regarded with considerable anxiety.

In an intervention and again now, the hon. Gentleman has commented on the way in which the Conservative party runs its affairs. I imagine that he has studied the matter in some depth because he seems to know about it. Does he realise that the majority of officers of the Conservative party in Scotland are elected, that the chairman and vice-chairman who are appointed are responsible for the management of central office and that all the elected officers run the associations throughout the country?

I am not sure what that system is, but it is certainly not democracy. It seems extraordinary that the only jobs to which one cannot be elected are the top jobs which have the highest profile. The hon. Member for Stirling must address some serious points. If he believes that the climate and the tone of his speech are likely to improve the spirit of industrial relations in this country, he is very much mistaken. It has become fashionable under this Government to attack trade unions to such an extent that the positive, constructive and essential role that trade unions play has sometimes been obscured. Employers with large work forces simply would not be able to operate without the co-operation of trade unions. They are an essential means of communication and they have helped to improve working conditions and health and safety at work.

The alliance certainly accepts that in recent years there have been abuses of union power. We stress that they have been contributed to by weak and ineffective management. We have therefore proposed democratic reforms including the wider use of postal ballots and we believe that it is important to ensure that trade unions become effective vehicles for change because change is taking place and must take place.

I fear that too often Tory legislation has been motivated by the kind of anti-union sentiment that we have heard from the hon. Member for Stirling, purporting to be concerned with improving the accountability of unions and giving them back to their members, while generally trying to undermine their ability to be effective. The worst example of that was the banning of trade union membership at GCHQ even in circumstances in which the union was prepared to co-operate and offer a no-strike agreement. That has upset many moderate people in trade unions who were disgusted that trade union members at GCHQ should have been treated in that way.

The other problem is that the shift of power away from employees to employers in the past eight years has given some unscrupulous employers—fortunately, only relatively few employers—an opportunity to take advantage of the new laws to undermine the use of the strike weapon, to break contracts unilaterally and to use the law to sack workers and deny them what might be regarded as reasonable rights.

The alliance takes a view that is not peculiar to the alliance Benches. That view is certainly widely held among employers' organisations and those involved in negotiation and arbitration outside the House. We believe that the Government should proceed cautiously at the moment. Many people feel that progress has been made. I accept that there has been an improvement. However, we now need time to allow things to settle down. Some equilibrium has been achieved, and many people are concerned that if the Government go too far down that road, that will create a backlash in the atmosphere within many organisations which could sour the progress that has been made. The Government must take that point very seriously.

I also believe that if further reforms are to be introduced, they should be put into a context of extending industrial democracy. I do not mean just democracy for trade unions, but for all people at work. Their rights should be developed at the same time as the responsibilities of trade unions are being spelt out.

I want to give an example of the balance of rights. If, as I think is right, the Government have set out legislation which states that before any strike is called there should always be a secret ballot, which should usually be a postal ballot, the results of that ballot should be binding on the members. That means a two-way street. If the ballot states that there should be no strike, there should be no strike and trade union leaders should not try to get around that decision. However, if the ballot states that there should be a strike, all members should normally be expected to support the strike. It is not reasonable for the Government to propose to set up legislation allowing people to break half the bargain but not the other half. Many trade unionists would regard an even-handed approach as a fair and reasonable balance and that is reasonable in terms of natural justice.

The alliance view is that, if we are to go further down that road, the involvement of employees in decision-making processes that affect them within their companies should be enhanced. We stress that employers' representatives—I have spoken to them—who call continuously for more and more detailed regulation of trade unions cannot logically argue that there should be no statutory backing for measures that would strengthen employees' rights. It seems reasonable to us that employees' rights should go hand in hand with the responsibilities of trade unions.

The alliance believes that all organisations with more than 1,000 employees should be required by law to set up comprehensive employee participation agreements. We accept that the details could and should vary among organisations, but they must provide for genuine consultation at the top level and for the right of employees to be consulted on strategic decisions. Many of the problems of frustration and disillusionment, particularly those that have occurred recently, would have been averted if that type of consultation had been required. That practice is widely accepted in virtually every other industrial country with which Britain trades.

The trade unions must be tuned up to adapt to changing conditions. They should be helped to do so because conditions are changing fast. The closure of many industrial plants has changed for ever the character of many industrial unions. The hon. Member for Stirling may be surprised to hear that I think that he was on stronger ground on that point. Constructive support for trade unions to adapt to change is a legitimate role for Government.

Changing technology means that in future the old-style large industrial organisations will probably tend to be fewer, that many more of the work force are likely to be in smaller units and that flexibility will be required. We will need different and constantly changing skills. I suggest that the trade unions will therefore find that their traditional method of recruiting members will no longer serve them well. They will have to recognise the need to change.

Already some trade unions are changing their role, perhaps to some extent taking on the mantle of the old friendly societies and offering a wide range of services. But they should go further and start helping people who have lost an industrial job and are perhaps moving into self-employment, and into small business. The trade unions should not leave the creation of indigenous enterprise to other people. They should recognise that they have at least in an advisory capacity a useful role to play.

I shall draw on the example of west central Scotland which, perhaps almost more than anywhere else—although obviously parts of northern England are in a similar position—demonstrates the need for change. There is record unemployment and there have been devastating plant closures, with more feared and even identified. It is clear that a new industrial strategy is required. We need to ensure that Scotland gets a fuller share of new investment, new technology and new jobs. That must happen, and the trade unions should be actively involved in it. They must find ways of helping the people of west central Scotland to find new enterprise and develop new, home-grown enterprises. I suspect that the hon. Member for Stirling does not see that as a role in which trade unions should be involved. I am concerned that trade unions do not see it as a role that they should play. But that is the way in which they shall have to move if they are to play a constructive part in the industrial life of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom in the 21st century.

Far from pursuing another hard-line round of interfering in the detailed workings of the trade unions in isolation, the Government should first allow the present situation to settle, at least for a little time. That is what the employers—never mind the trade unions—want. Many people are concerned that another round of union bashing by the Tories will create a sour atmosphere. Secondly, when further moves take place—we support some—they should do so hand in hand with measures to improve employee participation, consultation and involvement by right in the decision-making processes which affect them in the workplace. That balanced approach is fairer, more just and more honest than the one that we are likely to get from the Government.

The alliance has accepted that the Government's stepby- step approach has achieved some benefits. We believe, however, that there should be a settling down period, that the future goes hand in hand with the responsibilities and rights of employees, and that the type of sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Stirling will do nothing to reduce strikes, unrest or disputatious confrontation within industry. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman relishes it and always will. That is why 1 hope that he, too, is a dinosaur in Britain.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has done the House a service by giving us the opportunity to debate trade unions and industrial relations matters on a broad basis and especially by focusing on the question of the attitudes and policies of the alliance parties. I propose to follow my hon. Friend's argument. However, I do not believe it is necessary to go back into the highways and byways of the politics of a decade ago to prove the case against the alliance. On that point, if not on any other, I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).

Experience suggests that the attitude of the various parties towards the trade unions and industrial relations depends upon their wider economic policies. On this point there is a basic difference of approach between the Conservatives and the other parties. To be brief, the Conservative party believes in fiscal prudence, public spending restraint, and lower public borrowing. We believe that the road to growth and higher employment lies in a flexible and dynamic corporate sector energised by incentives, lower taxes and higher profits.

That is our philosophy, and although we seek the support of the widest possible range of people, we do not require the political co-operation of the trade unions to make our policies work. We have therefore been free to carry through the most extensive programme of trade union reform undertaken by any Government in our history. That reform has been ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. It is a reform which has been unwelcome to trade union leaders—but it has been welcomed by trade union members and by the country, and we have more to offer in the same vein.

In contrast, the Labour party and the alliance parties believe that the Government should seek a short cut to higher employment by expanding demand through a rapid increase in public spending and public borrowing. The Opposition parties have different ideas about the extent of demand inflation which they believe to be feasible. But for the purpose of my argument the important fact is that all those parties— in the sense that the SDP and the Liberals are distinct— agree that the expansion of demand that they envisage will carry a serious inflationary risk. Each of the Opposition parties proposes to resort to the classic device of an incomes policy to dampen these inflationary pressures.

It is true that the Opposition parties are approaching the question of an incomes policy in different ways. The Labour party is intellectually aware that such a policy is a necessary complement to its economic strategy. However, because it has been unable to get the agreement of the trades unions to an incomes policy it prefers to draw a veil over the whole subject. Nevertheless, we all know that if the Labour party was to form a Government it would have to seek the understanding of the trade unions with regard to wage restraint. We also know that, in turn, that necessity would dictate the terms of the Labour Government's policy towards trade unions and towards industrial relations—for we have seen all this before, in what used to be called the social contract. The Labour party has promised that it would re-write industrial relations law. There can be no doubt that this would be a repeat of what happened in the 1970s, when policy was effectively dictated from Transport house.

The alliance parties also know that an incomes policy is a necessary element in their overall economic strategy. They have tried to make a virtue of recognising that fact. The difference between themselves and the Labour party is that they are too naive—I was interested that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) used that word to describe himself— too inexperienced in government, or perhaps, like the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) too insouciant of detail, to appreciate that they would have to pay a heavy price for the co-operation of the trade unions in the operation of their incomes policy.

For with the alliance parties, as with the Labour party, their policy for trade unions and industrial relations—in spite of all the hopes and aspirations of the hon. Member for Gordon—would be bound to flow from their central commitment to an incomes policy. One important reason for this is that the incomes strategy which is envisaged by the alliance is unworkable, and its breakdown would drive it into the arms of the trade unions.

To make out my claim, I must examine the alliance's incomes policy, and that I propose to do. The alliance document entitled "The Time Has Come" proposes that its income policy should be based on two elements. The first element is what is described as

"a payroll incentive through reduced employers' national insurance contributions."

The idea is to offer a premium from the Government to companies which settle below a norm for income growth.

But if the incentive were to be substantial enough to make any difference to the behaviour of employers, especially those faced with heavy pressures from the unions— I wonder whether alliance Members have thought this through—it would absorb a large part of that increase in public spending which the alliance parties believe to be feasible. For example, a cut of, say, 25 per cent. in the national insurance contributions of, for example, three quarters of employers—assuming that three quarters of employers are paying below the norm—would cost no less than £2·8 billion out of the total of £5 billion which the alliance believes is available in the way of increased public spending.

On the other hand, if the payroll incentive were not substantial, it would be unlikely to make very much difference to employers' behaviour. After all. National insurance contributions amount to no more than 6 to 7 per cent. of wage costs. Inevitably, therefore, the alliance parties would be obliged, if they were in a position of power or influence, to call upon the second element of their incomes strategy, which is their proposed "counter-inflation tax".

Would that tax actually be counter-inflationary? let us consider it. If the tax rate were low enough to allow flexibility, many employers would not be deterred from settling above the norm. Such savings, if any, on the amount that they would have paid without the tax would be likely to be exceeded by the amount of the tax, so the effect would be inflationary. Moreover, all experience of incomes policy suggests that the norm tends to become the minimum. In other words, under a low inflation-tax rate, the effect would be to raise labour costs for the high-paying firms without reducing costs for the low payers. This would, again, fuel inflation rather than restrain it. In these circumstances the alliance parties would be forced to contemplate a high inflation-tax rate.

In theory there must be a tax rate which is high enough to ensure that the wage costs of prospective high-paying employers are lower, if they keep to the norm, than if they exceed it. But what then happens to the vaunted flexibility of the inflation tax? It is supposed to be a flexible way to arrive at an incomes policy. The Government of the alliance parties would, in fact, be left with an incomes policy which would be little different from the policies of their predecessors. It would operate, like all its predecessors, to stifle and distort the inevitable and necessary proceses of adjustment in the labour market. Like all previous incomes policies, the alliance policy would prevent firms from securing rapid productivity growth through high rewards to their employees.

No. That is specifically excluded.

It is not specifically excluded, because of the logic of the policy. The alliance would be driven to make the policy operate on the basis of a high tax rate with limited flexibility, since otherwise people would break through it. So the policy would prevent firms from achieving higher productivity by rewarding their employees above the norm. Firms would be prevented from offering the prospect of future rewards for present sacrifices and they would be penalised for seeking to upgrade the skills of their work forces or to attract more labour.

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's interesting contribution. However, our proposals allow specifically for productivity-related deals to be exempted from any tax. That ensures that such deals can be accommodated within an incomes policy.

It is charming to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to productivity and profit-sharing exceptions. Indeed all these exceptions are listed in "The Time Has Come". Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we have heard all this every time there has been an incomes policy, and every time there is a trade-off between the flexibility and the effectiveness of the policy. The general economic strategy of the alliance requires an effective counter-inflationary policy. The more loopholes that are put into the incomes policy, the less effective it will be. The consequence, as with all incomes policies, will be that the policy will not be counter-inflationary but the reverse.

Perhaps what is even worse than the consequences of the breakdown of the incomes policy that I have been predicting—I return to the broad theme of trade unions and industrial relations—is that the unworkability of the alliance party's incomes strategy would inevitably drive it to seek political deals with the trade unions in return for their co-operation in wage restraint.

I ask the hon. Member for Gordon, rhetorically, which of the industrial relations reforms of the past decade, for some of which his honourable colleagues voted, he would give up to get such co-operation from trade unions? To be even more speculative and to refer to a subject that is close to the hearts of members of the alliance, and to which the hon. Gentleman referred, what sort of industrial democracy would they propose if they had to negotiate all its details with a trade union movement upon whose political co-operation their economic policy depended?

The fact is that this would turn out to be a nightmare for these innocents abroad—the babes in the wood of British politics—and for the country. Fortunately, of course, like all nightmares, it is only a dream. For just as after the next election there will be no Labour Government, so there will be no alliance Government or even an alliance influence in Government. I hope that my remarks this evening will show why that is an outcome to which we should all look forward.

I listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) about trade unions and industrial relations. The hon. Gentleman does not understand what trade unions are all about. For one thing, when the House is full, as during Prime Minister's Question Time, and all Cabinet Ministers and junior Ministers are present, about seven millionaires sit on the Government Front Bench. There are also millionaires on the Government Back Benches. What do Conservative Members know about trade unions?

Let us take the matter a stage further. Many Conservative Members have connections with financial institutions in the City. Many Conservative Members are members of the legal profession. What do they know about trade unions? I thought that the hon. Member for Stirling would refer to the closed shop of the legal profession, but he did not do so, and for a purpose. Government Benches are lined with people associated with the legal system. It is the biggest closed shop—never mind trade unions. Not all trade unions have closed shops.

The Paymaster General has a nerve to tell the Opposition and the nation what the Government will do about trade union legislation. He is a member of the biggest closed shop in the country. That is a shocking state of affairs. Trade union officials are elected to represent their members, and that is what they have always done. [Laughter.] Conservative Members are laughing because they do not know what I am talking about. The elected officers of trade unions represent their members, and the members determine the policy of the unions by the decisions that they take at branch meetings and at annual conferences.

I have been a trade union member since the age of 14. I am 61 now. That is a long time. There are some young lads on the Conservative Benches who have not lived yet. They do not know what life is all about. They certainly do not know what trade unions are all about.

I went down the pits as a very young man. The week before last I said that I went down the pits as a young lad, but this week I am saying that I went down the pits as a young man. I remember the conditions under which we had to work. It followed the period in the 1930s when a Conservative Government crushed the trade unions and the workers. Between 1979 and today there has been a repeat of that period in the 1930s. This Conservative Government are taking a real swipe at the trade union movement in an attempt to crush it.

When I worked down the pits, production was the first priority, earnings were the second priority, and safety was the third priority. The Secretary of State for Energy talks at that Dispatch Box about the number of people who have been killed down the pits. He pours out figures, compares them with nuclear power stations and says that with nuclear power there would he very few deaths. The reason for the large number of deaths all those years ago was that safety was the third priority. The bosses wanted the highest production that they could get. They did not bother about the expense of serious accidents in the mining industry.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Not many moments ago I said that there are far too many youngsters on the Conservative Benches, that they have not lived, that they do not know what life is about and that they certainly do not know what trade unions are about. I add that they do not know what work is about, either.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that Conservative Members know nothing about trade unions or about workers. None of them has seen a pair of overalls, let alone worn a pair. Will my hon. Friend also point out to Conservative Members who keep lecturing the trade unions that when men and women go on strike they receive no pay, so they do not easily go on strike? It is usually their weapon of last resort. They have nothing to live on when they go on strike.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. That was part of the exercise when this Government and previous Governments took action against trade unions.

The job of the trade unions is to look after their members and to ensure that they get a fair deal, but this Government have shackled trade unions and tied them up in chains. The right hon. Gentleman who usually sits below the Gangway, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), was the Prime Minister of the 1970–74 Administration. I was a local government servant at that time. He chained me, too, with his Housing Finance Act 1972 and told us exactly what we had to do. That is what is happening now. The Government are telling people what they should do. They are taking away people's freedom.

This afternoon the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) asked the Prime Minister to give the people freedom. It is his party that is taking freedom and rights away from people. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will look carefully at the Green Paper and consider making changes to it, bearing in mind what is being said in this debate.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the proposals in the Green Paper is that, if trade union members take part in a ballot and vote against strike action, but the majority take strike action, the trade union can take no action against those who do not do so? If the Government want to be even-handed, they should also say that when a member takes part in a ballot and the majority are against strike action, anyone who wishes to take strike action should be protected from the employer. That would be even-handed of the Government.

How right my hon. Friend is. Let us look at that situation now that my hon. Friend has raised it. The Government say that every trade union by its legislation, must have a ballot before a strike. What about when a ballot is in favour of a strike? Conservative Members start to squeal, yet the union members have acted in accordance with the trade union legislation that this wicked Government have enacted.

The hon. Member for Stirling said that in years gone by trade unions had secured far too large increases in earnings for their members. He forgot something, and it is still happening today. The bosses can have what they like. The chairman and directors can receive massive increases. There are no shackles on that, and I know why. It is because they contribute to Conservative party funds, and while the funds are coming in they will be left alone.

I have been asked to wind up. I wanted to be brief to allow my hon. Friends an opportunity to make a good contribution because of what is being said on the Conservative Benches. I wanted to say what we aim to do when we get back into office. We shall release the chains on the trade union movement, and at the same time we shall give freedom to its members so that they can enjoy what they are paying for.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield ( Mr. Haynes) on a typically robust speech, in which he echoed the thoughts, hopes and beliefs of millions of working men and women throughout the country. There is no doubt that those who read the report of the debate will read his speech and recognise that he spoke for them, unlike the Conservative Members who have spoken.

At the outset I declare that I am proud to be a sponsored member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and have been since 1 was 16 years old. I am proud of the fact that my union is the most democratic institution of any in the United Kingdom and I challenge any Conservative Member to deny that. I also make the point very strongly that the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers did not need any legislation or lectures from Tories about how it should have a democratic organisation; it built it itself. Men and women since the union started at the turn of the century have created that democratic organisation of which we are proud. We do not require and will not accept any lectures about freedom or democracy from the Tory party.

It is significant that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) did not declare any interests. He certainly did not declare any membership of a trade union. I suspect that that was because the hon. Gentleman is not a member of a trade union and never has been. By his speech tonight he showed that he knows nothing about the workings of trade unions, the history of trade unionism or the practice of trade unions.

I suggest to the House and the British people that that is hypocrisy on the part of the hon. Gentleman, who boasts in the Register of Members' Interests that he is a public relations consultant to companies such as Pritchard's, which specialises in privatisation, the purpose of which is to ensure that some of the lowest paid workers in the land lose their trade union rights and jobs and get lower wages.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to withdraw that, because if he consults the Register of Interests he will find that the only declaration that I have to make is in respect of my shareholding in my company and the clients, which do not include Pritchard's.

If I am mistaken—[Interruption.]—and if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) says, the hon. Gentleman has been dismissed by the company, I shall withdraw what I said. However, I was quoting from a book that I read only a few moments ago and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has it put right by the authorities of the House.

Let me make it clear at the outset that a one-and-a-half-hour debate on the Consolidated Fund is not an acceptable basis on which to debate the Green Paper introduced to the House by the Paymaster General a few weeks ago. Labour Members expect a full and proper debate on the issues in the document before the Prime Minister plucks up the courage to tell the country that we are to have a general election.

It is essential that every Member of the House of Commons should be given the opportunity to address himself to the contents of that Green Paper which is an extension of the legislation which the Tories have introduced since 1979 and which was aimed solely at neutralising the trade union movement and disciplining the British work force. No one should lose sight of that fact.

A brief glance at the history of the legislation shows clearly what has happened over the past few years. It is often forgotten that the first step in the Government's legislation was the Social Security Act 1980 which withdrew £15 from the social security of families of people on strike, even if the striker himself received no pay or no strike pay from his trade union. That £15 has subsequently been increased.

Then the Employment Act 1980 attacked the closed shop. The closed shop ballots demanded by that Act created the farce whereby 80 per cent. of those affected by the closed shop had to vote in favour of it or 85 per cent. of those voting had to vote in favour before the closed shop could be put into effect.

If any of those figures were applied to general elections, I suspect that not one hon. Member would get here. I do not think that any of us can claim that 85 per cent. of our electorate have cast their votes. Yet that is the challenge put to the trade unions. It is significant that in almost all the cases where there have been ballots to maintain a closed shop, the vast majority of trade unions have voted in favour.

The Act also restricts the right to picket. It restricted the right of individuals in dispute to attempt to demonstrate their feelings about what had happened in their place of work. It restricted their right to participate in secondary action. We all saw the culmination of that in the appalling dispute at Wapping, when News International erected a series of bogus companies to ensure that an arm's-length relationship developed between the workers' jobs in Fleet street and in Wapping. We had the ridiculous position where workers sacked from their employment could take no action against their employers.

The hon. Member for Stirling is smiling. He thinks that it is a huge joke that the law of the land should deny workers in that position the right to take any action to protest about what had happened to their jobs and their employment rights which were also denied.

The Employment Act 1982 contained further attacks on the closed shop. Trade unions lost their immunities and they can now be taken to court and fined huge sums of money because of the actions of their officials. Trade unions can be fined up to £250,000. That is the price that they have had to pay for Tory democracy.

We also had the abolition of trade-union-only contracts, which almost every decent local authority insisted upon to ensure that fair wages were paid to the work force employed on those contracts. Every hon. Member knows that. That is why they not only did that, but insisted upon privatisation.

Then we had the Trade Union Act 1984, which provided for the election of the voting members of the executive committee of a trade union. Part II insisted upon ballots before industrial action, and part III on ballots on a political fund. The Tory party does not like to be reminded that every union which balloted its members who were affiliated to the Labour party won huge victories in those ballots—anything from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. They were all conducted properly and in a way of which the trade union had a right to be proud. The icing on the cake was when five trade unions which previously had not had a political fund, because of their fears of what the Tory party was up to, balloted their members and succeeded in getting a political fund. We have also had the Wages Act 1986, and deregulation.

At the back of all this has been massive unemployment, created by the Tory Government as a deliberate economic weapon to tame the British work force. It is now agreed by even the most Right-wing critics that the real figure for unemployment in Great Britain is somewhere around 4·5 million. The Tories have manipulated the figures in a manner of which any decent political party would be ashamed. We do not count unemployment in this country now—we count the unemployment figures. That is the bogus attitude which the Tory party has adopted over the past eight years. The truth is that now no one in the country believes any of the monthly statistics issued by the Tory party in relation to what it claims is unemployment.

Now we have the new proposals in the Green Paper, chapter 2 of which is called "Rights of Trade Union Members". That must be one of the sickest jokes that even this Government have ever attempted to perpetrate on working people. Chapter 2 deals largely with part II of the 1984 Act—ballots prior to industrial action. Again, the situation is that the trade unions have won the overwhelming majority of ballots that have been held in industrial action situations. If they are not to forefeit immunity to actions in tort, they must hold those ballots. Strictly speaking, they do not have to hold those ballots, as I am sure the Minister will confirm. They could take industrial action without the ballot, but if they did so they would be subject to the usual actions in the High Court which unfortunately so many unions have been involved in over the past three or four years.

The interesting thing about the Act is that the right to take legal action against the trade unions was given to the employer, the supplier and the customer, but not to the trade union member. When we raised this in the Standing Committee on that Bill we never got any satisfactory answer as to why all those other people were given the right to take action against the trade unions, but not the worker. Now it is proposed in the Green Paper that the worker should have the right to take action against his own trade union. Whether there is any demand for that is not explained, because there is no evidence that any employee has ever suggested that he should have that right.

I have one interesting question for the Minister. If the situation is created in which the employee can take action against his trade union, will the employer, the customer and the supplier still have that right? Will we be adding to the problems of the trade unions in this area?

This section also deals with the rather vexed question of the right of trade union members legally to cross picket lines and gives them the right to complain to an industrial tribunal. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, no matter how it is dressed up, this is a flagrant, blatant blacklegs' charter, because a situation will be created in which, no matter what has happened over any ballot on industrial action, if an individual has had an opportunity to vote on industrial action and if the decision has gone against him, he is to be protected by law in his determination to cross a picket line and the trade union will be prevented from taking any disciplinary action against him.

I put it to the Minister that all sorts of organisations, such as the British Medical Association, the professional legal associations, cricket clubs, darts clubs and sports clubs of all kinds have the right to take disciplinary action against members who break their rules. Trade unions alone are to be denied that right. Is it not the case that the purpose is to make trade unions irrelevant? They will be prevented by law from taking any disciplinary action against their members in what, after all, is the most fundamental issue in trade unionism—the right to take action to protect one's job or one's conditions of employment.

Chapter 3 deals with the safeguarding and control of union funds. I do not know why this is in the document, because the suggestion inherent in this section is that somehow there is reason to doubt the honesty of union officials and the way that unions control and run their organisations. Not one shadow of doubt has ever been expressed about the way the British trade union movement conducts its financial affairs. I know of no case where a trade union official at the higher levels in the movement has been convicted in a court of law of swindling his trade union. I cannot say that about the City of London or about some of the things that go on there.

In tonight's issue of The London Evening Standard, even the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis speaks about the very large sums of Mafia money that are now washing through the City of London. There is no question of any Mafia money ever washing through the trade union movement. In the way it conducts its financial affairs, the trade union movement is a paragon of virtue which the City of London could well learn to take as an example. The City could take lessons from the trade union movement because members' money is held in sacred trust by trade union officials. Many shareholders and many people cannot say that about the City and some of the crooks who operate there.

Chapter 3 also deals with indemnity.

My hon. Friend has touched on an important point. There is no evidence whatever that the Conservative party is prepared to take any action against corruption in the City, which is a major problem. The Conservatives are attacking the trade union movement on issues about which they have no right to attack them, and there has certainly been no evidence that they are required to do so.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The trade union movement is to be shackled and restrictions and every sort of Government control is to be imposed. However, the City of London is to have self-regulation even though it is patently obvious to the most naive people in the country that self-regulation is a total failure and will continue to be so. It will remain a failure until such time in the not too distant future that a Labour Government will regulate the affairs of the City of London.

Time is short and the Minister has to reply to the debate. One rather significant piece is tucked in at the end of the Green paper. Paragraph 6.19 speaks about the Department running a campaign to inform people of their rights under various pieces of legislation. Will the Minister give me an assurance that in the context of paragraph 6.19 the Government will not mount a massive campaign using taxpayers' money to try to get a propaganda exercise across to the British people in the run up to a general election?

If the Government are concerned about the abuse of power, why have they not taken steps to protect workers from arbitrary conduct by employers? Why are they making things worse for employees by restricting such things as unfair dismissal rights? The Government have a lot to answer for. I assure the Minister and the Tories that we will make them suffer when the general election is called.

The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) for initiating this debate. There are some Members for whom a loss of voice would be viewed by the House with some equanimity. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), but when he reads his speech in the morning he may wish that he had been suffering from laryngitis, because he delivered himself of a number of extraordinary propositions. He said that it was the Government who provoked Mr. Scargill into indulging in the coal strike, and that he was looking forward to Mr. Gorbachev being democratically elected as the leader of the Soviet Communist party.

The hon. Gentleman was also looking forward, if and when the alliance had any input into Government, to introducing a measure whereby, if there was a strike ballot, anybody who was in a minority against a strike would be forced to come out on strike. That is an extraordinary illberal proposition. John Stuart Mill must be turning in his grave.

There is still some unfinished business to be done with trade unions. I warmly welcome the recently published Green Paper. The closed shop remains a blot on the statute book which has to be removed if only to remove the embarrassment of members of the alliance in this House, many of whom failed to take the opportunity, when they had it, to prevent such a measure from being passed. When the Liberal party had an opportunity to influence the Labour Government to change their labour relations policy in the fundamentally liberal direction of giving people the right—[Interruption.]

(Mr. Paul Dean): Order. We cannot have so many sedentary interruptions.

When it had an opportunity to influence the Labour Government to change their labour relations policy in a fundamentally liberal direction by giving people the right to belong or not to belong to a trade union, the Liberal party failed to use the opportunity and the influence that it claimed to have to make that change. We look forward to having the support of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) if and when, as I hope we will, we introduce a measure to remove the last vestiges of the closed shop.

I regret to say that the policy of the alliance, in so far as it can be discerned or distinguished, is "Not tonight, Josephine", that this is never the time to make these worthwhile changes, and only in retrospect does it discover that it has some sympathy with them. I welcome the Minister and I hope that he can tell us that the Government intend to move in a fundamentally liberal direction and will restore to people the freedom which the Liberal party does not seem to want to give them.

When will the Conservative party elect its chairman by ballot?

We have had to attenuate our remarks because of lengthy contributions by Opposition Members. I content myself with the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us what the Government intend to do.

I welcome the opportunity to speak very briefly. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that Conservative members were anti-union and were union bashers. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) suggested, as did the Opposition Front Bench, that Conservatives had no knowledge or experience of trade unions. The hon. Member for Ashfield ought to know that I, like him, at the age of 14 was a member of a trade union. I have been, as he was, a member of more than one union. I was on the national executive of a trade union. Indeed, I know as much about the workings of trade unions as he does.

Attitudes are important. Attitudes during the second world war, when the hon. Gentleman and I joined the trade unions, were very different, because the shop stewards then were mostly ex-first world war union members who suggested that it was important that we kept things moving, and strikes were out in the industry that I was in. This Government have taken a step-by-step approach which has been good for the trade unions and their members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker. I—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought it was a convention of the House that you took one speaker from the Government side and one from the Opposition side. I have been sitting here all night, as have other hon. Members. Had the Minister not wanted to use the debate because he did not want to put forward an argument, he should have given the opportunity to Back Benchers.

It is customary when Front Benchers rise for them to be called. I am following that custom.

Why did the Minister not rise immediately after our Front Bench spokesman sat down, instead of letting two of his Back Benchers speak? I have as much right to speak as has the Minister.

Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not disputing my judgment. Mr. John Lee.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on his good fortune in being able to raise this issue, as it is particularly relevant to the recent publication of the Government's Green Paper entitled "Trade Unions and their Members". I am particularly sympathetic about his loss of voice. Despite that, he made an effective speech. Our proposals are an important further step along a path which the Government chose in 1979 and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this chance to talk again about these proposals and the benefits that will follow from their implementation.

Before coming to the actual proposals in the Green Paper it might be worth reminding hon. Members of the position that we have reached so far. I agree with all that my hon. Friends have said about the problems and difficulties that this country faced in its industrial relations in the late 1970s. The Labour party was, after all, swept from power in revulsion against the wholesale spread of secondary action and secondary picketing that gripped the country in the winter of 1978, and unions' bully boy tactics and attempts to hold the public to ransom.

No one with any regard for the needs of our economy would want to see the situation that we then had. Trade unions were placed above the law, with virtual immunity from legal actions to recover the cost of damage they had caused. Trade union officials held immunity for the organisation of all sorts of excessive forms of industrial action— indiscriminate secondary action, political strikes, picketing at other people's places of work and secondary action to enforce the closed shop. Employees were being dismissed, without any compensation, simply because they refused to join a union. Union balloting practices denied members a proper voice in elections of officials, or were travesties of democracy, such as "votes" about strikes taken in mass meetings by a show of hands.

Whatever the Labour party may now be saying in public, I have little doubt that if it gets any sort of chance to act it will simply turn back the clock and we will have, once again, all the old evils and malpractice re-emerging.

Nor can the voter look with any confidence at all the alliance's ideas. The SDP leadership consists of the very same people who were prominent members of a Government who presided over the winter of discontent and supported the laws which allowed it to happen. They really have learnt nothing from their experience, or—to be more charitable perhaps— have learnt the wrong lessons. How else are the public to regard a proposal to impose some sort of statutory process to establish trade union recognition rights— which can only result in repeated, and more frequent, "Grunwicks"— complete no doubt with Cabinet Ministers joining the picket lines?

When the alliance, or part of it, has not been fighting this Government's proposals tooth and nail, it has been looking round for weird and wonderful ideas—such as systems of "positive rights"— whose importation into British law would simply lead to confusion, misunderstanding and chaos, with consequent damage to our industry and commerce. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), in his elegant and devasting critique of alliance incomes policy, destroyed its credibility.

Our aim since coming to power in 1979 has been to redress the balance of power between employers and trade unions and to make unions more accountable to their members. There have been major reforms. Trade unions are liable for legal actions for injunctions or damages. Legal immunity has been removed from certain unacceptable forms of industrial action, such as indiscriminate secondary or sympathy action, and picketing away from a picket's own place of work. Secret ballots before strikes and some other forms of industrial action and for the election of voting members of union executives have been provided as have regular reviews of political fund ballots. Increased protection has been given against unfair dismissal for non-union members in a closed shop.

These changes have had significant effects. Strike ballots are becoming an everyday feature, with over 230 since 1984. Some major strikes, for example, in the Civil Service, the NUR, and the Post Office, have been averted because the law has been used to ensure that members were given the right to be properly consulted. Employers have shown themselves ready to used to ensure that members were given the right to be properly consulted. Employers have shown themselves ready to use the remedies available by taking legal action in over 100 cases. Some progress has been made in the protection of union members against their unions and the climate that we have created has meant that members are more willing to take advantage of the safeguards that the law provides. We have also made it possible for members to have a better say in the way that their unions are run. About 30 major unions have changed, or have said they will change, their election provisions to comply with our legislation.

There have also been independent initiatives which will improve industrial relations. The increasing incidence of new forms of agreement between employers and trade unions are designed to reduce the likelihood of industrial action. There is greater emphasis on flexibility of working arrangements, and increasing emphasis has been placed on employee involvement.

These developments are creating a new climate. It can be no coincidence as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling said, that in 1986 the number of days lost due to strikes was the lowest for over 20 years. But more needs to be done. As I have said, the Green Paper "Trade Unions and Their Members" represents an important further step in the programme that we began in 1979. It might be best if I confirm, if only for the avoidance of doubt, that the Green Paper and the proposals that it contains do not single out for special treatment any particular sector of the economy. The proposals are intended to cover unions and their members whether they be in the public or private sector.

The impact of legislation based on the proposals will not depend, therefore, on where unions operate, or their members work, but rather on the degree to which the union itself has modernised its procedures to ensure, for example, the regular, secure election of its leadership. Unions which treat their members and potential members fairly and in a democratic way will have nothing to fear from our poposals. Indeed the reverse will be true. However, the old style unions have, at best, dragged their feet over implementing the changes introduced by our earlier legislation and, at worst, have blatantly ignored them. It is unions such at those, the dinosaurs of the union movement, that need to think again. Labour Members have shown open antagonism to, and outright rejection of, the Government's proposals. That leads me and, I have no doubt, the public at large to conclude that what matters to the Labour party is the protection of union power rather than union democracy.

The proposals are based on experience since 1979 arid will work in practice. Consultation is, however, an important part of our process of law reform and 10 weeks have been allowed for people to obtain the Green Paper. to read it, to consult others as they think best, and then to send comments to the Government, which must be received by 5 May. Special efforts have been made to offer small firms, as well as the TUC and the CBI, the opportunity to comment on the Green Paper proposals.

No one can legislate for good industrial relations, but good laws can help set a climate and framework within which good industrial relations can develop and flourish. Our efforts to date, and the Green Paper proposals, are in no sense an attack on trade unions as such. Responsible trade unions, willing and able to take account of their members' wishes, can be strong—perhaps the strongest— trade unions. I believe that the more we give the ordinary trade union member a say in his or her union's policy-making and actions the more loudly will the voice of moderation and good sense be heard.

I welcome this opportunity to initiate a debate on the sector of the farming industry that is, at this time, under the greatest pressure. I very much regret, however, that the Government have seen fit to depart from the longstanding practice of enabling the House to debate, in its own time, the proposals of the European Commission for the annual price settlements before they embark upon the negotiations. I have checked the records and, so far as I can discover, 1979 was the only time that a Government have not provided such an opportunity. On that occasion it was due to the fact that the then Labour Government were on their last legs. It may be that the present Administration are similarly on their last legs and I have no doubt that that is increasingly the wish of the farming community.

This debate focuses on the position of the beef sector because of the crisis that the Government's action and inaction has induced. I was moved to tell the House at Question Time last week that the Minister's reply on the subject of beef to my question and those of other hon. Members, Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members, was complacent. As a consequence, I said that I would seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Therefore, I am doubly glad that it has proved possible to have this debate so soon after the Minister's rather astonishing utterances.

The Minister has demonstrated a smug indifference to the predicament of the beef industry since he came back to report on the December package in the House on 17 December. In the statement about the deliberations, he said:

"Taken with the other measures, the beef producer must accept that this is a much more satisfactory agreement than anyone would have thought possible."— [Official Report, 17 December 1986; Vol 107, c. 1218.]

He also said that he was sorry that people—I assume he meant farmers—took an excessively gloomy view when it was such an extremely good deal.

In the weeks that have elapsed, the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, and that of Scotland and all those who are associated with the industry have agreed that their initial judgment about the impact of the package on the industry was right and that something pretty close to a disaster stares the beef industry in the face.

Around the country and, to some extent, in this House, the Minister has tried to suggest that he did a good job for Britain in comparison with what was done for other member states. However, that must be set against the level of farming incomes in this country, compared with those in other European countries. The figures provided by the EEC Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations show that the purchasing power of the net income per farmer in this country between 1984 and 1986 was, on average, 40 per cent. below the average for the years 1973 to 1975. That is a bigger fall than has been experienced in all other European countries, where the average decline has been about 25 per cent.

Real farming incomes in this country during this Government's period of office, since 1978–79, have suffered a larger fall than those in any of the then 10 member states. That fall has been just over twice that experienced by nine member states, and two and half times the average for the other eight. Those figures show that the Government have presided over a progressively worsening situation for farmers and one which is worse in this country than in any other member state.

The Minister should not brag about his success, or rather failure, in Brussels relative to what was achieved by other countries, especially about beef. He should not quote again the misleading figures that he has sought to give the country, which make comparisons with the settlement in the Federal Republic of Germany, where carcase weights are about 20 per cent. heavier and support levels are about 20 per cent. higher than in this country because of their positive monetary compensatory amounts. The position is broadly comparable to that which has been achieved in this country. The position in Ireland and in France was substantially better.

It is important to consider beef in the context of agriculture as a whole and in the context of the incomes of those who are peculiarly dependent on beef, and to consider the ways in which their incomes have changed during the past few years. Page 38 of the Government's annual review shows that the index of average net income per farm in the United Kingdom for lowland cattle and sheep, which is greatly influenced by the beef market, now stands at one quarter of its level in the Government's base year of 1982. The slightly more advantaged farmers who are less heavily dependent on beef and for whom sheep play a larger part— that is to say, those in the less favoured areas who make returns based on their cattle and sheep—have seen their incomes drop by a quarter since 1982.

My hon. Friend will be aware that I represent an area where beef is important. Is he aware that within the past month I have been advised of two substantial farmers who have pulled out of beef altogether because they are losing too much money and that they have said to me, "If we are in difficulties, small farmers who depend more heavily on beef are facing a catastrophe."? Does he agree that that is the reality that is creeping over the beef industry in Scotland?

Scotland is peculiarly hard hit, as beef output constitutes 25 per cent. of total agricultural output, which is a high proportion. Relatively speaking, the Scots are certainly suffering greatly, but the position is bad in Wales, the south-west, Yorkshire and all beef-producing areas. There is no part which does not face a stark decline in income where beef has been a traditional product.

The Minister's sponsorship is hard to understand, in view of the evident shortfall in incomes and the shortfall between the total return and the target price for beef, particularly since the December package became operative—in other words, in the first three months of this year. The shortfall between the total return and the target price has ranged from 11·43p per kg in the week ending 11 January to the most recent shortfall of 16·31p per kg. Over the whole marketing year, that amounts to an appalling shortfall on the target price. At present, it stands at about £73·7 million.

It is evident from the Government's figures that the position is acute. Even the most partisan Minister in the Government—the former chairman of the Conservative party— cannot shrug it off. Indeed, perhaps his partisanship is surpassed only by his successor in that office. Even he cannot be indifferent. I hope that tonight the Minister will take the opportunity to tell the industry what he intends to do about it.

A few further facts are necessary to bring home the plight. Despite the 5·1 per cent. increase in support prices which took effect on 5 January, market prices today are lower than they were a year ago, at 93·5p per kg. That is the lowest average monthly price since 1981. The industry is most deeply alarmed about its prospects after 6 April when the December package becomes fully operational with reductions in intervention.

It is necessary to consider closely what the 16 December agreement brought about. The Government sought to congratulate themselves then and now on what they achieved. But in reality, the basic level of support from intervention which, admittedly, in this period has not been providing an effective bottom to the market will be further reduced by up to about 13 per cent. from 6 April.

It is difficult to calculate the full effect of that on the market. To some extent, that depends upon the triggering mechanisms of the Commission's management arrangements. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to this point because I believe that a great deal depends upon the signs that he gives of how he expects to see the market managed and whether he is prepared to use any of the resources that he boasted on 17 December were available for export refunds and private storage aids. We heard a lot about that at the time and about the more than 400 million ecu that were to be made available to smooth out the market as and when additional culling of dairy cows came about. The Minister has some explaining to do. Is that money genuinely available? If so, when does he propose to have it spent to stop what appears to be a spiralling decline in the market?

Another effect of the December package was the quite extraordinary preference extended to Irish beef imports which, as a result of the arrangements for introducing a special beef premium at 12 per cent. and the retention of the right of the Irish exporters to enjoy our variable beef premium, has meant a considerable enhancement of their unfair discriminatory advantage in our markets.

Because of the additional cow culling that has come about as a result of the additional dairy quota cuts, in the months of January and February there have been about 27 per cent. more cows on the market when compared with last year's figures. Of itself that would be enough to explain the disruptions in the market which are already prevailing even in advance of what happens in April. The introduction of the new beef premium throughout the other member countries of the Community, but not in this country, will have a further adverse effect on our international trade. Whereas our producers have to pay the clawback on their exports, those who receive the premium in Europe are not similarly penalised.

The variable premium scheme was extended for two years—that was welcomed at the time—but it must be acknowledged that that has made precious little impact on the actual incomes and returns of producers. The stark reality is that the shortfall that I have described exists notwithstanding the continuation of the premium scheme. It must be clear now to the Minister that reliance on the variable premium alone, without suitable intervention arrangements, at this time cannot be sufficient to sustain a healthy beef sector.

In December the Minister boasted of the 6 per cent. green pound devaluation. His self-esteem was not entirely merited. That devaluation was introduced to rectify the distortions that had flowed from the much earlier devaluation of the green punt by the Irish that should have been rectified by the Government earlier. Despite the recent depreciation of the pound, the green pound gap for beef is still running at more than 17 per cent.

The combined effect of all those measures agreed with such acclaim by the Minister in December is the prospect of a reduction of £50 to £60 per head in the value of beef cattle following the April implementation of the intervention arrangements. That means a loss for virtually everyone engaged in that business.

It was a thoroughly bad package. It took some measures to protect the dairy industry, but at the expense of the beef industry. The Minister must rectify that soon. He is going to Brussels next week, and the opportunity to obtain a more satisfactory agreement is available to him. There are measures which he can take at his own hand, and there are matters that he must clear up tonight. There are ambiguities about the Government's intentions. Above all, he must show that the Government appreciate the industry's condition. So far, he has shown no sign of that.

What necessary steps must be taken? First, there is the possibility of paying the suckler cow premium at the increased upper permissible limit. I believe that that money can and should be paid without delay. All headage payments need to be raised to the full extent of the present limits, but, when the Minister goes to Brussels next week, he must seek a further increase in those limits. Secondly, the Minister must immediately take special measures to remove from the market the culled cows which are causing the distortion to which 1 referred. The time has come to find the 400 million ecu for private storage and assistance to the export market.

The overriding priority, as perceived by not only the producers but the representatives and spokesmen of the meat trade, is a major devaluation of the green pound. This would have a threefold beneficial effect. First, it would increase the support prices. Secondly, it would reduce the negative MCAs which are making exporting of our products so difficult at this time. Thirdly, it would increase the ceilings on headage payments on beef cows.

The Government have been oblique about their attitude to the green pound. It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary, in an extremely interesting aside in a speech he made on 12 March in Exeter, said that it was the Minister's intention to seek a green pound devaluation of three or four time the 4 per cent. proposed by the Commission. If the Minister succeeds in obtaining three to four times that proposed, he will have staved off the worst of the crisis. But there has been no confirmation of that intention from the Minister, and the Minister of State has tried to make a virtue of secrecy about the Government's intentions. I put it to the Minister that, if confidence is to be restored in the industry, the industry must know that the government intend to seek a substantial devaluation of the green pound. This is just as much a matter of managing the market as any of the matters to which I have referred.

It would be unforgiveable if the Government simply refused to show their support for the industry through this proposed devaluation, lest they fail to achieve the full amount that perhaps they and we would consider necessary. If the Minister achieves the devaluation which I have suggested is appropriate and which his junior Minister has said is the target, he will get nothing but plaudits from both sides of the House. We all recognise what a serious predicament this is. It is not one on which cheap partisan points ought to be made. The rural economy is at stake. The Minister has deprived himself, by the refusal to hold a debate on this matter, of the normal opportunity which Members of Paliament have had to offer their views about what is needed. Unlike the past, the Minister cannot go to Brussels with the support of a united House of Commons, because he has deprived himself of that opportunity.

In addition to the substantial devaluation of the green pound, further action is needed in respect of intervention coverage to halt the downward trend in market prices. Representatives of the trade and producers have suggested that the R4H category should be included in the group to which intervention applies. We look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that proposal.

We also advocate the recalculation of the basis on which beef MCAs are determined in line with reduced support levels that will flow from the December decision. The Minister could give the commitment to action necessary to remove from the market the additional cows from the dairy herd. It is time that the Minister faced the inequity in the arrangements on clawback and recognised that it is unfair and unreasonable to extract this clawback from our exporters while the Irish have the advantage of obtaining the variable premium. An abatement of that clawback to make it at least equal to the new beef premium is another step that the Minister should take in agreement with his colleagues in Brussels.

The Scottish National Farmers Union has made an urgent call—I believe no less dramatic than the vote of censure against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the annual general meeting of the union—to avert the collapse of hundreds of businesses in the rural economy. It is alarmed by the evident collapse of the real returns of specialist beef producers. Last year in Scotland, those returns fell by a further 10 per cent.

We are facing a crisis, and the Minister will enjoy the support of the House if he stands up for the interests of our producers and our industry. We eagerly look forward tonight for some evidence that that is the Minister's intention.

1 am glad to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) because, for once, we find ourselves on the same wavelength. We both represent constituencies with substantial hill cow numbers in less favoured areas. We face much the same problems. I shall pick up some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and certainly the main burden of my remarks will be towards the same end—to help the beef producers in this country to obtain better prospects for the future than look likely at present.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland finished his speech by talking about the National Farmers Union of Scotland. I wish to begin my remarks by saying that I have been greatly impressed by the work of the president of the Scottish NFU, Mr. Ian Grant. I appreciate the difficulties south of the border, but he has given a constructive lead to the farmers in Scotland. He has pointed out the important issues that the Government should consider and has given the Government support when they have responded. He has commented on past developments and has expressed his expectations for the future.

We all accept that 1985 was a devastating year for Scottish farmers because of the miserable weather. Scottish farmers are still paying a heavy price for that year, despite the bad weather payments that the Government were able to introduce. However, those payments represented emergency support rather than the offer of long-term stability, which is so important. It is not surprising that incomes dropped by about 70 per cent. Fortunately, incomes rose substantially last year, but farmers' incomes are still far below those for 1983 and 1984.

The debate is about beef, but I think that it should cover livestock rearing generally. For example, the sheepmeat regime is as important to those who engage in sheep farming in Scotland, England and Wales as beef prices are to those who farm in beef. I suspect that most beef farmers have ewes, and they appreciate what the Government have done through the sheep premium and sheepmeat regime. They are probably engaged in the most profitable sector of livestock at present. Farmers in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) for example, appreciate and welcome what the Government were able to offer in compensation following the Chernobyl disaster. I understand, of course, the seriousness of the position in Wales.

The Government are right to fight support for beef against the background of price fixing in Europe. There has been a marked improvement in the hill livestock compensatory amount and in the suckler cow subsidy, which have been most important support grants for the industry. It is right, however, that the Government should consider moving to the maximum grant for the suckler cow and do all that they can to help with the compensatory amount. That will do something to retain that fast-disappearing beast, the suckler cow, which is bread and butter to Scottish beef producers. If the end price is not right, the suckler cow, including the multiple sucklers, will go.

When talking about end price, I hope that the Government will carry out an effective review of the Meat and Livestock Commission to ascertain whether it is carrying out its grading work adequately and whether its marketing operations are as successful as they should be. There must be a much more enlightened approach by the MLC to helping the beef industry throughout the United Kingdom.

All these issues relate directly to the green pound, and it is imperative for beef producers, rearers and finishers that it is devalued by about 16 per cent. That moment cannot come too soon. I have written personally to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to highlight the need for this to happen and to ask her to join the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in taking that course. I realise that it will cost money, but beef production is a long-term industry. If we kill off cows, it will take years to build up the beef herd, particularly if it is to match the quality of the present herd.

There is no other issue in farming that is so clear-cut. If the green pound is not devalued, beef will go bust, as it were. I have been impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, (Mr. MacKay), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, has been doing for Scottish farmers and by the way in which he spoke to the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union this month. I give my full support to him and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in their determination to try to obtain the maximum devaluation of the green pound that they can. I appreciate that they have their troubles, but I wish them every success in rifling what they can from the Treasury.

I hope that both my hon. Friend and right hon. Friend understand that farmers are infuriated over the unfairness that results from the system in Eire. It is incomprehensible to farmers. After all, we can only go some way towards explaining why farmers in Eire, and indeed in Northern Ireland, can land their beasts on the mainland of this country and obtain a better income from the operation. It is intervention gone mad. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend will explain how the Irish can get away with it. It is important to find a way to stop it.

I cannot accept that the United Kingdom should suffer on account of Ireland's practices. We cannot go on looking into the future for ever, as though decisions may he made next month or next year in the European Community. We must determine just where we stand at present and where we should head in the next couple of years, so that we have confidence to go ahead with beef production. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues are doing their best to get constructive decisions made in Europe. I appreciate the difficulty of having to get some unanimity among the 10 nations, hut, during a period of price fixing, we must come up with some firm decisions, not only on the green pound, but on other matters that presently affect farming.

I read with great interest the speech made by the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland in Inverness on 12 March. He set out the union's farming manifesto. It is interesting to compare it with what we have achieved and are achieving. The first point was:

"Removal of the green pound distortion to permit fair competition amongst EEC farmers."

That is what I and other hon. Members ask for, and that is what Ministers are trying to achieve during the present discussions.

The second point was:

"Defence of our beef industry to enable the continuance of Scottish quality beef production, beyond the problems of the next two years."

That is what other hon. Members and I ask for. We want long-term decisions to be made in the industry.

The third point was:

"Adequate funds to permit the uptake of woodlands as an alternative form of land use, and to finance other practical ideas of diversification."

That highlights the new policy that my right hon. Friend announced earlier this month about alternative land use. Again, it relates to forestry, particularly broadleaf forestry, and other ideas relative to a slightly more flexible approach to planning and developing the rural economy. Again, the president of the NFU and I are at one on this issue.

The fourth point was:

"Commitment to an attractive voluntary set-aside proposal for cereals."

That matter has a high priority for the Government at present. Perhaps we shall decide on a sum of, say, £75 an acre, as opposed to planting ground with cereals. That is an interesting possibility.

The fifth point was:

"Immediate research into alternative uses for crops."

Of course, that is being done.

The sixth point was:

"Encouragement for alternative crops."

Again, that is a high priority for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The seventh point was:

"Reduction in interest rates to reduce the debt burden."

That is one of the many successes of the Budget, including the two 0·5 per cent. changes in interest rates, and perhaps something more in view of the Chancellor's prudent economic policies. A 1 per cent. increase in interest rates probably means more to the average farmer than, perhaps, additonal allowances for Buckler cows or hill cows. Unfortunately, many farmers have high overdrafts to finance, and interest rates are of prime importance.

The manifesto went on to state:

"Extension of the ADP principle."

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are keen to do just that. With the farming manifesto very much in mind, we should try to resolve the important green pound issue. By doing so, we shall move an important step towards uniting the agriculture industry.

The new policies on alternative land use, forestry, workshops, flexible planning and particularly conservation that have been announced this month are very important. During the last five years there has been a remarkable transformation. Farmers now think in terms of conservation. Environmentally sensitive areas and management agreements are now accepted by the thoughtful farmer. He knows that they will help him to maintain his income. I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that the key issue is the devaluation of the green pound by 16 per cent. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State can achieve such a devaluation, it will be of great value to agriculture, and particularly to beef producers, in the United Kingdom.

I welcome the fact that this debate is being held this evening. There is an immense crisis in the United Kingdom beef industry. I sincerely hope that in his reply the Minister of State will take seriously what has been said. The livelihood of many farmers, particularly in the upland and fattening areas, is being affected.

A number of things are radically wrong with the beef industry. The lack of profitability, above all in the hill beef enterprise, is causing major problems. That is not particularly new, but during the last 12 months it has reached crisis proportions. During the last 10 years the beef suckler herd in England and Wales has declined by 25 per cent.—from 1·7 million to 1·3 million cows. The local NFU branch in my constituency estimates that in the last nine months the proportion of suckler cows has declined by 5 per cent. The number of suckled calves sold in my constituency has also declined. The annual total of 7,000 animals marketed in the autumn sales dropped by 1,500 this year. That is a significant decline. We are mortgaging our beef industry for short-term objectives. We have to overcome that problem.

The green pound problem has already been mentioned. As for the upland areas, we have not been promised an increase in the hill land compensatory allowance for beef suckler cows in the coming year. This is very serious. Recent reports on the profitability of the finishing of cattle make depressing reading. The Meat and Livestock Commission calculated recently that the profitability of the 18-month beef finishing system is now so poor that it is advising farmers not to indulge in it, even though it was previously one of the most profitable beef systems in the country. Its profitability has now reached a 10-year low.

The position on the continent is very different. Prices for beef cattle are approximately one third higher per head than they are in this country. This is due mainly to the distortion that is created by the green pound. It proves that for beef it is not a Common Market. Working on prices at the beginning of February, a 450 kg beast in this country would fetch £450, including the variable premium. A similar size of animal in France, at continental prices, would make £622, and in West Germany £633.

I heard the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at the annual general meeting of the NFU, say that as a result of the December agreement British producers would fare better than their continental neighbours in that they would experience less of a reduction as a result of the reduction in intervention prices that come into operation in April. Continental producers— particularly France and West Germany, which are two of the major producers— have a more profitable system of beef production anyway, so they can sustain slightly increased reductions in the intervention price of their product.

I do not regard the December agreement as a great success. It was a victory for the Treasury, but it was not a victory for British beef producers. The 13 per cent. reduction in intervention price will reduce the price by at least £50 per head, and that, unfortunately, has already been anticipated by buyers Of store cattle, who have already discounted that £50 before the reduction in intervention price comes into being. The result is that upland producers who are selling store cattle have suffered in anticipation of that happening.

The green pound reduction of 6 per cent. in December was totally inadequate in relation particularly to what happened to the imports of Irish beef before December, and we have already heard that there is still a 17 per cent. figure line with regard to monetary compensatory amounts. This discriminates against United Kingdom beef producers and it is producing unfair competition.

Tied in with that in the December agreement is the disposal of dairy cull cows as a result particularly of the 8·5 per cent. quota cutback commencing in April. Estimates have been made that 600,000 tonnes of beef will come on to the European market in the next two years. The EEC Commission disputes that figure. I should like to hear from the Minister what his estimate is of surplus beef coming on to the market. Is it 600,000 tonnes, as was forecast in December, or is it 250,000 tonnes of additional beef from the dairy sector, about which the EEC Commission is now talking? As I understand it from figures calculated in this country, there may be an additional 75,000 tonnes of dairy cull beef coming on to the market.

That surplus will depress the price of quality beef and is already forcing people to sell up their beef enterprises. The net result of this is that in two years' time—after this surplus dairy cull beef has gone through the system quality beef producers will have been forced out of production—we will then not have enough beef in this country to supply our own market, and that could put a strain on our balance of payments.

The Minister should take that point extremely seriously. We must, looking at our objectives in the beef industry over the next two years, hold the line. First, our upland beef herd must not decline any further while this surplus dairy beef is on the market. We must hold on now while this temporary surplus is occurring. Secondly, we must hold our beef prices at levels at which farmers can at least make a profit—which certainly is not the case at the moment—or we are likely to see a shortage in two years' time.

In the long-term we must maintain our suckler cow population, particularly in the hills, as that is an enterprise that complements the sheep industry, which is friendly to the environment and utilises some of the resources of the upland areas. The problem is that there is so much capital invested in beef cows, and with the high interest rates that have been obtaining in recent years it is extremely difficult to get a worthwhile return on the capital investment in a beef enterprise.

The solutions to the problems that we have at the present time are as follows. First, we must increase the beef cow premium by a further £6 per cow, which is allowed under the European Community rules as a result of the agreement negotiated in December. If the Government do not do that, they can rightly be accused of dragging their feet and it can be said that the Treasury, rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is controlling policy. Secondly. we must see an increase in hill land compensatory allowances to keep hill cows in the less favoured areas for the next two years. As my hon. Friend the Member her for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, this should be increased to the maximum possible amount.

Thirdly, at the earliest possible opportunity we must join the European monetary system, because this will undoubtedly benefit interest rates. It has been calculated that if we were to join the European monetary system there would be a 2 per cent. reduction in interest rates and that this would save the farming industry £240 million. That is a significant sum. Fourthly, as soon as possible we must devalue the green pound by the outstanding 17 per cent., about which there has already been comment. A failure to devalue will penalise British beef producers and place them at a further disadvantage in relation to continental producers.

The ability of the Government to see through a major devaluation of the green pound is a test of their sincerity to British livestock producers, and especially to beef producers. If they do not do that, they could stand accused of keeping down the retail price index prior to a general election and of holding farmers to ransom. I am sure that that is not the case, but I should like the Minister's assurance on it.

Finally, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a statement this week in Agra Europe which challenges the amount of cash promised for the industry in the December agreement. I shall quote shortly from Agra Europe. It says:

"Concern is growing in the UK that elements supposed to have been included in the December beef and dairy package arc now not going to the implemented. England and Wales National Farmers Union President Simon Gourlay drew attention in particular at this month's NFU Council meeting to the 435 million ECU said by UK Minister of Agriculture Michael Jopling to have been earmarked for the disposal of the beef that would result from additional dairy cow cullings. Gourlay said that this sum was not and never had been set aside, and he quoted Agriculture Commissioner Frans Andriessen as saying that the sum had been talked about but that there was no provision for it in the 1987 budget".

I should like an assurance from the Minister that the sum of 435 million ecu is in the budget. Is the England and Wales president of the NFU accurate in saying that that money has not been provided for at all in the 1987 budget? If the Minister does not act rapidly in the price negotiations next week, much of the beef industry will collapse. The industry is being pushed back on its heels. Some abattoirs have recently been forced to close and we must keep our meat industry alive. I plead with the Minister to act, in view of the state of the British beef industry.

Like all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have a constituency interest in the beef industry. All hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have expressed a strong feeling for, and genuine concern about, the future of this important industry. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) quoted from the speech by Ian Grant, the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland at its annual general meeting in Inverness on 12 March. The-hon. Gentleman omitted to quote the interesting passage in which Mr. Grant described the Government's present position as

"A botched up incoherent and chaotic set of policy decisions on the Commission's December package proposals."

There are strong feelings in many unlikely areas. The Government ought to respond to the clear and legitimate concern felt by many about the future of this important industry. I welcome the opportunity to consider the serious problems that face the beef industry. I urge the Minister to take steps to protect this important and strategic industry now in its time of need. Many marginal agricultural areas in the north and west and in the uplands are heavily dependent upon the beef sector. Beef accounts for 25 per cent. of Scottish agricultural output. In many cases that beef is produced on land that is suited only to grazing enterprises, in areas that are most vulnerable to economic change.

The Government have a duty to protect that sector of industry in such areas. Long-term policies have to be deployed in an industry of this nature, where it takes years to build up a breeding herd. While it is easy for farmers in an immediate financial crisis to cull some of their breeding cows, it can take a very long time for the industry to replace that capacity. The beef herd has declined every year since the Government came to power. Since 1985 the specialist beef herd in Scotland has declined by one fifth, and production fell by a further 10 per cent. last year, and no wonder, because the real returns for beef production are now, on average, £14 a head less than they were in 1985.

The background to this issue is not very encouraging. The December package—of which the Minister of State has been so proud in his recent statements — could actually cut the basic level of market support by up to 13 per cent. from 6 April. That is disturbing, because many of our beef farmers are already heavily in debt and there is no sign of an immediate let up for them.

I acknowledge that the Minister has succeeded in retaining the beef variable premium. Sadly, farmers in other parts of Europe are about to get a new rearing premium that will further distort the competitive position of our producers. The position of the British beef sector will be further eroded unless urgent action is taken. Indeed, the National Farmers Union of Scotland has expressed the fear that £50 or even £60 a head could come off the value of beef cattle in the coming months. That is a disturbing set of circumstances.

The preferential position of Irish producers in our market is likely to be enhanced by certain aspects of the Minister's December package. We know that there has been a flood of Irish imports for some months, in addition to the beef that is coming on to the market as a result of dairy cows being taken out of production and culled as a result of cuts and milk quotas. These circumstances are playing havoc with British beef producers.

The Minister said that he was excited about having obtained this package agreement in December, but, sadly, he failed to tie up some very important loose ends that should have been included. On 17 December he said:

"The package helps very considerably. First, there is more than 400 million ecu put aside to get further exports of beef as the cows come on to the market. That will reduce the number of cows in the market."—[Official Report, 17 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1217.]

This point was raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), who quoted the interesting comments from Agra Europe, which were published last week, suggesting that that 435 million ecu, which the Minister held up as being available to soften the blow and to protect the beef industry from the knock-on effect of all those dairy cows being culled, may have been a figment of his imagination. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor quoted what the president of the National Farmers Union, Simon Gourlay, had to say about that one.

Agra Europe went on to say:

"Other items of cash for additional export support that were promised in the package also seem to be in doubt … misinformation … followed publication of the December package pointing out that it was deceitful to say that the 435 ecu was there when it wasn't … What is becoming clear is that the negotiations of the December package were so complex and so lengthy that there is a marked lack of clarity over what was actually agreed and what were merely items for discussion."

The Minister would do us and the beef industry a favour if he would take the opportunity of this debate to say whether those funds are available to deal with this difficult position. He has a bit of explaining to do.

At the moment, the Minister has on his hands a genuine crisis in the beef sector. This crisis in the market for beef could spell ruin for some producers. The Minister was rash enough to promise specific action to alleviate that situation, and he seems to have been found wanting on this occasion. I hope that when he winds up this debate he will resolve the doubt that has been raised on many people's minds.

I hope that the Minister will accept that the Government have a duty to protect the competitive position of this extremely important sector of British agriculture. The Government should deploy all the mechanisms that they have at their disposal to support the industry in these circumstances. The Minister should use national aids or other measures that may be permitted under European Community agreements, including the suckler cow premium, headage payments, hill livestock compensatory allowances and any other mechanisms that are available to deal with this crisis.

The green pound has already been referred to. I recognise that the present problem may have more to do with the vagaries of the Irish green punt than with the valuation of the United Kingdom green pound, but British agriculture and rural Britain are entitled to expect the Government to take all appropriate action to protect them from any unfair discrimination. That appears now to require a further significant devaluation of the green pound.

On the long-term prospects for the beef industry, I am convinced that the beef and sheep sectors deserve a secure future. Lean beef and lean lamb are healthy foods, produced by an extensive farming system that has an excellent record on animal welfare. If the quality of the product and the price to the consumer are right, there could be scope for a significant increase in the consumption of these products in the future, and that in turn could lead to an increase in the area of grazing land on farms in Britain, to the promotion of a return to mixed farming and to a reduction of cereal surpluses. We must not get carried away. We already have significant, substantial and costly surpluses in intervention stocks.

We wish the Meat and Livestock Commission well in its efforts to improve the presentation and marketing of red meat, and the industry must co-operate in producing quality cattle for those purposes. The MLC should get all possible assistance from the Government in promoting the market for beef. Above all, to achieve that objective, we must get the price of beef right. The beef variable premium is part of the answer, but not the whole one. Our objective in Government, as the Minister well knows because I think that he has had an opportunity to study the Labour party's Green Paper on the future of the agriculture industry, will be to seek to repatriate national aspects of the common agricultural policy, and that must include measures to help our own people enjoy more red meat, which would be good for consumers and for the beef industry. We must press the Government to keep their promises to help the beef sector through the current crisis. That is vital if we are to retain an adequate scale of breeding herd in order to provide for, one hopes, expanding markets for beef in the future.

I, like other hon. Members, wish to welcome the debate and the opportunity to discuss this most important sector. I hope that those who have spoken will allow me to say that, like them, I believe that the beef producer, especially the specialist beef producer, is a most important person within the agricultural community. The product that he produces plays a vital part in the economy of some parts of the country which would not find it possible to find alternatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) rightly pointed to the serious situation which would arise in those areas if beef production ceased to be profitable. I accept that. Beef is a product of regions that do not have a wide range of alternative possibilities.

I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will acquit me of complacency. I do not believe that I have ever been complacent about the problems of the beef industry. I think that he must follow the argument through from point to point and decide then whether his strictures were justified. The first thing I say to him is that I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that we have a sensible policy to encourage the production of beef, particularly the specialist herd. I want to try to prove to him that that has been the policy of the Government and then to suggest some of the things that we have to do. Perhaps then, if he will let me, I could suggest why I feel that his particular strictures have been far from correct.

I shall first deal with the discussions in Brussels in December. It is not proper to discuss the problems of the beef industry without admitting and mentioning the enormous difficulty that the present system, or at least the pre-December system, placed upon the European Community. The hon. Gentleman is a supporter of the European Community and our membership of it and I know that he would not wish to miss that point. The fact is that the Community beef regime last year was well over budget at some 3·5 billion ecu or £2·25 billion. It has become increasingly expensive to try to deal with the CAP's beef intervention policy. For example, the 200,000 tonnes of Community intervention beef sold to Brazil last year cost FEOGA about £500 million. That is not a sensible policy.

I have to say to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that it does not give us any confidence in his strictures if he comes to the House and discusses this issue, which he has so rightly raised, without giving us any indication of how he would approach the basic problem of beef within the CAP. There was no word about how he or the alliance would deal with that. I do not think that it is possible to be taken seriously if one does not address the problems seriously. His speech was in stark contrast to the shorter but appropriate speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I do not agree with the policy that he put forward about repatriation, but at least he attempted to consider the basic problem of the beef industry in Europe. However, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland again failed to tell us what he would do about the problem.

In the decisions taken in December, we sought to reach an agreement that would enable us to begin to produce a beef policy for the Community which would not mean that vast sums of money were spent without adequately supporting the British farmer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries so clearly said, the real problem is that we spend all that money but his constituents, and others like them, have not seen the support that they should for the enterprises that are so important to those parts of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland did not address that problem. I must advise him that he will not command respect for his policy if he will not address the real problems. It was to tackle that problem that we had the debate and discussions about the beef industry. In trying to solve the problem of over-production in the dairy industry, we were aware that cull cows would come on to the market. We had to face that problem also.

The result of that deal in December was much better for the British beef industry than it was for other countries. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that. I was interested to check to see what he said about it. In the Scottish Grand Committee on 19 January 1987, he said:

"there is not much doubt that other beef producers in the rest of the Community"—

he excluded Ireland—

"are better placed than we are as a result of these negotiations."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 19 January 1987; c. 88.]

That is precisely untrue. The fact is that British beef producers are less hard hit than those of other member states.

I have given the hon. Gentleman the figures before and I shall give them to him again. I shall then take up the point that he made. Whereas we expect the market support levels to fall by about £36 per head in the United Kingdom, the support level for French bulls will fall by £80 and by £40 for French steers. In Italy and Germany, the drop will be between £115 and £120 a beast. The hon. Gentleman said that their beasts are bigger than ours and that therefore the drop does not count. In that case, let us use the percentage basis. The percentage fall in the United Kingdom is 6·2 per cent. and in Germany it is 12·3 per cent.

Therefore, I stick to my point, that in difficult circumstances, when the Community was spending money that it could ill afford and when it was well over budget, the money was not reaching the people whom it was supposed to help. In that situation, the deal that was done for Britain was considerably better than those which were made for other countries. The hon. Gentleman must accept that those are the facts.

I agree that that does not help the beef producer who looks at his own budget and sees how difficult times are. However, the hon. Gentleman must not say that we did not achieve a better deal than other countries. That could be proved by asking any of the other European Ministers which country they thought did best out of the deal. I believe that they would unanimously say that it was the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman said that somehow or other that deal was bad for Britain. However, he did not mention the retention of the beef variable premium scheme— [Interruption.] If he did so, he mentioned it in a curmudgeonly way. He did not say, "My goodness, we are pleased about this." However, the hon. Member for East Lothian generously and helpfully said that it was a good thing that we retained the BVPS.

I remind the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that, in the debate on the rural economy, he said:

Those variable premiums are essential to buttress our beef and sheepmeat production. I hope that, in their negotiations with the European Community, the Government will stand firm on variable beef premiums which are under threat at present.—[Official Report, 29 January; Vol 90, c. 1029.]

Indeed they were under threat. We stood firm and have maintained the BVPS for two years to come, which is a longer period than has been achieved previously. But the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, afraid that the Government might gain any support, said, "It is bad because of the Irish advantage on the clawback arrangements." I am happy to agree with him that in some ways the present relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is unsatisfactory, but he cannot complain about the Government on this issue. The position on clawback predates our membership of the EC and was maintained in the negotiations which established the BVPS by the Labour Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is now in the other place. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot blame this Government for what has always been an integral part of the BVPS, even under the Government whom he supported, although he is right that the present position is unsatisfactory.

The hon. Gentleman is particularly difficult to deal with, because he argues that there shall be no party politics but a moderate, reasonable approach and then makes a speech which, until the last three paragraphs, was entirely about party politics and how the Government had not done this, that and the other. In contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries put the case for beef producers extremely well and pointed to their problems. He mentioned the need for and importance of the suckler cow premium. I thank him for his support for that other important element of this excellent deal. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland did not even give us the credit for increasing, with great difficulty and against the wishes of most of our colleagues in the Council of Ministers, the amount of suckler cow premium that could be paid. He is determined to play party politics with anything that comes before the House.

My hon. Friend was right to say that we now have that headroom. It will be part of the package that we must consider for the beef industry during the price-fixing negotiations. It is not for me to say when debates take place, but I meet the hon. Gentleman in his demand that we should discuss these matters, and I hope we shall do so before long. There is a great deal of negotiation to do yet; we are only beginning on the small foothills of this mountain of negotiations. He will have plenty of time to put his points to Ministers.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall not give way, because I want to answer the hon. Gentleman point by point. I did not interrupt him, although I was sorely tempted on several occasions.

The hon. Gentleman was not as generous as he might have been expected to be in that he did not acknowledge that in the beef package presented to the House in December the United Kingdom established a system which did least damage to the British beef industry in terms of the effect on the carcase price. It maintained for two years the BVPS, which most thought we would find impossible and which the NFU wanted most. I know that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, with his customary generosity, would support me in that. We increased the opportunity to pay the suckler cow premium and we ensured that a premium was introduced for other countries. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland must not attack that.

The policy of the United Kingdom must be to ensure that we move towards less intervention and more support to help to reduce the price paid by the housewife. The hon. Member for East Lothian is absolutely right. One of the advantages of the beef variable premium scheme is that it enables the price in the shops to be affected so that more beef is eaten. I agree that beef is very good food. It is a proper part of a balanced diet and we encourage the consumption of beef by ensuring that the price is as low as it can be. The variable premium system helps to reduce the price in the shops while at the same time supporting the return for the producer.

We have never been able to convince other people in the European Community that the premium system is a good thing. The fact that they have now taken on a premium system which is nowhere near good enough for us means that we could not have accepted it. It applies first of all only to male animals and has a top headage limit of 50 animals. Of course, it was set at a level far too low to achieve in the market what the BVPS could achieve. Therefore we could not accept that system. However, we could welcome it in the sense that farmers who have grown used to the premium system are more likely to pressurise their Governments to show them that that is the right way forward. All hon. Members thought that that was a good thing.

The hon. Member for East Lothian invariably attacks me for many things, but I do not think that he has ever seriously attacked me for deceit. I would not in any way want to mislead the House. The fact is that the 435 inelegantly named "mecu" were included in the budget and they are available to be used to take cull cows off the market. The only problem quoted by Agra Europe is that the figure does not appear separately. But as it would not normally appear so in the budget. There should be no problem in practice.

Will the Minister give way?

rose——

I am trying to answer specific questions. I was asked to give that assurance. That assurance is absolute. There is no difficulty about it. It is available and the Commission will use that money.

The real issue is not whether the Minister misled the House about this. There was clearly some discussion about the matter. The real issue is, will the money be used and when? The farming community believes that it is urgent that the money is used, and used soon.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Commission quite clearly announced the amount of money concerned and said that it would be used to take the cull cows off the market. That is quite clear and was understood by all members of the Council, and no one denies that. The amount of money is in the budget for that purpose.

The money has not actually been used so far because we have not entered the marketing year in which the effects of the other matters take place. However, I assure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that the money will be used. There is no difficulty about that and he need have no further worries about it. I will keep him in touch with matters so that he knows how the money is used and the circumstances in which we get the cull cows into third markets.

I want to support the strong demand by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that we should recognise the difficulties of the beef industry. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that it does not help the beef industry to overstate the problems. We must get a sense of balance here. The hon. Member for East Lothian is quite right to state that there has been a reduction in the herd. There has been an increase in the proportion of the home market that is met by home-produced beef.

One of the reasons for the reduction in the herd is that there has been a considerable reduction in the consumption of beef, although that has now been slightly reversed. It is not true that the beef suckler herd has dropped in size each year since 1979. The December 1986 figures show that the beef breeding herd is 1 per cent. larger than it was in December 1985. That is not a huge difference, but we must not overstate the problems of the industry.

What are we to do about the real problems? I have taken on board what has been said about the green pound. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland came out with a marvellous comment on the 6 per cent. green pound devaluation. He said that it was a distortion which should have been rectified by the Government. If the Government could have rectified it, we would have done so on the day that the green punt was changed, because that change had an inescapable effect on the British market. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the system. We did not rectify it because there can be a change only if the Council of Ministers agrees and the Commission presents the Council of Ministers with a case for change.

The hon. Gentleman sits there comfortably and says that we should have had the devaluation the next day. If the hon. Gentleman had spent as much time as I and my right hon. Friend spent trying to persuade the other countries, all of which opposed us bar one, which wanted a bit extra for itself, he would understand that we were extremely fortunate to have had a result by December.

It is all very well for the alliance to tell everyone how it would have achieved everything at once, but it has not once said what it would have done. That is the real criticism of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He came here to complain about everything that the Government have done and made no reference to what he would have done. We are used to that. I have taken every speech that the hon. Gentleman has made in the past two years, and I can find not one occasion when a coherent alternative policy has been presented.

The hon. Member for East Lothian is not like that. He may have the wrong policy, but at least it is a policy and we know where we are. The alliance has only one policy. It is two-tier pricing, which would mean that beef animals in the area that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland represents would compete with beef produced in the richer east of England. The other part of alliance policy was shown in the Bledisloe lecture, which should be read closely. People who do not like it should read the lecture given by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor to the Catholic Institute for International Relations and World Wildlife Fund joint operation. He suggested there that it would be a good idea to have a moratorium on technological advance in western agriculture.

Will the Minister give way?

The hon. Gentleman must allow me to continue.

We should consider the effect of such a moratorium on the beef industry. It would have meant that much of what is important to the industry would not have happened. We would not have the quick finishing system, we would not have gone on with the rota-viral diarrhoea vaccine and we would not now be considering the new arrangements to try to find means to reduce losses in beef calves. We would have none of that technology. That is the hon. Gentleman's policy.

The Minister is talking rubbish, and he knows it.

I am merely stating what the hon. Gentleman presented to the meeting at which I was present.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries asked me to give an assurance that we will fight for the British beef producer in the coming negotiations. I can assure him of that, and that we will try to get the best possible deal. We have taken close note of his view on the green pound, which will play a major part in our negotiations. We will have to see how the suckler cow premium fits into the negotiations and how alterations to other parts of the policy can benefit the livestock producer generally. There is no doubt that many of the livestock producers' problems have derived from the high prices that have been obtained for feed, and that is an important part of any such policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was also right to remind us that this is part of an overall policy and that it includes the way in which we have supported other livestock enterprises, particularly sheep, and includes the imaginative series of alternatives which have been put before the House in the announcements of recent weeks.

In the end, the Government are determined to do what they can to ensure that the beef industry gets through the difficult period ahead, not least because all the indications are that at the end of some 18 months there will be better times in terms of the market, of the coming forward of cows from the dairy industry and of the forecasts of OECD and other organisations.

This is a difficult period for the beef industry and we have a duty to do what we can to ensure that we support it, for, as my hon. Friend said, it is a long-term industry; it cannot be turned on and off or held up for short periods. It must have secure and sensible support, and that the Government are determined to provide.

When fire was first discovered people must have made it clear that it was extremely dangerous, and they were right to point that out. But if our ancestors had not been prepared to make use of fire, we would probably still be living in caves today.

Vastly larger numbers of people have died from accidents due to fire in the last few years than from accidents due to nuclear power generation, including Chernobyl, which would not and could not have happened here. In the 10 years up to 31 March 1985, there were unfortunately 388 fatal accidents in the coal industry. In the 10 years to February 1987, there were 10 deaths in the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, and none of those was caused by radioactivity.

The Department of the Environment has confirmed that there has never been any hazard to the public caused by the movement of spent fuel and that the low accident rate of the United Kingdom nuclear industry is second to none. The excellent document which I hold in my hand entitled "Here Be No Dragons" states clearly that the odds of an individual losing his or her life through accident in relations to cars in any one year is one in 8,000 whereas in relation to nuclear accidents it is one in 10 million.

Of course, the generation of power has drawbacks—such as acid rain from coal-fired power stations— but we must generate power or freeze. Basically, we must weigh up the risks and not allow our emotions and fear of all forms of nuclear warfare overcome us and confuse our rational judgment. We need energy, and we need nuclear energy if we are to have any hope of helping with the immense task of enhancing living standards. With the ever-increasing numbers in the world's population, we need all the energy we can get, and that means harnessing nuclear power, which fortunately appears to be a great deal safer than many realise.

As many wish to take part in this debate, I shall speak briefly about three points: jobs, safety, and the environmental case for nuclear power,. First, jobs. In Scotland today 50 per cent. of the electricity is already nuclear. This is likely to rise to 60 per cent. when Torness is fully operational. It was a Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who gave clearance for Torness to be built.

Recently I have made inquiries, now that it has been built, about the effect of closing down Torness and phasing out nuclear power. I received a letter from the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on 29 January in which he wrote:

"The effect on electricity prices can be briefly summarised as follows.

(1) If the Torness station, having been built, were not to be run, this would result in an increase of 10 per cent. in all electricity tariffs throughout Scotland.

(2) In the absence of Torness capacity, it would become necessary in the early 90s to replace it with additional coalfired capacity—an accumulated increase in tariffs of some 20 per cent.; and

(3) If eventually all nuclear power in Scotland were to be closed down and replaced with coalfired stations, there would be an accumulated increase in tariffs of some 30 per cent."

It seems from those facts that, if nuclear power were phased out, electricity tariffs in Scotland would eventually increase by 30 per cent. Quite apart from the effects on domestic households, it would certainly greatly increase industry's operating costs, pushing up its prices. An inevitable effect would be that industries would shed labour to pay for increased electricity costs and unemployment would rise. As it happens, unemployment in my constituency is possibly the lowest in Scotland, but, even in my constituency, the threat of higher tariffs would bring with it the prospect of fewer jobs. My constituents want lower unemployment.

It is a matter not just of employment in existing industries but of encouraging new industries to become established in Scotland. Both the Scottish development Agency and the South of Scotland Electricity Board can help considerably in this process. For example, the Roche Products factory at Dairy in Ayrshire recently opened an extension. Apparently, the price of electricity was an important element in winning that project for Scotland in competition with other Roche factories in Europe. To give another example, there was a recent announcement of the Kymmene-Stromberg paper mill at Irvine where, again, the electricity supply on reasonable terms was a substantial part of the operating costs.

As I have already mentioned, nuclear power accounts for 50 per cent. of Scotland's electricity. Our prices would no longer be competitive with those in Europe if nuclear power were phased out. The expertise of the Scottish Development Agency and of the South of Scotland Electricity Board would be to no avail in trying to attract major industrial development to Scotland if there were much higher electricity prices. It would seem that many thousands of jobs in Scotland are dependent on the existence of competitive electricity pricing— electricity which, in turn, is generated by nuclear power.

In Britain as a whole, well over 100,000 persons depend on the nuclear industry for work, either because they are direct employees—there are 44,000 of them—or because their jobs depend in one way or another on the industry. if nuclear power were to be closed down, all these would be lost over the longer term. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House whether the Sizewell decision will help to guarantee the security of thousands of jobs in Scotland—in Babcock, in Weir and in Howden.

That leads me to the question of safety. Obviously the most rigorous safety requirements are necessary. Recently we have learnt the appalling news of the tragedies at Bhopal in India, at Basel in Switzerland, when the Rhine was poisoned, and, more recently, when there was the extremely serious nuclear accident at Chernobyl. These undoubted tragedies serve to underline the principle that eternal vigilance is the price to be paid not merely for freedom but for all forms of progress which involve technology and the storage of dangerous substances.

I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for reassurances on the subject of Torness. I am, of course, aware that, before it can operate, each nuclear power station has to be licensed by the nuclear installations inspectorate— an independent, expert body, which is part of the Health and Safety Executive. Nuclear reactors are shut down for routine maintenance and examination every two years, and they cannot restart without the consent of the nuclear installations inspectorate. They are therefore subject to a continuous process of review and assessment. I believe that the inspectorate would not accept the operation of any nuclear plant if its safety could not be confirmed.

It will interest the House to know that last year, in my constituency, the Liberals distributed a newsletter with a photograph of Liberals outside Torness together with the caption "Liberals oppose nuclear power", or words to that effect. I was interested by that because I understand that the Social Democrats support nuclear power. Tonight perhaps the alliance will make its policy clear.

rose—

rose—

I will give way in a moment, but I wish to finish my remarks on this matter.

More recently Liberals have distributed a leaflet in my constituency that alleges that Torness is unsafe— the heading of the leaflet says just that. I regard safety matters at nuclear power stations as being of paramount importance and of the utmost significance. I hope that the Minister will confirm that safety at all nuclear powers stations will be treated as a matter of paramount importance.

rose——

I shall finish this point and then I will give way to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in whose constituency Torness is located.

I hope that the Minister can give the House the most up-to-date information about Torness and state exactly the facts. I hope that he can confirm that absolute safety requirements will be enforced. I believe that it is in the public interest that the facts should be known. It is right that the nuclear installations inspectorate has recently been to Torness.

It is not only the Liberals who are unhappy about Torness. I hope that I will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman if I remind him that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), now a Minister at the Scottish Office, and at one time the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, is also on record as being opposed to a nuclear power station at Torness.

The economic and social effects of the Torness development have not been entirely happy. Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the Sizewell inquiry and safety, I must remind him that that inquiry specifically recommended the review of evacuation zones around nuclear power stations. In Britain that zone is only two or three km; in the United States it is 16 km; and we are 2,200 km away from Chernobyl. Does he not agree that there is room for improvement in those zones?

The hon. Gentleman is making a case for civil defence. We have strongly supported the idea of civil defence in civil matters and natural disasters and there is scope for improvement. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is thinking along the same lines.

The hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). I remind him of my hon. Friend's stand in past general elections when he supported nuclear power. Of course, I am aware that all hon. Members are entitled to respond to the needs of their constituents.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the article in The Scotsman today by its industrial correspondent, Alex Wattie, who writes:

"Safety is also of paramount importance, particularly following the Chernobyl disaster … constant monitoring of the environment, with a regular sampling of milk and locally caught fish, is being carried out by the SSEB".

The article concludes—and I quote these words for the benefit of the hon. Member for East Lothian:

"Its legacy is a nuclear power station, initially manned by 'incomers' to the area, but in the future providing a continuous source of skilled jobs and training in an environment which will foster technical excellence."

I hope that those words will prove correct.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read more carefully the alliance's policy statements. They make it clear that, at this time, Britain does not need to embark on a programme of building nuclear power stations. I hope that he will abandon the notion that there is any such thing in the nuclear industry as absolute safety or absolute safety provision. It is a concept that I believe the nuclear industry finds impossible to apply without throwing aside completely the generous cost assumptions that the hon. Gentleman made earlier about the benefits to be to obtained from nuclear power.

Stringent safety regulations are absolutely necessary. I am interested to hear what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has to say about future power stations, but I am more interested to learn whether he is in favour of closing all existing nuclear power stations. I suspect that he is not; but many of his party are.

In taking up the environmental case for nuclear power, I make a plea for a balanced energy policy that will make use of the massive resources of coal, oil and gas, as well as nuclear power, to ensure a diversity of supply. Nuclear energy has considerable advantages over most other forms of energy generation in its impact on the environment. Emissions from fossil fuels, including sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide, lead to acid rain, and carbon dioxide is the most significant gas in producing the greenhouse effect. Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide can be abated, but there is currently no economic, feasible abatement policy for carbon dioxide. Nuclear power generation is almost entirely free of the emission of these pollutants, which have caused so much controversy throughout western Europe, especially in Sweden.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that Overall the coal-fired power stations emit more radiation than nuclear power stations? I understand that the debate about the greenhouse effect is still in the realms of scientific controversy, but one theory is that the amount of carbon dioxide will lead to a raising of temperature levels in the lower atmosphere surrounding the earth. Ultimately this would lead to a heating of the world's atmosphere to such an extent that the polar caps would melt, with the result that much of the world would be submerged. Scotland might be cut in two and much of Galloway might be submerged. But this is still in the realms of scientific speculation.

We should have the moral courage as a nation to come to terms with scientific developments within an entirely safe framework, but it seems that much more should be learnt about the environmental case for nuclear power. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage research and will give a commitment on this issue. It is highly desirable that Britain and other countries should co-operate effectively, both nationally and internationally, on measures to safeguard the environment for ourselves, our children and our children's children.

We have listened to an extremely good speech of importance to all concerned. It is good to see the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in his place. I noted with some interest his comment on Torness, which we hope will come into operation shortly. He did not tell us whether the Labour party, if it formed a Government after the next general election, would close Torness and place all those involved in it in unemployment. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is not springing to his feet——